Jump to content

Talk:List of UFC events

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:UFC Fight Night 251)


Comp tickets

[edit]

Should there be a column for the amount of tickets given out for free. The info is out there somewhere if we look. I think there were around 4000 free tickets given out at the last German event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.94.181.36 (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance column

[edit]

It would be nice to have an attendance column, possibly also a PPV buys column, if we can find reliable sources for such info. VegaDark 02:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this, and perhaps a column with the headline fight?

I'd like to see consensus on this before we get any further. Putting everything into a table would be cumbersome, and a simple date and place works well enough for me. I think the purpose of this page should be as a gateway to the rest of the UFC event pages, and even if there is consensus on adding more columns, less is better for me. hateless 22:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against it. Attendance is going to be very difficult to obtain for earlier events. PPV buys is hearsay at best since it's not public information. There are probably other ways that we can improve the article. Focusing on the autoreview [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Automated/December_2006#List_of_UFC_events ] would probably be a good start when we have some time. So far it's basically just been maintenance.Falcomadol 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am definitly for it. Attendence for I would say at least 80% of the events is known and can be obtained fairly early. The only ones that it would be hard to get for would be probably around UFC 15 to 28. I am all for an attendence column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.213.68 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

someone has made it but there are gaps. think these need to be filled otherwise it seems a bit pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.63.74 (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it pointless even though we're missing a few events? Having over 90% of the events is a valuable tool. It's certainly not pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RKing85 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can someone fix the attendance column so when you sort by it, the most attended show up first, and not the ones with 9000?Tmt2393 (talk) 01:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The attendance numbers are way off on many of the events. It's painfully obvious when you see numbers over 20,000. Did someone vandalize this page? 38.121.184.146 (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. cable broadcast events

[edit]

To confirm the 22 cable broadcast events figure:

  • Ultimate Fight Nights 1-12
  • The Ultimate Fighter Finales 1-6
  • Shamrock vs. Ortiz 3
  • UFC 37.5
  • UFC 70 (Nations Collide, was on Spike TV on TD in US, was live PPV in UK and Ireland)
  • UFC 75 (Champion vs Champion, the all time highest rated UFC event, for good reason)

Falcomadol (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Events

[edit]

why are people deleting the future events like ufc 91, 92 when they have been confirmed by the ufc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.62.192 (talk • contribs)

No they haven't. See http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=event.ppvhome hateless 18:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that they have (not my post above)... http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/mma/blog/mma_experts/post/UFC-road-show-Montreal-out-Portland-in;_ylt=Aig1CcD6E7YigIwdvubyN0QMNwU6?urn=mma,102524 Falcomadol (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana white has confirmed in multiple articles. http://www.fightticker.com/story_0822080925_dana_white_discusses_ufc_91_92_93_plans http://fiveouncesofpain.com/2008/08/21/dana-white-confirms-schedule-for-remainder-of-the-year/ http://www.mmaplayground.com/forums/topic23929-1.html http://www.mmaconvert.com/2008/08/21/dana-white-confirms-event-schedule-gsp-vs-penn-ii-moved-to-ufc-93-ufc-91-florian-vs-stevenson-confirmed-lesnar-vs-kongo-rumored/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Southgater (talk • contribs) 17:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kimura.se is NOT a reliable source. Mars 28 2011 for the event in Stockholm, Sweden is the fourth date from that site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.218.4.2 (talk) 09:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow hasn't been confirmed officially by UFC so can we remove it until it has. I removed it earlier but someone put it back on. lankeymarlon (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Location- Cities

[edit]

I could be wrong, but isn't the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Tampa, Florida? It says Hollywood, Florida but if you click on the Venue link it say that the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino is actually in Tampa. Does someone know something i don't, or is this list wrong?? 67.175.145.113 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two Seminole Hard Rock H&C's, one in Tampa and one in Hollywood. See http://www.seminolehardrock.com/. hateless 23:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 91

[edit]

Randy Couture vs. Brock Lesnar for the UFC Heavyweight Title has just been announced for this show, so should the UFC 91 page now be created? Steveweiser (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the official press replace by email giving the match up & name, think that counts as an RS...--Nate1481 08:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Event Locations

[edit]

