User talk:Thaddeus Venture

Martial arts categories

• Hi! This spring in the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project we did a large article review (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts for many discussions). Martial arts practitioners have quite different qualities the Martial arts - we felt that separating these categories helps sorting. In the 'Category:Mixed martial arts' I added 'see also' to the category 'Mixed Martial Arts People'. I hope I am clear - feel free to ask again if I am not<g>. jmcw (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding and for making the revert! jmcw (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hi again! It is common usage not to add a category and the parent of the category (as in [1]). If you feel strongly that it belongs in both, fine - no problem. jmcw (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! jmcw (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Guram Gugenishvili

I believe your argument is correct, I only made the change because that was how it was on the pages 2010 M-1 Challenge Season and 2011 M-1 Challenge Season. Also, on Guram's page, it says he is Georgian-Ukrainian. According to your argument, this should be the other way around, correct? Trunks8719 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

WIll Kerr, Yuri Alcantara, Edward Faaloloto & Costantinos Philippou (Updated)

• In regards to :

Brief point about Will Kerr (et al) I need reliable sources before I remove fighters I suspect have been cut, either that, or enough time to pass that it is very obvious that they're not part of the UFC. As Waggney Fabiano, Yuri Alcantara, and Fredson Paixao are also in limbo, but supposedly still under contract I'm currently unwilling to make cuts to Kerr, Visher, and Faaloloto. Hopefully they'll atleast fight again outside the ufc soon, so I can cut them then.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Will Kerr was cut or not as of yet, but I was just correcting his fight record under Zuffa which is 1-2 in the WEC (its listed as 2-1).

Also as far as Yuri Alcantara, he dropped down to Featherweight since its a more suitible divison for him and wouldn't have to compete w/ 50+ LW fighters in it that would all have size on him. So it's unlikely he'll be cut anytime soon.

As for Will Kerr's record I'd leave that up to you to change.... to avoid any editing wars, lol. Have a good one :D 71.244.102.129 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• No problem, I just didnt want to edit it back without you knowing and have it look like I'm stepping on your toes.

Also, I just added Costantinos Philippou to the Middleweights, and made an attempt to cite it also, though I suck at citing and too exhusted to figure it out and make it all look uniform and "pretty". Just wanted to let you know of my problem, I dont know if you want to address it or not, all the info you need should be in the link. 71.244.102.129 (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• About Faaloloto. Yeah, I have no problem with that. I come from a little bit of an accounting background, where everything needs to be shown (even "mistakes"/edits) thats why I put it in that box. Thinking if you didn't think it belongs you would just remove it. By no means did I meant to try to draw attention to an oversight, which I would have made as well if I were in your shoes. Now I'll know what to do if a similar situation arises again. Bhark85 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

List of current mixed martial arts champions

Hi Thaddeus

I notice that you have put an FLC tag on this article, however you have never actually listed the candidacy at WP:FLC, so nobody has been aware of it. If you still wish to nominate the article, please go to WP:FLC and follow the last of the instructions on how to nom an article, namely:

Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. While adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

You left a message on my talk page regarding not using terms like "we'll" and "I". I just wanted to mention that I wasn't the one who wrote it that way originally, but I was guilty of not removing it when I changed the sentence around. Anyway, thanks for the heads up, and I agree wholeheartedly that words such as that need to be removed for the sake of objectivity. I'll try and keep an eye out for that stuff in the future. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 14:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: List of MMA Champions- I'm glad I was able to point you in the right direction. I thought I had that information correct.... damn my blasted lack of internet here at work. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bellator fighters

give me a full list of fighters and I will help create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoccout265 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It would probably get nominated for deletion if I made it, so Ill make the roster, and you can copy and paste, and do a better job than I can do.

