Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Infobox and UFC ranking

Now that the UFC has an official ranking, shouldn't we add a ranking parameter to the infoboxes of UFC fighters? Evenfiel (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Support - MMAbot could update those rankings. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have several questions. Why is UFC's rankings more important than other rankings (such as those by Sherdog and other media) so much so that it needs to be in the infobox? Would displaying UFC's rankings be misleading since they are only ranking UFC fighters and not other MMA fighters (I'm making an assumption they are ignoring the rest of the MMA world)? I'm also hesitant to add another MMA-centric parameter to the infobox since it was put together in attempt to be generic for all martial artists, not just MMA fighters. I'll also note, this is not a good task for MMABot. MMABot wouldn't know what the rankings are for the UFC (or any other group) short of scraping those sites, and usually the terms of service on websites (including UFC.com) prohibits scraping of their content. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the rankings are only for UFC fighters, sort of like how college football rankings are only for FBS Division 1 schools. It's voted on by a panel of MMA writers, so it's not simply the UFC's opinion or a marketing ploy. I don't see how it could be taken as misleading as long as it is specified as a UFC ranking for that weight division. Luchuslu (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Support - Adding an extra column for the infoboxes shouldn't be difficult and the rankings can be manually updated from time to time. I'd be more than happy to volunteer to do so if it'd be too much for MMAbot to handle. Luchuslu (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment Once the rankings are added, it'll be easy to update them. There won't be big changes after each event.Evenfiel (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Now that it is over and is still being discussed, it is time to restore UFC 157

Such articles as this are referring to the main event as "the most historically significant fight of the year" even "20 years from now" and it received mainstream coverage: "SportsCenter was Tweeting all night about the fight. They’ve never done that before. It was on the front page of CNN, Sports Illustrated.com". How on earth could this article be deleted? --24.112.187.219 (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It's long past time for that to be done. --SubSeven (talk) 04:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed Mazter00 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

in my opinion, the entire point of the compromise was that we would give the omnibus format a serious try, and split out events that were more noteworthy. If this event doesn't meet that criteria, i don't know what will. Kevlar (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope whoever elects to spin off the article will take the time and diligence to write a full article and not a stub that is all t0o common for event articles. Yes, I'm suggesting the material currently included about this event in 2013 in UFC isn't enough for its own article, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Fun fact

An MMA fighter had gone on a date with Justin Timberlake [1]. Have a good weekend!--Razionale (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

UFC event types

Hi, folks! I'm curious about the way UFC labels their events. The 2012 in UFC infobox says "32 total events, 14 UFC events, 4 UFC on Fox events, 6 UFC on FX events, 4 UFC on Fuel TV events". What's the difference between the four types? I mean, if some events are numbered and others aren't, these must have a different relevance. Can anyone describe that to me – in the respective articles? Thanks! --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally it is where the events are aired in the United States. "UFC on Fox" events are aired on Fox (in the US), "UFC on FX" are aired on the FX Channel. The "numbered" events such as UFC 140 are generally PPV in the United States. Often times the events with the more significant cards are PPV events and least significant cards (IMO) are often the Fuel TV events.

As an aside, later this year there will be a new set of 'named' events, "UFC on FS1" (Fox Sports 1). --TreyGeek (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

MMABot v3.0 notice

As promised, I want to inform everyone that development of MMABot v3.0 is completed. This version of MMABot will reformat results on event articles to the agreed upon format. A list of tasks that this version of MMABot is anticipated to perform can be found here. My notes in developing this version of MMABot can be found here. Comments, complaints, suggestions, etc should be placed on MMABot's talk page. I will submit this list of tasks to the WP:BAG in about a week or when Ravensfire moves the new templates to template space, whichever happens last, unless something comes up that delays my making the request. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Ravensfire has been inactive for a couple of weeks. So, I took the liberty of moving all but one of the templates from their userspace to template-space. Those templates are: {{MMAevent card}}, {{MMAevent bout}} and {{MMAevent end}}. The template User:Ravensfire/MMAevent and its documentation hasn't been moved as there is already a template with the target name ({{MMAevent}}). I've requested deletion of that template so Ravensfire's version can be moved into it's place. Once that is done, I'll be making the bot approval request for MMABot to start editing MMA event articles to implement these templates, as previously discussed. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I've submitted the request for approval for MMABot to start standardizing MMA event results. It can be viewed here and comments and suggestions are still welcome. As time permits, I'll do some further testing in its sandbox, but I will also manually mirror any changes to mainspace articles now that all of the templates have been moved out of user space. Don't hesitate if there are questions or concerns. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

MMABot has been approved for a 50 edit trial in mainspace. If you stumble across any errors or bugs before I see (and fix) them, please let me know. I've also started a list of event articles that MMABot is unable to standardize in case anyone wants to help manually standardize them. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the final FYI on this subject. MMABot v3.0 has been approved to run at will. I'll likely run it on the weekends when I have the most time to monitor the results. Concerns, questions, and issues can, as always, be addressed on MMABot's talk page. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Mixed martial arts (Name)