I would like to see the Event Location change so that all the countries would be in Navboxs like I done before. Because I think it looks better. And the user who keeps deleting the Navboxs wasn't logged in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.173.32 (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i would not like to see the event locations in navboxs because i looks worse. And who cares if im not logged in, that has nothing to do with the subject. 207.246.169.110 (talk) 00:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bold Events, Puerto Rico, and Northern Ireland

[edit]

Please Dont delete bold events. And Puerto Rico and Northern Ireland in event locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caseyufc (talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming events should go back to being in italics. The bold is an eye sore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.104.211 (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's back to italics because the bold just looks ungly. c.m1994 (sup) 19:19 17 January 2011 (UTC)

UFC 100 & 37.5 Explanation

[edit]

What's with the lengthy explanation about UFC 100 not being the actual 100th event? The paragraph mentions UFC 37.5, but leaves out The Ultimate Ultimate, Ultimate Ultimate 2, UFC Brazil, and UFC Japan events. I understand those were not officially numbered, but it's an arbitrary system anyway. I don't see the point in including the paragraph in the article at all and I'm willing to discuss it further if needed. 134.29.6.8 (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Event locations

[edit]

I'm not sure which one is missing now, but when adding all the countries: 149+10+7+4+2+2+1+1+1+1= 178. I believe there is a missing city in the United States column (they do add up to 149 now), although the error is not Las Vegas (I checked and thats all accounted for).(Justinsane15 (talk) 00:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Additional sources

[edit]

{{edit request}}Agent00f has suggested some additional sources for this article that appear at least as reliable or more so than any of the sources in this article. Not COI, but simply topic-area ignorance on my part: I would appreciate it if one of the regulars could incorporate these sources into the text section to increase the clarity of the notability of this page. While WP:LISTN does not directly apply to the question of the existence of the subtopics of this page, I hope to comment on the subtopics at a later date. JJB 20:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Not done. The request is too vague. If you want to make a specific request of the form "please change X to Y" please put it here or in a sandbox and un-tld the template. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forward chrono

[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Chronological ordering, this list should be basically forward chronological, rather than reverse. The desire to keep recent events at top would be accommodated not by reverse chrono but by portioning out the recent events separately. For instance, one subhead breakdown could be "Recent events" (beginning of year to present), "Future events" (all future), and "All events" (complete list to beginning of current year, followed by links back to the other two sections). The first two could also be reversed in that case. Any comments on compliance with this MOS guideline? JJB 13:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit]

IDK what's going on but several of the FX pages were arbitrarily deleted and do not redirect to any sort of omnibus page with results.

Furthermore, all the Fuel cards have stayed up despite being less notable. There could be a case made that the earlier Ultimate Fight Nights were less relevant as well.

I really don't understand the process here, it seems illogical and certainly hasn't had enough effort put into it. I don't understand the thought process and these actions appear to be being taken by people who don't understand MMA, judging by the lack of redirects and the deletions applying to single pages. Byuusetsu (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 155 page deletion

[edit]

Yeah good job making this terrible. This used to be a really good resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.110.135 (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was it taken down? The "UFC events in 2012" and "List of UFC events" pages suck. No one likes them. They're stupid.

Keep individual events having their individual pages.

Polyh3dron (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Because MMA coverage on Wikipedia is apparently governed by MTKing who doesn't even like MMA and we're unable to stop his crusade to render it useless. It's MTKing's world and we all just live in it.[reply]

Lukeh15 (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is stupid, it used to be better when you could go to a future event page and see what fights are coming up. This is just a giant clusterf*ck now in table format. --69.196.139.211 (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is an event which sees the rematch for the Heavyweight Title not deemed worthy of an individual Wiki page? The first fight was Cain's first loss, and a very fast one at that. He is looking to avenge it in what will be Junior Dos Santos' first defence. It doesn't seem right that it doesn't have a page. It really just seems like somebody has a vendetta against MMA. AJ (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a new tactic. Argueing to keep this page is pointless because MtKing and Hasteur won't listen to reason. It's time for a new tactic. Contact the Real wikipedia staff at donate@wikimedia.org and let them know that you won't be donating 1 cent to wikipedia until all UFC pages are rightfully restored. Spread the word.119.225.96.189 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)htww