Is this a table/page that is really happening??? If so, I can help work on the draft in here as well with the roster on Bellator.com. Just let me know. 71.244.102.129 (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the intro Thaddeus Venture. Just a few more tweaks w/ the tables then I'll create the page. 71.244.102.129 (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Page created: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bhark85/List_of_current_Bellator_fighters Oh, and I got a classy new Logsine. Although you probably already had my IP memorized. :D Bhark85 (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'm happy with the "List of current Bellator fighters" page now. How do I "launch" it, where can I find the instructions on that? Or do I just create a new one and delete the "user space" page I have already made? Thx in advance. Bhark85 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for all your help along the way. Really couldn't done this without you. I'm really happy the way it turned out and it has been launched. List of current Bellator Fighting Championships fighters Bhark85 (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I had a feeling there may have been some unnecessary code, but didn't know just what it may have been. I'll play around with it in the next few days and take care of that. Bhark85 (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey long time, been busy/sidetracked. Thanks for properly updating that bellator pic on the page, thats one more thing off my to-do list. Also, I'll take a look into some bellator weight-in pics, only thing is the production quality may be poor cause they're often done in like hotel lobby floors with just a backdrop, so i'll see where that leads me to. Bhark85 (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey no problem, my policy with the pictures for the UFC site is any picture that is of the fighter alone, in competition or preparation for competition, with any organization. It just so happens that most of the time the only photos you can find of just one fighter in competition (or at least in their professional capacity) are weigh-in photos. That's just my policy of course, but I'm just saying I wouldn't limit yourself to weigh-in photos. I am considering using expo or other good profile pics as well if their quality is high enough, but I want the pictures to highlight the sport as much as the fighters, so that it's not just a bunch of promo shots. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Most recent cuts on "List of UFC Fighters" page

• Yeah, I absolutely understand "mothering" (as you put it) over these pages and I'm always glad to help out in anyway I can. I think these pages are great source of information that's tougher to find elsewhere in one place (at least in an easily understandable format/table) that is why I enjoy working on these as much as I enjoy viewing them. I do understand the UFC.com website's database does seem unreliable at times .

I do know that the fighters who I have taken off the page were previously listed under the alphabetical roster before their fights and a few days/weeks after the fights they lost they were taken down. (Which I can't prove this, since it just off of memory of previously comparing this list to the UFC.com's list) Meaning that someone on the UFC website staff had to go out of their way to take them off the list, for what reason I feel I came assume as a cut. I still see how they are searchable in the "search box", maybe it just takes awhile before they'll take that down too. I don't know. As you can go the a recent previous UFC "#" event and see the click the "cut" fighter and still bring up his profile.

A recent example is Brandon Vera. He lost his fight vs Silva, media annouced that he got cut, then was removed from the website. Shortly after Thiago Silva's subspicious test results, rumors of Vera's return came about, then his image was back on the website, then to be later confirmed by Dana White himself. So even though the UFC website may not be the most reliable tool to have, sometimes it's the best we got. :(

& the best of luck with these additions being added to your resume, maybe they'll help you to become the next Ariel Helwani someday!

71.244.102.129 (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, Royce Gracie's profile does not exist anymore on the UFC-page of fighters: http://uk.ufc.com/fighter/Weight_Class/Middleweight and Dana has stated that Gracie won't fight, so his name must be removed from the UFC fighters list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.9 (talk) 06:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You write in the editing history list that there must be proof that he Gracie been cut but the truth is that he was never even signed. And his profile is not anymore in the UFC roster, just go to UFC.com, click fighters list and the middleweight category. It also states in Gracie's wiki-page "UFC president Dana White has indicated to MMA Fighting that the promotion has no interest in offering a fight to Brazilian pioneer Royce Gracie for the UFC's upcoming August event in Rio de Janeiro, refuting previous reports that talks between the two sides could result in a Gracie return. Royce remains hopeful for a return in the future" You can also find this information if you go to mmafighting.com and search for "gracie". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.12 (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

His profile is right there on the UFC.com roster of active middleweights, I can't imagine why you have so much trouble finding it. It's right between Riki Fukuda and Jared Hamman. Beyond that, Dana white saying that they have no interest in offering him a fight at one event last year is not the same thing as saying he has no contract with them, and citing another wikipedia article is not a source.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

hong man choi

I figured if there was anyone who could do something about this it was you...