Cc'd from Talk:Mixed martial arts "Erroneous Fact on Opening Paragraphs"

Current:The name mixed martial arts was coined by television critic Howard Rosenberg, in 1993,[4] The term gained popularity when the website newfullcontact.com, then one of the biggest covering the sport, hosted and reprinted the article.[5]

Past:The name mixed martial arts was coined by Rick Blume, president and CEO of Battlecade, in 1995.[4]

From talk page:That website (newfullcontact) had NOTHING to do with MMA being named MMA. Howard Rosenburg has NO place in MMA history. This is a shameful attempt to advertise a website and promote a name. --Gunnerdevil4

Someone with the time should get that sorted-out, The lead of Mixed martial arts is arguably the projects most important priority.--Phospheros (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2

Since it started airing yesterday in Brazil, I started the page for The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil 2. Just wanted to make folks aware since the more eyes watching it and contributing, the better. Udar55 (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox and UFC ranking

How should we proceed to add the UFC rankings? Here is my idea. In the infobox, we could add another "sub category" (I don't know the exact terminology) right below the "Mixed martial art record" called "UFC ranking", with all the weight categories. Non-ranked fighters would just have "unranked" in their weight category. If a fighter is in the pound-for-pound ranking, then that category can also be filled. Evenfiel (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. But I'd rather see nothing than "unranked". Not a huge deal, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

WP Mixed Martial Arts in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Mixed Martial Arts for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 21:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So far only one user has made a comment. Is no one else who is active here going to comment?--Razionale (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Fight Master: Bellator MMA

Since the cast was officially announced today, I went ahead and started a page for the Fight Master: Bellator MMA reality show. Just a heads up for anyone who might want to contribute to it in the future. Udar55 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

And please note the Marcus Aurelio listed on there is not the same one who has a Wikipedia page. Same name, different guy. Udar55 (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Muay Thai article attacks

The Muay Thai article is experiencing multiple attacks, some in the form of section blanking, some in the form of self promotion. I'd like to propose that someone with rollback User rights revert the article to a stable previous version and Semi-protect the article to deflect future vandalism. Thanks! — Jdcollins13 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to what appears to me to be the last good version. Semi-protection is unlikely to be granted if requested at WP:RPP since there isn't frequent enough vandalism, at least I don't see it. I'll also note that nearly the entire article lacks references. The only citations are in the lead, which usually shouldn't contain references since it should be a rehash of referenced material in the body of the article. Someone who is familiar with the topic area and where sources can be found may want to give some attention to the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu redirect & American Kickboxing Academy

Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu currently redirects to American Kickboxing Academy, this made sense when Dave Camarillo the founder of Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu was the head grappling trainer at AKA. However with this no longer being the case, the redirect either needs to go or if there is enough notability for either Camarillo or GJJ, changed to point to one of those.--Phospheros (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu is a good candidate for deletion. Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu was created as a redirect to AKA from the first creation of the page which is odd to me in of itself. Especially considering the AKA article never mentions Guerrilla Jiu-Jitsu, and never has as far as I can tell. As for the martial arts style, I'm not finding much in the way of independent coverage. Everything that I see, unless I'm missing something, is as a cursory mention when discussing Dave Camarillo or appears to be a rehash of marketing hype from Camarillo's camp. Fails WP:GNG to me and would !vote that way if it were taken to AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson Finale

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson Finale, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going Talk:The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Dohertyben (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

With no one opposed to the merge after the discussion was open for several weeks, I elected to close the discussion and perform the merge. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to deprecate martial art style from Infobox martial artist in MMA articles

I've noticed that Sherdog no longer uses the fighting style in the Fight Finder. This was the most reliable third-party source for this. Others aren't really reliable. For example, Roy Nelson (fighter) is presented in his UFC fights as a Kung Fu fighter, even though he doesn't really apply this martial art style in his fights. And previously Sherdog even had Thugjitsu as the style of Yves Edwards. As previously discussed some time ago, current mixed martial artists (probably since the first 10 UFCs) rarely rely on a single style. Because of this and since Sherdog no longer uses this parameter, I believe MMA biographical articles shouldn't use at all style with {{Infobox martial artist}} if a fighter is only an MMA fighter (this would exclude fighters who actively participate in other combat sports like Alistair Overeem used to). I would suggest instead something along the lines of "Primary fighting style" being either "striker", "grappler" and "all-around" the only parameters, but this would be too complicated to substantiate with sources and completely subjective, so I believe that it is enough with removing style altogether from infoboxes in its current form.

I propose a stronger wording in the paragraph in question where it says "Using the style parameter from the {{Infobox martial artist}} is discouraged in MMA biographical articles..." to something like "Do not use the style parameter from the {{Infobox martial artist}} in MMA biographical articles..." in order to encourage the removal of this parameter, eventually perhaps with the help of the MMABot if this is not too controversial. Jfgslo (talk) 21:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As per the previous discussion I support not having fighting styles listed for "pure" MMA fighters. My definition of "pure" MMA fighters are those fighters who have never professionally fought in a kickboxing or boxing fight. Those fighters I can agree with listing those two styles as appropriate (usually denoted by the article belonging to a kickboxing or boxing category).