I agree. I use wikipedia as a key source of information. If it lacks information about major events in one of today's most relevant sport, it loses credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.99.137.66 (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there no information about UFC 155? It wasn't cancelled. It's a legitimate event worthy of a page to itself; it's a card headlined by a Heavyweight Title fight. From the small amount of research I've done it seems there's one or two people who hate the UFC and feel they need to do whatever they can to ruin Wikipedia for UFC fans. Really? Don't you have anything better to do? How is this not worthy of it's own page? There should at least be a listing of the confirmed match-ups. There are pages dedicated to movies that have not yet been released. So why not a sporting event that is going to happen in the near future? It doesn't make any sense. I don't know enough about making Wikipedia pages to put one up, but I assume if I did, it would get taken down pretty quick. What a shame. Wikipedia used to be a great resource for the UFC and MMA in general. Now it's ruined by a tiny minority. Isn't there any way to fight back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.99.176.216 (talk) 14:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Attendance Figures?

[edit]

I have found a few attendance figures for previous events. If for some reason these are not acceptable, ignore this and i apologize. Just seen a few blank spots and decided to look them up and found a few.

UFC Macau, China 8,415 http://mmapayout.com/2012/11/ufc-on-fuel-tv-6-attendance-gate-and-bonuses/

UFC 144 in Saitama, Japan 21,000 http://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/events/11293-ufc-144 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brusinggiant (talk • contribs) 01:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 19 November 2012

[edit]

The date for the upcoming event in Australia should be December 14, not December 15. See www.ufc.com 50.73.52.161 (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Due to the time difference, it airs in North America on December 14th, but in Australia, where the event is actually being held, it is being aired December 15. See this. Vacationnine 23:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the logic behind that?

[edit]

Why does American and Canadian cities are written along with their respective States and cities from other parts of the world are not? I mean, why is the logic behind a "Montreal, Quebec" and "Belo Horizonte, Brazil"? We should put "Montreal, Canada" and "Belo Horizonte, Brazil" or "Montreal, Quebec" and "Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais". It's obious that we have to use the same formula to all cities, and not put the States only to Canadian and American cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soulflytribe (talk • contribs) 14:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe "Montreal, Quebec, Canada"... Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 14:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In particular for US cities, the state is used to disambiguate which city is being referred to. For example, "Los Angeles, Califorina, United States" distinguishes it from "Los Angeles, Texas, United States" and "Los Angeles, Kentucky, United States". For this particular article (and for MMA fighter record tables), "United States" (spelled out, not abbreviated) should always follow city/state names and "Canada" should always follow city/province names. Not having them is incorrect as per WP:MMA guidelines. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the locations as follows: Added "United States" and "Canada" where missing; fixed wiki-links to avoid unnecessary redirects (ie [[Los Angeles, California]] is now [[Los Angeles]], [[California]])); unlinked countries as per WP:OVERLINK. One thing I didn't do, but probably should be done is the removal of flags as per both WP:MMA and WP:FLAGICON; they are redundant in this list. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but still a bit messy. Why would we write "Cologne, Germany" or "Gold Coast, Australia" without their respective States/Provinces? You said that "In particular for US cities, the state is used to disambiguate which city is being referred to." Right, but this is not something restrict to the US or Canada only. You have plenty of cities with repeated names all over the world. I insist that we should use the same formula to all cities. Soulflytribe (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 155 Needs To Be Separated Out

[edit]

155 is one of the biggest cards of the year, with a heavyweight title fight in the main event. There's no good excuse for it not to have its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.202.160 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Amen! 173.168.140.188 (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a new tactic. Argueing to keep this page is pointless because MtKing and Hasteur won't listen to reason. It's time for a new tactic. Contact the Real wikipedia staff at donate@wikimedia.org and let them know that you won't be donating 1 cent to wikipedia until all UFC pages are rightfully restored. Spread the word.119.225.96.189 (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)htww — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.225.96.189 (talk)