I just wanted to bring to your attention that Choi Hong Man's page has been vandalized, and I am unable to change it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmt2393 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

List of UFC Fighters

Yes I do agree that adding all that other info will be potential towards edit wars but what do you think about the wiki page from the NHL players where it lists such info like age etc? Shall we make it similar? M4pnt (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

On the main UFC home page it does not list Cruz and Aldo as having 4 defences. It lists 2 because only 2 took place in the UFC, the rest were in the wec. The same should refect for current fighters.50.99.126.128 (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. If you are referring to why WEC fights are listed going back to WEC 25 for fighters in the UFC, it is because in order to functionally organize the lower weight divisions it was necessary to organize fighters by their WEC record as none of them had a UFC record, and in a lot of ways, though perhaps not in official (UFC record) numbers it was obvious that UFC was doing the same thing, like how they just awarded Jose Aldo the UFC featherweight title, rather than making him prove himself in the UFC. As more time passes this will become more and more of a non issue as old fighters retire or get cut etc. In the mean time it is just a slightly better way of keeping everything organized, and it has been thoroughly noted to prevent too much confusion. If this is not the issue you were referring to please attempt to clarify as I cannot discern anything else from this. I created a wikipedia page of MMA champions and on that I list Aldo and Cruz as only having 2 title defenses, while also noting that both had 2 under WEC. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Static heading names in list of current UFC fighters

Hi, since you've been maintaining the list of current UFC fighters (nice job, by the way), I figured I should ask you directly. My concern is the fact that all of the division heading names constantly change with the roster, so a section link such as List of current UFC fighters#Heavyweights (265 lb, 120 kg): 25 fighters will break when the number of heavyweights changes. I'd like to fix this by removing the number of fighters from the headings, but out of respect I'd like to have your opinion on such a change first. If you believe that showing the number of fighters in each division is important, then I suggest appending an unsortable table row containing the relevant number to the end of each division's table. Thanks. —LOL ^T/_C 23:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... Yeah, I can see that problem, and it's not honestly one I want to have, but it's also a bit tricky. I like having the number of fighters right at the top of each heading, as with everything else (by design) on this page, it's simple and straightforward. You can look at the table of contents and immediately know how many fighters are currently in each division, I like that. But I see your point as anyone linking to that section from another page has their link broken every time a fighter is cut or added, and I agree that sucks. I would like to find some good way to have this work, and it may ultimately come down to a static row like you suggest, but I just don't really like that idea, I don't think it would look right, and it would mess up the table of contents bit that I'm happy with. I will give it a think and see. If only there were some way to make the heading link one thing while the shown text was another, I'll look into it. Keep pitching ideas at me, and maybe even try modifying one of the sample tables on the talk page with a sample static row, so I can get a feel for how it might look. Eventually I may be forced to concede that you have the right of this and I should just give up on design over function, but I'd like to look at all the options.

Someone else is proposing that I add age, hight, and reach categories to this list (at which point I would just ditch nicknames to make space for it). I've honestly been going back and forth about this. I like the more useful, factual information it would provide, but I dislike the ways in which that amount of data could break down the simplicity of design and could create a nightmare of constant stat updates. If you have any off-the-cuff reaction to this, feel free to throw it at me.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If you don't like adding an extra row, then perhaps we can replace the standard TOC with a wikitable such as:

Division	Weight	Number of fighters
Heavyweight	265 lb (120 kg)	25
Light Heavyweight	205 lb (93 kg)	32
...

I definitely dislike the idea of adding too many extra columns of information. UFC record I understand because it's relevant to the promotion that the list is about, but height and reach aren't. In addition, there's often controversy surrounding an athlete's height, so that particular column would probably cause a large number of unnecessary edits on that page. —LOL ^T/_C 17:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That was my reaction too. I really want to avoid constant edit wars. glad to bounce it off someone else. This table of contents idea may be the best solution. Although I'm not sure how to make it replace the original table of contents. Although I would leave weight in the table heading as it is unlikely to change, and as a secondary definition of the same information (ie. heavyweight is 265 lb) it doesn't need it's own column. But otherwise this is probably the best solution.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I decided to implement another idea where the new table of contents looks almost exactly like the previous one. However, the code is pretty messy, and it requires manual updating whenever headings are added/removed/changed. What do you think? —LOL ^T/_C 21:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right that's a hectic bit of coding there, I wouldn't have had the wherewithal to do it, so thanks. Honestly it looks great. The headings had to be updated every time the division was changed, so having to update the contents instead isn't any more work, and it keeps the same simple look of the original. Thank you for finding a very complicated, but ultimately best solution to a problem. You have my gratitude for taking the time to make a necessary change to this page and making it look nice, rather than just doing a rush job and creating another problem just to solve one.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, this wasn't a necessary change; it was simply for user convenience, so thanks for rolling with it. If there are any problems with the table of contents, then feel free to tell me about it and I'll do my best to help. —LOL ^T/_C 02:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your nomination for List of current mixed martial arts champions