As a matter of fact, MMABot is already approved to remove fighting styles from Infoboxes as a result of the last discussion (See MMABot task #8 and the MMABot discussion on this task). MMABot hasn't been run on fighter articles in a while. My plan is that once I finish running through the event articles (perhaps two afternoons of my dedicating it to running MMABot on them) I'll restart MMABot to go through fighter articles. However, editors will often come behind MMABot and add them back. Yes, more of my time spent running MMABot can remove them quicker, but it'll take education of editors (particularly those who don't bother to follow discussions here) and keeping an eye on articles for the changes to really stick. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree. While Sherdog removing fight styles from its articles does reduce the third-party verifiability (if that's even a real word), there should be enough evidence to support keeping styles. Most fighters earned their styles from actual accomplishments. The best example being high school or college wrestlers, as well as fighters with belts in any martial art. Also, the more obscure examples you listed (Roy Nelson and Yves Edwards) can be found in other third-party sources, like this for Nelson and this for Edwards. I see it as an unnecessary change, but welcome everyone's imput on the topic. Luchuslu (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the discussion a couple years back, we are using {{Infobox martial artist}}. The style parameter was intended for use by practitioners of traditional martial arts (Karate, Kung Fu, Jujutsu, etc). For those who have competed in wrestling, there is a separate parameter to denote what level they competed at. MMA fields were added to it later since there were a number of similar overlaps and for those cases where an MMA fighter is also notable for their activities in a traditional martial art. MMA fighters rarely focus on a specific martial art, instead they cross-train in multiple martial arts and combat sports. Therefore, I would argue, that if the style parameter is used for MMA fighters, the style listed would be "mixed martial arts", but that would be redundant. If you want to record that a particular fighter has a purple belt in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, that could be listed in the rank parameter (spelling out the rank as opposed to using a color box). I also believe, that if there is going to be an effort to list martial arts ranks and wrestling competition levels in the Infobox, those items should be in the prose of the article with appropriate references. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

After re-reading the archived discussion, there did seem to be pretty much unanimous support for this change, and I'm not one to go against consensus too often. It wouldn't be a major change and it would cut down on original research by editors. It is also a bit repetitive with the "Rank" and "Wrestling" parameters already in place. I Support it. Luchuslu (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, I guess I'm late to this, but I would pledge Mild Support here to remove styles. The style thing is harmless but kind of pointless. What someone's real combat sports background is can be written in prose in their biography or listed among their accomplishments in the infobox (like a 2nd degree blackbelt in Judo, or a FILA grappling title). The actual style announced by Bruce Buffer or whoever is doing the ring intros rarely means anything more than symbolism or nostalgia. Roy Nelson calls himself a Kung Fu fighter purely as a joke. Jason Mayhem Miller has himself announced as "a slap boxer" for the same reason. MMA isn't one style. If you're fighting in MMA, that is the ruleset you are adhering to and MMA is your real style. Any significant base (like an NCAA All-American wrestler, or an Olympic Judoka, or world championship in Samshou), can either be listed in the box separately (if it's a belt), stated in the article text, and/or listed below the box if it's a medal in some prestigious tournament like the ADCC, the Olympics, or the Pan-American Games. Again, I don't see the harm in it but I don't see any real need for it either. Beansy (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

If that happens, someone should add a "UFC ranking" parameter. Evenfiel (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"UFC ranking" has nothing to do with these discussion, so please open another section if you want to discuss it, perhaps in the talk page of {{Infobox martial artist}} since the addition of parameters is related to that template.

This is the text that will be replacing the current one: "Do not use the style parameter from the {{Infobox martial artist}} in MMA biographical articles. Modern MMA requires training several fighting styles, which means that no mixed martial artist uses a single style when fighting. References that describe martial arts ranks (i.e. black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) and/or martial arts training (i.e. training boxing) are not evidence of fighting style and are not valid to justify a fighting style in an infobox. Do not add your own interpretation of a fighting style. The style parameter should only be used in MMA fighters that have participated professionally or in international competitions in other combat sports (i.e. boxing or kickboxing) and who are notable in said sports and deserve an article for their merits in these other sports (i.e. Antônio Rogério Nogueira, Alistair Overeem). It is suggested to MMA editors that they actively remove the style parameter in infoboxes of MMA fighters that do not meet these criteria."