I'm a mixed martial arts journalist and I understand them wanting to not have UFC 155 like two months out, but to not have a separate page for UFC 155 when the event is just 10 days away is unbelievable. I guarantee that people are searching for UFC 155 on Wikipedia at an extremely high level looking for information on the card, who's fighting, etc. and they aren't getting that information. Wikipedia is letting them down. What must be done to get UFC 155 back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.246.124.150 (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to see the fights for UFC 156. You have a superfight between Aldo and Edgar and Overeem fighting Bigfoot, but it gets no page?! Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information for everything. Sadly, it no longer is, when it comes to MMA events. I don't see how this giant table is any better than each event having its own page. --69.196.139.211 (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

users "Mtking & Hasteur" have been deleting pages like no other, and for no good reason is beyond me. I've emailed both (donate@wikimedia.org and info-en-q@wikimedia.org) about their unjustified actions. I've been using wikipedia specifically for the UFC events, as I am a professional gambler. I've wanted to make some donations in time for xmas, but having these people deleting pages makes me not want to give some nice proceeds to wiki. – — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.140.74 (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We finally got the page back for UFC 155, and I am happy to see it is resolved. It was a process for us, trying to get it back, and we have tried steps 1 to 2, and if we need further help on matter's of page deletions, Wikipedia has recommended an Option 3. Here is the link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.140.74 (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Events (Thank you)

[edit]

Whoever had the idea to add "Past Events" under the "Events/Events List" area -- Thank you. That's awesome. Love it. (I know it's kind of weird to say thank you here, but you know what, I love Wikipedia and its users very much.) LogicalCreator (talk) 06:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, and I don't think there is any reason to think that a "thank-you" is inappropriate. I think the Talk section is also the appropriate place to offer it. If I could tender a request, could the upcoming events be listed soonest to latest by date and past events most recent to oldest? It seems to me that that is the most useful way to organize them. I know I occasionally edit and comment, but I don't know if there is or is not a particular "owner" for highest-level maintenance of this page.Demodave (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

[edit]

Can we have the flags back to show the nation that hosted the events? Flags back on the individual card pages to show the nationalities would be good too. UFC used to be covered really well on Wikipedia, it's a shame that a few people tried to ruin it all. HappHazzard (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. 82.3.69.175 (talk) 07:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flags on the individual cards to identify the athletes nationality, definately. its a nightmare knowing who is where to people who arent up to date on all fighters. Guess once its done for one card, then people will start following suit Dimspace (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ok, i did flags on one event with the intention of going through all upcoming events but someone reverted it saying consensus was no flags. Dimspace (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I can take part in the discussion - I think that it was very bad decision about removing flags from names of event places, cause flags are significantly facilitate finding events taking place outside the US. It was very helpful so it have no sense to removing them, Please admins to return flags.

Event host city vs. number

[edit]

I added the Jaragua and Macau events, and initially labelled them 'UFC Fight Night 35' and 'UFC Fight Night 36', but there will probably be other Fight Night events that take place before those ones, making the numbers incorrect. The UFC doesn't officially use the numbers for these events anyway. I think it'd be better to just list them all as "UFC Fight Night", without any subtitle at all, than to use the numbers. Also, I think because of the high number of UFC events, and the large number of cities the UFC travels to, events are becoming more identifiable by their locations than the event numbers. I also changed 'Fight Night 34' to 'Fight Night: Singapore' and 'Fox 9' to 'Fox: Sacramento', since neither event has a main event fight set. I don't think this is an important issue, as neither the event number nor the host city will be used in the title of an event once it has a main event fight set; these are just placeholder names. 82.3.69.175 (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List table format

[edit]

The problem with the older table is that it is difficult to find the next coming event. most people entering this article are looking for that. the newer format addresses that.79.183.207.1 (talk) 13:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Fight Night 38 vs. Fight Night 39

[edit]

How about stopping with the "Fight Night 38 vs. Fight Night 39 war"? It's becoming annoying, people! Why don't we leave it like UFC Fight Night until the UFC confirms which one is the right number? Psycho-Krillin (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas Valley?

[edit]

Is there a reason why all the Las Vegas links on this page go to Las Vegas Valley (a metropolitan area), and not the actual city of Las Vegas? Do some of the "Las Vegas" events actually happen in Henderson, NV or Paradise, NV? If not, then the link should to the actual city of Las Vegas, which is what I think most people would expect to find when they click a link that says "Las Vegas."