I noticed you created a nomination for List of current mixed martial arts champions becoming a featured list, but you never completed the fifth and last step, that is, to transclude that nomination on top of the WP:FLC page. Well, I've done that for you. So, watch this page Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of current mixed martial arts champions/archive1 now because you're going to start receiving some comments from featured list reviewers that you need to address.--Cheetah (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

ufc

Just letting you know that the UFC has released Chuck O'Neil..not sure if you already knew that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.151.145 (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I decided on a new editing policy with this season of TUF. From here on out I only add fighters that competed on TUF after the finale and if they won their fight at the finale (except for the runner up) of course if I hear otherwise, like in the case of Justin Edwards then I'll add them as well. So, in this case I never thought of Chuck O'Neil as being in the UFC. But thank you, heads ups are always appreciated. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Deserved

Not sure why you haven't gotten one of these yet.

		The MMA Barnstar
		I, Jahahn (talk), hereby award Thaddeus Venture the The MMA Barnstar for their valued contributions to WikiProject MMA. Awarded 19:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Put Einemo back!!!

I edited your current UFC page by taking off Jon Olav Einemo, since he wasn't listed on the UFC website. Now I feel bad because your page is an amazing resource and if you only go by the UFC site, Chuck Liddell is still active! Plus you guys all put in so much work, I feel bad for nitpicking. Put him back, and I promise I won't mess with your page unless there's a legit correction. Thanks pal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.93.186 (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Mike Pierce vs. Paul Bradley at 185

Here is the link you requested, straight from the UFC site itself:

http://www.ufc.com/news/ufc-on-fox-1-fight-card-update

it says: "Two of the most powerful wrestlers in the middleweight division will collide in Anaheim as Paul "The Gentleman" Bradley takes on Mike Pierce." They say are implying it will be at middleweight when they say "Two of the most powerful wrestlers in the middleweight division"

Also if this helps:

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2011/10/4/2469088/three-new-bouts-set-for-ufc-on-fox-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glock17gen4 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears you were right, the bout is at Welterweight as confirmed by this article on the UFC site:

http://www.ufc.com/news/Pierce-Bringing-a-New-Intensity-to-Rematch-with-Bradley

It quotes:

"Now, Bradley will be cutting 15 pounds to make welterweight, where Pierce regularly fights."

So I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glock17gen4 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I assumed that was coming, but figured it was easier just to wait for it than try and argue about it. That initial press release looked like it was just a typo especially after they then moved Bradley's profile down to welterweight, where he has a long history of fighting. Thanks for staying on top of it. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Injured fighters?

Just curious, should we list fighters on the List of current UFC fighters page on a casualty list who are known to be currently out with injury, if it is backed up with a sourced article? Glock17gen4 (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I really feel like it's getting to the point that somebody needs to start a website that only keeps track of UFC fighters, and all the news surrounding them. While I understand the interest in such information I think it falls outside the scope of this article. This article is really just supposed to be a well organized list of who's in the UFC right now. Trying to keep up with injury news for every fighter in a open database like wikipedia is a recipe for disaster. Injuries are often subject to rumor and speculation, and while I understand and believe that you might manage such information well it would be hard to maintain once your own interest wains. This list is already very complicated for the type of information that it contains, and adding to it risks making the whole thing unmanageable.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Alistair Overeem and Cung Le

So you're going by what the UFC site says? Well then wouldn't Cung Le have a Vietnam flag then? That one guy in the debate a couple months back, his source was removed by the oversight committee on Wikipedia and it was unproven an unreliable source. If Alistair Overeem has a UK flag, then Cung Le having a Vietnam or South Vietnam flag only makes sense. And I have an image that shows Cung Le using a Vietname flag in the UFC telecast, Right here.

