Jump to content

Talk:2012 in UFC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:UFC on FX 1)

Untitled

[edit]

Not this again :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.75.26 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a Mess...

[edit]

This page is an absolute mess. Something needs to be done here about this blatant abuse of power. Killswitch Engage (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you referring to? If you came here to complain about the omnibus format itself, you're in the wrong place. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Event_Notability Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This page is an absolute mess." -Agreed. The page isn't even consistent within itself as far as format or content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.48.110 (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the format? Perhaps if you explain it can be fixed. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Half the content is links to their own pages, half of it is contained in the page. Not all the entries have the same info. Not all the entries have the same format. The article is too long & covers so many different types of events (title fights, pay-per-views, TUF TV seasons, fights on Fox, on Fuel, etc) that it gets to be difficult just finding what you want in the TOC. Individual sections say the events are mixed martial arts events, albeit the entire article is about UFC, which by definition is a mixed martial arts event--why be so redundant? (It's obvious that someone simply grabbed those individual entries and just inserted them in this long article without bothering to decently construct the article as a whole.) If the article is about UFC in 2012--what is special about grouping it by the calendar year? Why is a fight in January 2012 more connected to a fight in December 2012 (such that it ends up on the same page) than fights at the end of 2011? Good pages have summary sections at the top so readers can quickly determine if the article has the info they want. This article is just a list, and I can't tell what's in it unless I go through the whole thing. Listing title fights in 2012 in a table is kind of okay, but a real summary that ties all the content together and is useful to the reader is a must. If that can't be done, the list concept/format shouldn't be used. From a quality viewpoint, this article is garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.48.110 (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be even worse for 2013 given the continuing trend of deleting individual pages and the further lumping of event information into one page. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the previous article-per-event format. I shudder to think of how ridiculous the list of references is going to be and what a nightmare for people to manage. All this is going to result in is a hurting of the information on the UFC in Wikipedia (which I suppose might be some people's goal, the way things have gone).

Seriously, these should be individual pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.229.84.244 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not our fault. And Oskar Liljeblad is just trying to save information that gets deleted. --LlamaAl (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Over time this will likely be boiled down somewhat further into UFC in 2012 PPVs and UFC in 2012 on Fox, FX, and Fuel or something similar. This article format is part of a long standing discussion on how to keep information on UFC events without everything getting it's own individual page. As linked above, this is part of a very long, heated discussion, and if you have a problem with this format your time and effort is probably best served as a part of this discussion. Those events which are only linked in this article were deemed of high enough quality to have their own stand-alone page. Given time the mish-mash of information provided here will probably get a more stable format (i.e. better ways of showing reported payouts, walk-in music, and all the other stuff that only sometimes gets added to UFC events). If you have a real problem with this format though, I would greatly encourage people to work with the MMA-Wiki project to try and improve it, and not just complain or try and switch it back. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is terrible. Add my vote to reverting these to individual pages. - Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.102.206 (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 155 should be moved to an individual article. It is notable since it featured a new heavyweight champion. Portillo (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Format

[edit]

There were 3 formats put before the group to vote on, and the format being implemented is the new one decided by the group. Please respect the decision of the group.Willdawg111 (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You closed the voting. Where's the consensus? I'll restore to the old version. Feel free to change it when consensus is reached. --LlamaAl (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There was 2 weeks worth of discussion and oportunity to vote. The group voted and you need to accept it.Willdawg111 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. And the discussion isn't over. Poison Whiskey 20:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who voted? We don't even have results. --LlamaAl (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flags denoting fighters' nationality

[edit]

Sorry if I missed the discussion on removing flags. If I could be directed to said discussion I'd appreciate it, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.41.91 (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was back in November and is located here. There is a larger, current discussion on the use of flag icons happening here. Ravensfire (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Is there a decision/discussion on the style of the tables we're using in listing the fights? For example the UFC 146 page has a different table than the ones used on this page, 2012 in UFC. While I'm mentioning the 2012 in UFC page, this format was already attempted before wasn't it? This format being listing all of the year's UFC events on one single page. I remember the page growing too long for easy viewing. Although I don't know the exact reason the page was disbanded back to single pages for individual events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.41.91 (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One just finished on WT:MMA for the results layout. We're working on how best to make it work (templates, bot, etc) on that same page. The goal is to eventually have all MMA articles using the same layout for results and to make sure it's easy for editors to use that layout. Ravensfire (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 in UFC. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on 2012 in UFC. 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) 02:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_in_UFC&oldid=1196627204"