It's like an event taking place in Brooklyn, but when you click "Brooklyn, NY," it takes you to New York metropolitan area.

Actually, I just answered my own question. "Las Vegas, Nevada, USA" redirects to Las Vegas Valley. The actual city of Las Vegas article is simply called "Las Vegas." It appears to be a simple mistake. Unless there is a reason to include Henderson/Paradise in the event locations, I'd like to change the Las Vegas links to the city of Las Vegas. Chas (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Ultimate Ultimate 2 to Ultimate Ultimate 96

[edit]

They called it that way officially from UFC themselves. They never say "Ultimate Ultimate 2".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krueger80 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2015

[edit]

I would like to link UFC on Fox 16 to its article. Lteps24 (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: UFC on Fox 16 redirects to this article. NiciVampireHeart 16:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong stats?

[edit]

UFC.com has different stats for some fighters. Some have 1 win more than Wikipedia is giving them credit for. So did Wiki forgot to add some matches or is UFC.com trash? WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sort order

[edit]

I've made a rather significant pair of edits and reversed the sort of both tables in this article so that they're ascending, as is generally the convention on Wikipedia. This is particularly useful for the "scheduled" table, since I imagine readers would be more interested in the next upcoming event, not the most distant one which doesn't even have all the details filled in yet. As for the "past" table, it seemed a little odd to have the event number descending to me, but it was more a matter of keeping with the convention. I used a script to reverse the rows rather than doing it by hand, and I don't believe anything was lost (the change in character count in my second edit is because I removed a few superfluous line breaks in some references so every row had the same number of lines of markup - just made the script simpler), but if I missed anything, or if you disagree with the change, please let me know. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with these very good faith edits. The old way, which was IAR, showed the very convenient hop from upcoming to past events. Sortability does not help to restore this. Is there another way? Perhaps an additional column? I feel obligated to revert and ask for WP:BRD to be observed considering that this is page is so heavily edited and this significant change will be quickly buried. Also, if agreed upon, this can be done conveniently with a script at any time, so no substantial work lost. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IAR is fine, but is there a good reason to do so here? The broken "convenient hop" could very easily be resolved by moving the "scheduled" table to after the "past" table, which actually seems better to me, come to think of it. Which is more relevant to an encyclopedia: scheduled/tentative events, or events that have already occurred? Either way, in my opinion, the benefit to the reader of listing the next upcoming event as the default top table item (for the reasons mentioned above) outweighs the benefits of maintaining the "continuous" order between the two tables. I'd like to hear other thoughts, of course. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've thought a lot about this as well. The Mixed martial arts record table also displays in the newest at the top, oldest at the bottom order. I have been unable to find anything concrete in the manual of style stating that everything must be newest to oldest. In the long run i would rather order things the same way that the rest of wikipedia does though. The only table/list that i personally think should stay in what appears to be newest to oldest order would be the MMAevent table, i feel that that is sorted billing order rather than date order, which i feel is correct for that table/list. These changes would affect a number of articles and should probably be discussed at talk:WPMMA to give as many people as possible the opportunity to join the discussion. Kevlar (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You probably won't find anything that says "must" either way, guidelines being what they are, but there are still relevant guidelines. The most significant is probably WP:SALORDER (WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Chronological ordering), which says "Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order." Note also that the next section in this very article ("Number of events by year") lists years from earliest to latest. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience links showing the two formats (note the date column):

  • The previous and present format: [1]
  • The discussed (currently reverted) format: [2]

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer if the sorting is based on year/date, so oldest events come first, and more recent events come in last. It's a bit moot because the sorting functionality works as-is, so I just click on the table element with the up and down arrows, and then I get the sorting I prefer - but it confused me when I came to the article here. Other articles on wikipedia are sorted by year/date mostly, so this was strange to see how the default is different in that article. What also confused me was that there were special UFC events which were added in the table ... I think sorting by UFC 1, UFC 2, UFC 3 etc... would have been much simpler. Not quite sure why the special events are added to the table. Perhaps it may be better to keep the tables different? I came here originally for a list of chronological entries, in particular because the ~10 oldest UFC events are available on youtube (well, kinda of ... russian translations ... :P) and I simply wanted to know when these old UFC events all happened. Turns out my memory was wrong since I didn't know UFC already had events in 1993/1994 ... the article right now of course includes that information, it's only strange how the table (or tables) is layout in general 2A02:8388:1604:F600:6D3E:54F:D1:F386 (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed planned events that never happened