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/386683_308847835811428_308847602478118_1157132_1118996196_n.jpg Glock17gen4 (talk) 06:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try and explain this as best I can. I only use UFC broadcasts for listing nationalities of fighters, not the UFC website, not sherdog.com, not any other source at all. This creates one contiguous, verifiable method of organization. I am willing to create exceptions to this rule for fighters of multiple citizenship (like Cung Le) who express a personal preference as to how they are known/recognized. It was my understanding that on his twitter page (and I did check his twitter feed), and perhaps in other places, Cung Le has expressed a preference for not being shown with a Vietnamese flag. I understand he walks out with a South Vietnamese flag, but South Vietnam is not a recognized country or nation and is thus not a recognized nationality, it is an ethnic heritage like being from Dagestan. So I was willing to list Cung Le with a US flag as he is a US citizen and has expressed a dislike for the Vietnamese flag, but he is very much an exception to the rule and I've never heard of any other fighter expressing a preference for one nationality over another. If you think his flag can be changed back to Vietnam without causing a huge edit war feel free to do so, but I would otherwise like to avoid such a situation at all costs. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes I think that it will be fine. After all, that was the flag used for the UFC telecast. Glock17gen4 (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. When you recently edited John Lineker, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Santa Catarina and Brusque (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bold text==List of current UFC fighters==

• Here's the thing, his page is Quinton Jackson with rampage listed as nickname.--Rockchalk717 03:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but it doesn't address any of the points I mentioned, and I have no interest in changing the name of his personal wiki-article. His name here links directly to the article, so it should be relatively apparent to anyone clicking the link that Rampage Jackson and Quinton Jackson are the same person. We aren't really supposed to use other Wikipedia articles as sources for new ones, as such saying that his name is displayed this way or that on other pages isn't really helpful. Sources need to be cited, and as such the easiest and most consistent source for current UFC fighters to site is UFC.com. The best way I can explain it is if I were to create an article about the 2006-2007 Lakers and I wanted to get their roster I would, find a sports database, and use the names it provided as they would all be cite-able to that database. And they would probably give me William Henry Parker as "Smush" Parker. Now I realize that his wiki-article is under "Smush" Parker, but he may be listed differently on different pages, none the less I would use "Smush" because I could cite it easily along with the rest of the Lakers. In such circumstances I'm not really interested in how well the information I'm getting represents the entirety of a persons identity, only that it creates a consistent, cite-able format that I can use throughout the article. The same can be said of the UFC. It doesn't really matter how well each name, nationality, or nickname, totally represents a person, only that it is consistent throughout the article and it is all cite-able. To try and relieve any disambiguity I have listed people's names that are common nicknames as nicknames, i.e. Rampage Jackson's nickname is Rampage, to show that this is a nickname rather than a proper name. And I have added a note to the article to say that the names listed may include nicknames, partial names, or pseudonyms and that all names are taken directly from UFC.com. Unless you can think of a dramatically better way of doing this (which I would be happy to hear and consider, as I have been on the receiving end of many good pieces of advice since developing this article) then I hope that you may be swayed by my argument that a little bit of controversy is merely the price of consistency.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• OK. I will leave Sean Loeffler off the list page per your request. But he IS still on the UFC roster. He sustained an injury just a few minutes before his UFC debut on February 15. He had a complete tear of your anterior talofibular ligament and partial posterior lateral and medial tears so three ligaments, one of them completely torn. I spoke with Tony Lopez (a friend of mine who trains with Sean) and he said he will be back. So you can add him back on then :)

Devin Cole not signed

http://www.mmafighting.com/ufc/2012/7/25/3187565/travis-browne-off-ufc-on-fox-4-swick-vs-johnson-bumped-to-main-card

Yep and Travis Browne is off the card. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank christ, I was super dissapointed to hear that he was signed, let alone even being targeted as a replacement.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Understandable. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Strikeforce's Heavyweight and Women's Featherweight titles are defunct.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/sources-daniel-cormier-frank-mir-tabbed-fall-strikeforce-040600508--mma.html

I updated the MMA Champions list page. That article says they did away with the Heavyweight belt, the fight with Mir vs Cormier is a non title fight, then Cormier will be absorbed into the UFC. On the strikeforce.com site they dont even have the 145 lb division listed on the site and all of the women who were in that division were moved to the 135 lb division. So that whole weight division is defunct along with the belt. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 13:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I had removed the strikeforce heavyweight title before, but someone else reposted it, and I realized I'd seen Cormier giving press conferences with a belt and figured they'd just decided to make him their heavyweight champ for the short term, and I knew that they were talking about getting rid of the women's 145 but hadn't heard anything official. But I'm fine with both of these changes. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

List of current UFC fighters

Thanks for the heads up, didn't know that because I missed that event.--Rockchalk717 05:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