Any modification or suggestion to this text, please leave your comments. Additionally, I would be adding a small note in the instructions of {{Infobox martial artist}} where it says "style, the name of the martial art style practised" that would say: "Do not use this parameter in biographical articles of MMA fighters. Please read WP:MMA for further details." Jfgslo (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have updated the text in the front page per the consensus. Jfgslo (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Just look at how sad this "discussion" is. There used to be 100 editors who signed up for the MMA project. Now it's literally two guys who want to delete all the landing pages. Funny to imagine what wiki would be like if everything were run like MMA. 174.31.166.185 (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Look over the archives of discussions on this page. Regardless of the number of people who put their names on the WikiProject participants list, it is rare that more than five people participate in discussions here. That is what is sad to me, that people don't want to participate in discussions and let their voice be heard. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A lot of good editors (and to be fair, some bad ones too), left during the two-year edit war because of all the crazy drama. The WP MMA community is going to take a long, long time to rebuild. Complaining about how small it's gotten doesn't help right now, as long as the people who do communicate are both reasonable and knowledgeable of the subject matter. Beansy (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

- If five people who have insight into MMA more or less agree on something, there's no reason to keep harping on the issue. Compare that to what it's been reduced to of people who don't know jack about the sport exercising their bit of authority. This sort of incompetence is self-reinforcing, because it's a waste of time for knowledgeable editors to compete with politicking idiocy. 174.31.166.185 (talk) 10:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Vote to make the World Series of Fighting a Second-tier MMA Organization on WP:MMANOT

Anyone interested come by the MMA Notability page and let your voices be heard. click here Luchuslu (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Event Lists

The event lists were pretty fragmented, i updated them all to the same format as the List of UFC events. The only exceptions that i can remember were that some did not have any attendance info so i left that column out, and some did list broadcast, so i left that in. Also pride had a column for "Japanese name" that i didn't have the heart to remove. Every promotion listed on WP:MMATIER now has an event list, i'm sure some others do also but i haven't checked that yet to link them to the category (see below).

I also created a Category for the lists, Category:Mixed martial arts events lists and added it to all the event lists.

Last i updated WP:MMATIER. I combined the mens and womens tables, changed the "Total Events" column to link to the lists, and added a source column so everything can be more easily referenced and updated.

Kevlar (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Grappling records

Should grappling records have their own record table? For example, the way they are at Ayaka Hamasaki's article. It seems to me that no one really knows how to handle grappling records since there appears to be nothing written regarding the notability of grappling events. Take for example Kyra Gracie's article and Marcelo Garcia's article. My personal opinion is that grappling doesn't seem to have notability like other sports and therefore should not be considered for record tables or notability by itself. That is, winning a grappling tournament or having a successful grappling record does not mean that an athlete deserves an article based on these facts alone. I ask this because Garcia's article doesn't seem to have many third-party and non-routine coverage sources to substantiate the need for a stand-alone article, much less the table record there. I've looked at WP:WPMA and I cannot find any guideline on this type of activity.

I would like to know if having the grappling record in an MMA biographical article should be acceptable. While in the past I was inclined to say so, I now believe that it should not be acceptable and these record tables should be removed since grappling as a sport doesn't seem to have enough notability merits to justify the inclusion of a grappling record of an MMA fighter, even more when there barely are third-party sources that back up the record (that is to say, these record seem to be generated with information from primary sources instead of checking them with other records). Jfgslo (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The issue with grappling records is that, to my knowledge, there isn't a site out there with reliable data for the number of bouts and the records of each fighter. That being said, the same issue exists in Kickboxing and other martial arts. I'd say they should stay if the information is verifiable, but unsourced tables are worth very little. As for the notability of grappling, it falls under WP:WPMA/N. Fighters like Garcia clearly pass this standard as he is a "world champion of a significant international organization." In this case, Abu Dhabi Combat Club. Many of these pages could use more secondary sourcing, but these events garner enough coverage to find the material. Luchuslu (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That is part of the issue. I'm not saying that a grappling martial artist doesn't have notability or that grappling itself is less notable than other martial arts. Why I'm saying is that this notability doesn't justify the actual records. To exemplify this, I would compare submission grappling competitions with any type of wrestling competition. No one doubts the notability of wrestling or of famous wrestlers like Aleksandr Karelin or Kurt Angle, but note that wrestlers do not keep a table records of their matches despite that wrestling has (arguably) more coverage and notability than submission grappling. As such, I do not think that it is justified to keep record tables of submission grappling in biographical articles since grappling is not really a professional sport in the way that kickboxing is. It is only now with Metamoris that grappling is going that way. And, when I say professional sport, I mean it in the sense of the distinction of athletes who make their living by practicing the sport in a competitive way, not how good they are, like a professional boxer like Mike Tyson versus an amateur boxer like Teófilo Stevenson, who both are notable and deserve their articles, but the need to keep records of their fights is not. I would argue that only ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship matches could be considered of a high enough level to perhaps deserve a record table. And that is not taking into account the wide range of rules in different types of grappling competitions starting with those with Gi and those with no-Gi, BJJ, Sambo, Judo, etc. See what I'm getting at? There is no standard for which type of competition should be recorded or not. It could be from a local BJJ tournament to ADCC.