[edit]

I removed the 3 planned UFC events that never happened: Lamas vs. Penn, UFC 176 and UFC 151. Firstly, they aren't notable. Secondly, they aren't "Past Events" since they never actually happened. Thirdly, there is no compelling reason to list just these events. There have been plenty of other scheduled events that have been cancelled at some point between their announcements and cancellations. Their inclusion just devalues the otherwise notability of real events that actually happened.I remember halloween (talk) 20:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any objections?I remember halloween (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody is called, nobody will give their opinions here... That's pretty obvious. Don't pretend like you don't know. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, care to pose a defense? I've yet to hear you voice a compelling argument.I remember halloween (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of them on edit summaries already. Those are not events that were simply announced on a date and then canceled. Major events (including two PPVs) canceled with a full card already booked and even tickets sold already. You can't simply let them on limbo, specially because the numbered events count didn't jump those events. It's clearly written that the event was canceled and that it does not count for the overall list of events. But since this is the only article that displays such information on past events, it's unprecedent to keep them there. Also, it keeps a timeline of scheduled events (even if they didn't take place in the end). Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dana White's Tuesday Night Contender Series

[edit]

Does it make sense to list these events as "UFC Events"? This article by Damon Martin indicates otherwise - http://www.foxsports.com/ufc/story/dana-white-receives-promoters-license-for-new-contender-series-separate-from-ufc-061417 This is from the article - It was stated ahead of the license being approved that “this is not the UFC, this is not the UFC brand,” but instead a promotion that will allow up and coming fighters the chance to showcase their talents in hopes that one day they may compete in the UFC. Perhaps a separate page can be created to just have DWTNCS events so it doesn't blur with the offical UFC events. 158.151.208.51 (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Fight Fan[reply]

No, its not a UFC event as such. none of the fighters have UFC contracts,. it would be like putting all the TUF episodes on the events list. Im going to later today have a bash at moving the dana white stuff to a fresh article (at the moment its part of UFC in 2017) and then it can probably just be linked to. Dimspace (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
created a seperate article Dana White's Tuesday Night Contender Series away from UFC in 2017 page as its an ongoing thing. its also clear that UFC are not the promotors with DW having his own promoters licence Dimspace (talk) 20:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UFC on ESPN Broadcast

[edit]

After ESPN start broadcast ufc on 2019, how to pronounce for the formats on ufc event? Skng6135 (talk) 08:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean on broadcasting on ESPN networks or ESPN+ , we should pronounce "UFC on ESPN", "UFC on ESPN+" or just only keeping "UFC fight night"? Skng6135 (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on List of UFC events. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 87 external links on List of UFC events. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on List of UFC events. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disable automatic results showing?

[edit]

Hi. I use wikipedia for checking whos fighting on past cards before i watch them because sometimes i just don't know, or i forget who fought from a past show that i hadn't seen yet. I was wondering if you could make the Results of who defeated who, as a clickable button, so people such as myself can see whos fighting, without the results automatically showing who defeated who. Thank you 2601:203:4201:AF00:A0E4:99BF:C237:E72 (talk) 16:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this is technically feasible - we could just use the 'expand/collapse' thing. Not sure how that's done, though. DS (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"UFC Ultimate Fight Night" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UFC Ultimate Fight Night. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 13:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premature Edits?

[edit]

Is there a reason why ongoing UFC events are consistently moved to the Past Events section before they're done? Often as soon as the main card has only just started. Wouldn't it be better to wait until the entire event has finished? Poshzombie (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct sorting of Scheduled Events

[edit]

Hello,

The scheduled events table is in reverse-chronological order and does not match other tables in article. I am attempting to edit but keep getting the following error message: [8bb607d0-9645-4a71-b16f-60979dff67d5] Caught exception of type InvalidArgumentException

Can someone please fix on my behalf? Pdubs.94 (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_UFC_events&oldid=1208466698"