List of current UFC fighters Re: Cung Le

• Hi. I could not find a direct link to Cung Le talking about his self-identification but here is a tweet of his affirming a strong preference for using the South Vietnamese flag: https://twitter.com/cungle185/status/136602668557807616 (he also sells official signature shorts on his website with that same flag here: http://cungle.com/store/#ecwid:category=1472272&mode=product&product=5942378). Again, as for a suitable exception rule, the country he is born in no longer exists, he does not hold citizenship in the country that conquered it (he left 3 days before it fell) and thus the one country he has citizenship in and also resides in (and has resided in for the last 37-38 years now) should take precedence, and barring that, the flag of the country he was born in and then had to flee from (South Vietnam, not the Socialist Republic flag). That he has represented the U.S. in international Sanshou competitions (http://ezine.kungfumagazine.com/magazine/article.php?article=263) is also something to consider. I know that he is a symbol of pride among Vietnamese Americans and is proud of his heritage but his nationality is not of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam anymore than a Lithuanian refugee who fled the country in 1940 as a child would have been a Soviet after that. I don't know what the strict guidelines should be per se, but I would say the only appropriate flags identifying Cung Le would be the South Vietnamese Flag (generally the flag that Vietnamese Americans use to identify their own heritage) or the American Flag (which would reflect his one and only national citizenship). That the UFC used the Socialist Republic flag is because they messed up. Beansy (talk) 05:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• Look, um, the arguments you gave about being consistent with the UFC's presentation on flags, that's fair. This page is your baby and you've done a tremendous amount to maintain it. I wouldn't characterize Cung Le as Vietnamese but as long as your criteria is consistent I suppose I'm okay with it, since I couldn't find a source where Cung Le specifically asks that he be identified as American and not Vietnamese. I'm just writing this comment because I appreciate your earlier civility in the matter, and now I see someone is being less-than-civil to you about it. Beansy (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Mtking and your page.

If MtKing tries to remove all the flags off your page again, and use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:MMA#RFC_on_WP:MMA.27s_use_of_Flag_Icons_in_relation_to_MOS:FLAG as a justification, it's safe to revert it, as that only applies to results tables, which the List of current UFC fighters page doesnt have. Btw thanks for your many great contributions to the MMA Project on wikipedia! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA organizations list order

I've just updated Jungle Fight in your list order, as well as the scores of the other organizations, and now I have some questions about it:

• Criteria #3: Could you elaborate on it? I don't know for sure what do you mean by "Organizations that have 5+ yearly events headlined by a top ranked fighter".
• Criteria #8: I'm also not sure what do you mean by "Organizations with an active title lineage extending 10+ years". Does it mean that, if the organization is at least 10 years old and have title fights for a certain weight class, then it's enough to fulfill this requirement?

A few comments about your work:

• Criteria #x.5: Instead of giving half a point, give two points.
• Criteria #1.5: Maybe it would be better to give one point for organization that are 5+ years old and two points for those that are 10+?

I also think that there should be a criteria which takes the number of ranked fighters of an organizations into account. Since the main problem with such a criteria is to determine which ranking to use, I recommend using the Fight Matrix rankings. Most of the other rankings only go to the 10th place, while with Fight Matrix we could take into account the first 25 athletes of each weight. Also, historic rankings are readily available. Evenfiel (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Criteria, no 3 essentially means if an organization has more than 5 events per year featuring a fighter or fighters ranked in the top ten in their weight division they are more notable. For instance, between Ben Askren, Micheal Chandler, Eduardo Dantas, Pat Curran, and Eddie Alvarez, and Formerly Hector Lombard, Bellator has routinely been able to have fighters ranked somewhere in the top ten of their division on 5+ fight cards per year. Where as Pancraes, even with their lower weight divisions does not have the ability to have five fight cards per year headlined by a highly ranked fighter.

As for criteria #8: If an orgnaization has been around for 10 plus years, and has been holding title fights in any one weight division consistently for those 10 plus years then they are more notable. For instance, M-1 Global has been around since 1997, but has only been promoting champions in it's current weight divisions for about 2 or 3 years. The UFC established it's heavyweight title in 1997 and has continued to promote it since then. Or pancrase has been around since 1990 but all of it's active titles began around 2000, it has several inactive titles that stretch back to 1990, but those would not be considered because they are no longer active, it still meets the 10 year requirement, but only the questionably active openweight king of pancrase title stretches back that far.