I do believe that both Kyra Gracie and Marcelo Garcia are notable as grapplers and deserve an article, but I question the inclusion of Garcia’s record table, which isn't referenced, and would favor instead Gracie's type of article, because, from my understanding, the record table is supposed to reflect what's written within the text of an article instead of being an an indiscriminate collection of information, which I believe is not appropriate for Wikipedia per the paragraph of excessive listings of statistics at WP:IINFO. This is something that wrestling articles do not have, as they limit themselves to the accomplishments of a wrestler such as a world championship or an olympic medal. Same with notable martial artists from other non-professional combat sports like Pierre Guénette and Steven López from Taekwondo or Teddy Riner and Ronda Rousey from Judo.

As this is an extensive issue beyond MMA, what I question are not submission grappling biographical articles and their content but the need to include grappling records in biographical articles of MMA fighters. That is why I commented first on Ayaka Hamasaki, who has participated in grappling tournaments, but which I are not really world tournaments, despite that they can be referenced. I would imagine that Josh Barnett and Fabrício Werdum could have their own record table. But, do articles of notable MMA fighters really need to keep these statistics when the notability of the fighters comes from their accomplishments in MMA? Is it really appropriate for Wikipedia to list the grappling record tables in MMA biographical articles when fighters aren't particularly notable for their grappling achievements (see Alistair Overeem)? Jfgslo (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that as long as the information is sourced and accurate, it can be included. It's part of their career, even if it's not what makes them notable. But for the sake of consistency, just listing accomplishments in notable events like what Wrestling and Judo do would be best since not all grapplers have easily-accessable record tables. A format kind of liek I did for Hidehiko Yoshida with well-sourced prose about his judo career and a table for his medals would probably be best. Luchuslu (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I like how Yoshida's article looks and I believe that it is the most appropriate format for MMA fighters with notable grappling achievements. If no one objects, I think I should remove Hamasaki's and Overeem's grappling record tables, seeing as they really haven't accomplished anything in international grappling tournaments and it seems disproportionate considering that wrestling records of more notability from other MMA fighters aren't kept. Jfgslo (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering their tables aren't sourced and the events are non-notable (ADCC trials happen all the time), I don't have any objections. Luchuslu (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I have done it. I would imagine that there is no need to establish some guideline about this at the moment since these grappling record tables appear to be the exception, not the general practice, and, from a quick glance, the notable MMA fighters with really notable grappling credentials don't appear to have these grappling record tables, so I suspect most editors won't really try to add them anyway. Jfgslo (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, of course they should have their own separate table as it is part of the fighter's history as a competitor. Such statistical information is by its nature what one expects to find in an encyclopedia. --24.112.187.219 (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, such statistics are not part of the nature of a good quality general encyclopedia. Please read WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. I wouldn't mind seeing a very detailed coverage of statistical information at the MMA Wiki, but such content is generally not appropriate for Wikipedia if it is not referenced by reliable third-party secondary sources that are beyond routine sports coverage. Jfgslo (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Per our first pillar at WP:FIVE, we are a combination of general encyclopedia, specialized encyclopedias, gazettes, etc. The BEST quality encyclopedias feature such statistical information as it easily backed in multiple reliable third-party secondary sources such as mainstream international newspapers, especially in the U.S., Brazil, and Japan which means it is not merely "routine" in nature. There is no valid reason why Wikipedia would not in part be a sports almanac. We should not be narrow-minded in our thinking about scope of coverage when he have a unique chance in history to provide the most comprehensive and therefore worthwhile encyclopedia in human history. Anyone not interested in such information is not forced to read it and can easily gloss over it to whatever does interest them in the article. If such information actually does bother someone, then God help them, seriously... --24.112.187.219 (talk) 22:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