Finally there are no half points in this system, the .5 credentials are not to suggest that they are worth half a point, but only that they are subsets of the initial requirement, (i.e. there is the 10 year criteria and as a subset of that there is the 20 year criteria, but both are worth one point). I don't think the number of ranked fighters should be of consideration as it would only really apply to the UFC. For the past 5 years forward they have had 90% of the ranked fighters in the world, so I guess I'd be in favor of a criteria that says, this organization has the majority of top ranked fighters in the world, as that would give the UFC an extra boost, it should always be at the top of this list.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Jungle Fight

About your comments:

• 01. They had 11 events in 2011 and 10 in 2012. Why would you revise that number upwards? Ten seems to be a good number for a serious organization. JF is the largest organization in Brazil.
• 02. Jungle Fight had exactly five title fights in 2012. Two in JF 47, two in JF 37, one in JC 36.
• 03. Their events are shown on ESPN outside Brazil since JF 20. In Brazil, their events started to be shown before that.
• 04. About their number of fighters, it's better if you keep the rules simple. For example, require that at least 50 fighters fought in the organization in the span of a year. What do you think about that?

I know it seems weird for Jungle Fight to have the same or more points than Strikeforce, but we have other options instead of gaming the system against Jungle Fight. The current way to determine what is a top or second tier organization puts full weight on the rankings, while your system gives minimal weight to it. I think we should find a middle ground, while at the same time keep things as simple as possible. In order to do so, I would scrap criteria 3 and 8, and use a criteria based on rankings determined by Fight Matrix. That criteria could amount to 1/3 or 1/2 of all possible points. The advantages would be that the main organizations would certainly be ahead of other, while at the same time event short lived but notable organizations would have a high score. By using Fight Matrix, we would be able to easily determine how many points defunct organizations would have. Maybe we could present such a system as a possible substitute to the current way we use to determine notability? Evenfiel (talk) 12:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I forgot about the Interim title fight at 37, but the point about every event having been on tv and about being able to tell how many fighters the promotion has under contract, is that they are supposed to be difficult to obtain. It is possible to tell how many fighters Bellator, UFC, Strikeforce, and event to a certain extent M-1 Global have under long term contract, they self publish that data, if JF doesn't then they should be considered less notable for it, it's a solid bar to set. And the point about TV is that even the UFC, going all the way back to '93 has had wide distribution for every event. Strikeforce has had availablility of every MMA event they've done (with maybe one or two exceptions) and bellator has had wide distribution for every event. It's reasonable to say that if, as a promotion you have had a significant number of events for which you've failed to secure a wide broadcast deal, then you should be considered less notable. It sets a clear line between promotions at the top of the food chain, and those lower down.

The only way I might consider using a fight matrix category would either be to say if a promotion has more than 30% of the top ten fighters in the world it is more notable. You could potentially make a criteria that states that a promotion is more notable for every 10 top ten fighters it hosts, or just do a second level that says if a promotion has more than 60% of the top ten fighters it is more notable. That would be an easy way to make use of that data, without making it important to count every single top ten fighter that might possibly be competing in some smaller promotion for a fight or two (i.e. Bibiano Fernandes).Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

About the fighters in each organization: Fair point. I accept it.

TV deals: I agree with you, and that's why it seems to me that JF should score a point. They had a national tv deal for most of their events, and an international deal for 70% of them.

Fight Matrix: By your criteria, only UFC would get any points. Here is the breakdown of the top-10 in all divisions, per organization:

Heavyweight: 10/10 - UFC / Strikeforce

Light Heavyweight: 10/10 - UFC

Middleweight: 9/10 - UFC / Strikeforce; 1 KSW

Weltherweight: 10/10 - UFC / Strikeforce

Lightweight: 8/10 UFC / Strikeforce; 2 Bellator

Featherweight: 7/10 UFC; 1 Dream; 2 Bellator

Banthamweight: 6/10 UFC; 1 Dream; 1 Bellator; 1 Shooto Americas; 1 Bellator / Shooto Americas

Flyweight: 7/10 UFC; 1 Pancrase; 1 Legacy Promotions; 1 Legacy Promotions / Championship Fighting Alliance

Out of 80 guys, 67 are fighting in UFC / Strikeforce. Bellator ranks second with five guys, which is not even 10%. UFC's dominance is so great that, for the rankings to be of any value to determine notability, we need to take into account the number of fighters, not the percentage of them. We should also look at the rankings up to the top-20 or top-25. Evenfiel (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is my general point about fighter notoriety as a system for promotion notoriety, it only means anything for the ufc, and that's the only company it should count for. I think any other promotion who might be covered under a per-fighter basis is covered by the 5+ events a year with a top fighter. We could expand to include more but I'd still advocate a % or ten fighters+ system. A guideline for notable fighters re: promotions, needs to show that a promotion always has several top fighters, not just the occasional one. And I think your point about tv is fair but it would need to be developed into a hard and fast guideline otherwise any promotion that had one event on regional cable is fair game.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you could award two points, instead of one, for the .5 criteria.

Here is a possible guideline for the tv: all of the events hosted in the current and previous year had to be shown on tv (minimum of 5 events per year) Evenfiel (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we could award multiple points to anything without it suffering from arguments of undue weight. Having every category get equal consideration helps avoid the idea that this is "original research" or that I or we are inflecting our opinion as to what parts of notoriety are more important than others, giving it mutliple levels at which an organization could check off more criteria, would be a way to potentially avoid that. Also on that note I like the idea of say "check a box" rather than "award a point" as it suggests more a list of criteria for notoriety rather than a game-system that falsely awards notoriety to promotions. Otherwise I would say that the TV guideline is acceptable, but it should be for 10 events a year rather than 5, this may mean that only the very top promotions fall under that guideline, but that was always the intention. I like Jungle Fight, it is one of the most consistent high level feeder leagues in the world, but it is not top of the MMA food chain. Otherwise that is a very good suggestion. THANK YOU FOR CONTINUING TO WORK ON THIS WITH ME.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

ISO Codes

Until this flag mess gets sorted out, would you be okay with me adding 3-letter ISO country codes (with hyperlinks) to represent nationality where flags used to be on your List of Current UFC Fighters page? As the MOS applies only to flags and no one has raised a coherent argument against the listing of nationality itself, I'm pretty sure that adding that sort of text information to an information table is not in violation of anything. Beansy (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm totally cool with it. MTking might try and start something, in argument to the idea that it is misleading biographical information but I think that's pretty damn weak. So go with it.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably do it piecemeal section-by-section (as in definitely), but I'll get started on it. Beansy (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, alright sounds good.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent UFC cuts

I haven't seen a source for Bloodworth, Jasnousek, Nobre, or Stone being cut. Where did you get that from? Byuusetsu (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As per-usual for this list, their profiles have all been removed from UFC.com, so they have been removed from here as well. Because of the nature of keeping track of this information it is often not reported, or very thinly reported. So the UFC.com active roster list is used as a baseline for maintenance and exceptions are cited, such as announced retirements, fighters signed but not listed on UFC.com, and fighters cut but not removed from ufc.com.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Stone has confirmed on twitter, the nobre cut has just been reported by mmajunkie.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• As a secondary note, I would like to point out that this is why I added the table of recently cut fighters to this article. Because when a fighter suddenly dissapears, and their release is not reported, it is better to list the fighter as cut for a month, and give people time to find more/better information to contradict that, than it is to just remove them altogether and have them be forgotten about. If I'd just removed Byron Bloodworth, you or any other user might never have noticed. However, by listing him as cut after his profile is removed, it gives people time to find more information.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your work at BE

I've already bookmarked your article! Would it be possible to add flags instead of the ISO initials next to the fighter's name? That would look much better. Having the total amount of fighter from each country, like we used to have here, would also be nice. Cheers! Evenfiel (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence

For your tireless work on MMA pages over several years. I saw it actually got you an official gig with BE, and I want to congratulate you. If you aren't an official staff member, I'm sure Nate Wilcox could make you one. I'm also pretty sure that can come with press credentials. I have seen at least one person go from making fanposts on one of the SBNation MMA sites (BE or MMAMania, I forget) to being a staff member to being a paid full-time journalist elsewhere covering MMA in the space of a year. Either way, I'm glad someone in the MMA press noticed your work on Wikipedia and gave you a nice gig/internship/job?/whatnot. Congratulations, man. Beansy (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)