From the very first pillar at WP:FIVE it says that, while it combines information from several sources, Wikipedia still isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, which sports stats in a non-specialized encyclopedia regularly are. Britannica is a quality general encyclopedia and you won't find such sports stats there (check Mike Tyson's article there for example), so there is no justification for Wikipedia, a regular encyclopedia and not a specialized sport encyclopedia, to have them either. Also note that such stats for grappling aren't backed up in mainstream international newspapers, so there is no reason to add them either because Wikipedia isn't a a collection of source documents. If that were the case, any individual professional soccer match from almost any country has much more mainstream international coverage and would be far more deserving to be recorded than non-professional grappling stats. We are not supposed to be open minded when content falls into WP:NOT and serves no encyclopedic purpose. If there is no criteria to what actually should included in Wikipedia, then there is no reason for Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia. Using the logic that any content can be skipped by those not interested, then any content could be added, from opinion pieces to graphic content outside of context, and Wikipedia wouldn't be an encyclopedia. That is why in WP:NOTEVERYTHING it's stated: In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely because it is true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Jfgslo (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing indiscriminate about providing statistics about the careers of major fighters that provide insights into their development as athletes. We are not saying that Wikipedia should list our junior high school wrestling records after all. Wikipedia is NOT just a regular encyclopedia. It is quite explicitly a paperless encyclopedia that combines specialized encyclopedias with general encyclopedias. On a side note, various forms of grappling and wrestling in general have been in the news considerably lately. See the tenth entry at this article for how the whole Olympics fiasco has been getting widespread coverage lately. --24.112.187.219 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That same logic could be used, for example, with all La Liga matches since they have wide international coverage and do provide an insight of the development of a team, but even if useful, that is not encyclopedic material. After all, while Wikipedia is not a regular encyclopedia it is still an encyclopedia. The problem in particular with grappling record tables is that these are bios of MMA fighters, not grapplers, so it is indiscriminate to add statistics of non-professional bouts that do not add to the notability of these fighters. That is why it is different when we are talking about other professional combat experience, like kickboxing, which does add notability in itself in Overeem's case for example due to his accomplishments at the highest level in that sport. As I pointed out previously, there is no standard to which level of grappling should be included. Let's say, for example, a tournament for blue BJJ belts could be included in a record table in some fighters while in others ADCC World championship bouts. And this still doesn't give us an insight of how good a fighter is in MMA. There is no denying that grappling represents some interest for some MMA pundits, but in general it is not relevant for the career of a a fighter regarding his/her notability. Hamasaki is an excellent example. Her bouts were with some non-notable Japanese women, an although they can be easily referenced, they really don't add to her notability or give an insight in her development since it was not at a high level with notable competitors. Same with Overeem. With know that Frank Mir is an excellent grappler with no need to have a record table of his grappling bouts. Same with Hidehiko Yoshida or Fedor Emelianenko, and in these three cases, it is more than enough to see their accomplishments and submission record in MMA. So, in effect, by adding grappling records, we may not be saying that Wikipedia should list our junior high school wrestling records, but we are saying with actions that any grappling bout of any level is more notable than wrestling, judo and all other non-professional martial arts bouts that a MMA fighter may have had in his/her career. I'm positive that most NCAA wrestling matches could be easily referenced, and they also would provide insight in the development of an athlete. But I believe that it is far more telling regarding how good a MMA fighter is in grappling simply listing under championships and accomplishments any wrestling and grappling accomplishment than seeing a bunch of matches with questionably level in a grappling record table, at least for a MMA fighter whose notability comes from his/her accomplishments in MMA. Regarding the side note, while interesting, the coverage they are getting still isn't even close to what MMA gets, much less other mainstream sports, and, so far, the coverage that I have seen doesn't emphasize the grappling/wrestling matches themselves, so I don't think they have the same notability as professional MMA bouts. As a whole yes, but not on the level of coverage for individual matches. I have expectations that Metamoris may change that for submission grappling, but not yet. Jfgslo (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To make things more clear, are we talking about adding info to be useful to the bio or some arbitrary political standard for MMA? This is important because people like to know if anything of substance matters. Bios on wiki often have facts of trivial interest (like someone's birth date) so I would think bouts integral to someone's career would be useful to readers. Spelling out the bouts in words isn't any different than putting it more clearly in a table. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 00:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Vote to make the Jewels a top-tier Women's MMA Organization on WP:MMANOT

Anyone interested in joining in the debate please follow the link here. Luchuslu (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

2012 in UFC

The 2012 in UFC list links to many articles that fail WP:EVENT and WP:MMANOT, what would be the best to assess whether to merge most of the individual articles with 2012 in UFC in accordance with WP:PRESERVE.

A single discussion thread here with a vote on all of the events that are currently wikilinked to their own page. (quicker, shorter timeframe, all information regarding relative notability in one place)

AfD requests for each event starting with the least notable. (assess each event on an article by article basis, only way that fits in with current guidelines, could lead to differences in consensus between two similar events)

Any thoughts would be appreciated, especially from editors with much more knowledge than me. Dohertyben (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many people are really watching this page. By Wikipedia policy/guidelines, WP:AfD should not be used if your intention is to merge one article into another. Yes, it does happen and has happened with MMA articles in the past. In my not so humble opinion, if an editor wants to merge non-notable UFC events from 2012 into 2012 in UFC my advice would be to nominate each article, one at a time, to be merged as per Wikipedia:Merge#Proposing a merger. Just as per those directions, the merge discussion would take place on 2012 in UFC.

As has happened in the past there is a high likelihood for the potential for heated discussions, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and overall disagreement. Therefore, I believe that after a week or more (at some point after the discussion dies down and at least a week has passed), a message should be posted at WP:AN requesting an administrator to close the merge discussion with their independent assessment of the result of the merge discussion (to merge or not to merge, that would be the question). At the same time, the admin can decide if the target of the merge should be protected to disallow people to remove the redirect. This is probably an overly cautious method of handling this potential situation, but after having endured and witnessed what I have seen, this is probably the best method.

Another discussion that probably should happen at some point is what we, as a WikiProject, believes should be contained in a 'by year' article for MMA promotions. By that I mean continuing the current practice of putting full fight card results and miscellaneous information into the 'by year' article or replacing fight results tables with prose discussing notable occurrences within the event and its relevance to the promotion and year in events as a whole. But that is probably a separate discussion in of itself. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll admit I've used AfD when I wanted to merge an article on a fighter, usually due to the combative nature of the discussion, and that my battle scars make me generally avoid MMA event discussions (especially UFC ones). That said, I agree with TreyGeek's approach as being the correct WP way to go. Caution, and thick skin, is always good in MMA discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies, I'm expecting a backlash don't worry, its just the majority of the event pages contain less than a sentence or two of encyclopedic content and would be better suited to the list format. Wikipedia is a great resource when looking at past events and the results table is very useful to get the information quickly but that's a discussion for another time.

I will propose that these be merged with the omnibus article:

And also The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson Finale be merged with The Ultimate Fighter: Team Carwin vs. Team Nelson

As the articles fail WP:EVENT and WP:MMANOT. They contain minimal encyclopedic content, event background, event description and event aftermath information and would be better suited to the list format without these sections being written.

Dohertyben (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"its just the majority of the event pages contain less than a sentence or two of encyclopedic content". It only takes a few clicks on the links above to see this is completely wrong. They all have decent informative background sections, about the same as typical sports articles. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_NASCAR_Sprint_Cup_Series, and click on the individual races. Try to pull something like this on those nascar articles and see what happens. I expect their admins to be less useless than the ones for MMA. 174.31.163.200 (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

For fear of going over the same points yet again. Several one or two sentence paragraphs about the background of event, usually just "XXX was signed to fight against YYY", is not sufficient, IMO, to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT's guideline that "articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." Articles such as UFC 94 and UFC 140 should be what the event articles look like if they are to have a chance of surviving AfD. However, people rarely want to put in time to actually write up prose that summarizes and discusses the event itself and the ramifications of the event. I think if people want just basic event results, they should be looking at Sherdog or the MMAWiki. I think if people want to read about an event and why it is important, then they should come to Wikipedia. Just my opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you (or anyone else running this show here) ever bothered to look at any other sports pages as an example or is MMA held up as some sort of shining beacon of prose? Because if it's the second, please consider fixing the UFC 2012/2013 pages so they don't look as if formatted by children or the mentally handicapped. The background info is useful since it provides a summary in one place of events that led up to the main event (X dropped out due to Y, etc), which is the point of an encyclopedia. I'm not sure if it's even worth trying to reason with people who feel these giant cluster-pages are acceptable and yet have the gall to talk about standards. Just copy/paste how boxing is done and call it a day. Also, there seems to be an admin running around making decisions who thinks the UFC has seasons, which is just embarrassing. 174.31.163.200 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend other sports event pages. I think many of them also fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. To say it's okay that MMA articles have the same level of lack of information is an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. We should be striving to provide encyclopedic content about MMA events and we, as a WikiProject, are largely failing at that task, IMO. I agree with you that the 2012/2013 articles look like crap. I believe my original proposal for the 2012 in UFC Events article was nicer formatted since it included actual summaries of the events and wasn't one stub article after another. But then people complained that the full fight card wasn't listed, and bonus awards were missing, and fighter payouts weren't provided, and entrance music was ignored. When we start adding on WP:FANCRUFT and trivia the articles disintegrate into crap (again, IMO). I'd also love to see where an admin believes that MMA runs in seasons. The closest I have seen have been admins who suggest that summarizing MMA events a year at a time is a preferable option to 50 stub, possible non-notable, articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me try to understand this. The "argument" is that what's good enough for all other sports articles on wiki is not good enough for MMA, yet at the same time we must REMOVE encyclopedia-user requested information (read: what they come for), with the end result of complete utter crap. Compare this again to the rest of sports, or anything for that matter, because I've literally never seen any page this incompetent. Do you seriously expect any contributor to buy into this? The problem is now that the "front page" looks like a ghetto with all its Broken Windows, no volunteer is going to waste time fighting the people who ruined and still run the place, and obviously the latter aren't going to give a shit. BTW, I assumed they mean summarizing a season instead of a unit of time meaningless in the UFC, suppose I gave benefit of the doubt they were just ignorant, not dumb as rocks. 174.31.163.200 (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that TreyGeek's approach is the right one, and I like the idea of each event being discussed separately so the community can evaluate it on its own merits. I have consistently argued that UFC events that include a title fight pass WP:SPORTSEVENT, so I'll vote that way, but it will be interesting to see what the community consensus is. I'd hope that most of the non-numbered events can be merged with relatively little controversy. Hopefully we can get some previously uninvolved admins to handle the closes. It would be nice for some fresh eyes to look at them. CaSJer (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

- - Funny you should mention "community", because all I saw when reading the history of this topic is the MMA editors getting screwed, and this whole area turning into a ghost-town since those doing the screwing don't give a shit about the content.
I support Dohertyben merge proposal. It is clear that outside of very big international sports events like Olympics or the Super Bowl, the majority of sporting events do not have notability beyond routine coverage sport coverage and the vast majority of UFC events do not seem to even pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. If you wish to propose it, remember to follow the instructions at WP:PM because many editors seem hostile to removing sports event articles due to their current coverage in sports media and popularity which may appear to many as the same as notability, and that is why these discussions must be had with uninvolved editors and administrators to try to make sure that what's left is encyclopedic content appropriate for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Try this anywhere else and see what happens. It's not a coincidence that MMA seems to attract all the deletionists who can't get any pull elsewhere.
If the two options are to delete all these articles or merge them into an omnibus, I reluctantly Support the merger. Luchuslu (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Look around. This is literary the only place on wiki where well-established articles are being deleted. It's nothing but a complete sham. 174.31.166.185 (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is unnecessarily dredging up drama for no reason by deleting very popular, well-established pages that have a consistent format and have never caused an issue. The solution is to find proper sourcing if that's an issue, not to merge the pages or delete them. If merged, it's just plain daft to merge two dozen articles into a single omnibus. If you were just proposing omnibussing all the UFC on Fuel cards or something or omnibussing the majority of non-numbered events by year that'd be a far more reasonable proposal. Beansy (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"The vast majority of UFC events do not seem to even pass WP:SPORTSEVENT" - And people wonder why the UFC articles on Wikipedia are such a disaster. Look at the attitude that editors come in with. Portillo (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I remember the project had a lot of momentum a year or two back (and many on mma forums were discussing it) when the sport was growing, and then the trash weaseled in and killed the enthusiasm. Too bad they won't leave so it can get back on track. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Jewels events

Considering the current consensus regarding the notability of MMA events and the current change in the Jewels organization, I was wondering, what would be the best way to handle the existing Jewels event articles? Specifically, I would like to know if it would be better to to merge all Jewels events in a single article a la Invicta FC events without the flags and what type of information should be saved in the merged article. I'm willing to merge them myself, but I would like some pointers in order to try to make the bundled article as good as possible with the available data. Jfgslo (talk) 00:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest merging them into annual omnibus articles, for a total of five articles, with all the current existing info (background and match results, and ask someone else about flags I guess). Things relating to the history of the fed itself, and developments like their relationship with Invicta and their merging into Deep, can be primarily detailed in the page for the organization itself. It's not like they're terribly long articles to begin with after a cursory glance, and the ones I looked at were surprisingly very well-sourced. Beansy (talk) 10:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I will give it a try like that, first with the 2009 events in an userspace draft titled "2009 Jewels events". I'll let you know once I have finished it so that other editors can comment on it to try to improve it the best I can and then the other years. Jfgslo (talk) 05:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is the draft: User:Jfgslo/sandbox/2008–09 Jewels events. Please let me know your comments to improve it. I would like to draw your attention to a few points which I believe could be improved.

Background: I'm not sure if this is the correct way to handle all pre-event information. That is, I think it is ok, but perhaps it could be improved.
Results: Opening card and Main card are how these events are divided in the promotion regularly. Note that I'm not using the same format as other lists of MMA events from American organizations because Jewels regularly mixed MMA with amateur, kickboxing, shoot boxing and grappling matches, and that's not counting the multiple tournaments and matches with special ground and pound rules. Also, the order in which the matches are presented is the same as the one they were presented, that is, first the under card going up until the main event, which I believe is the reverse order of what Invicta FC events does.
Account of matches: Starting the second event, a good deal of matches have a short account of the fight. I do not know if they should be kept and added in matches that do not have them or if they should be removed altogether. UFC 94 has accounts instead of results, UFC 148 has both and Invicta FC events has only the results.
External links & references: Are external links too many or too little? Should results be less referenced or are they okay with the fight accounts? All external links that aren't working can easily be restored with {{Wayback}}, but I must know which ones are worth keeping first.

Please, let me know your comments on how to improve this draft, because, once it is finished, I will follow it as a guideline for further Jewels events. Jfgslo (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

That page looks like ass; forced and hard to navigate. Might as well make format of every event disjointed like the UFC 2013 page. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 07:16, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment - While I wouldn't be so blunt as out IP buddy, I do feel this format has many flaws. The number of references is far too high, especially since many of them say the same thing as the others. (I had taken a crack at making the Jewels events into an omnibus months ago, but the amount of time it would take to reform the articles was too much.) Also, accounts of the matches would be better placed in paragraph form like in UFC 94 rather than after each match. It's more aesthetically pleasing and makes the page look less jumbled. I also feel the results can still be listed in the {{MMAevent}} format, but with footnotes denoting any special parameters of the bouts. Then there are smaller aesthetic issues as well, like the "Match No. 1, Match No. 2" clarifications as well as the fight camp of each fighter, both of which I feel are unnecessary and could be covered if say a particular camp goes unbeaten in an event. But I applaud you for taking on this issue rather than just deleting all the pages, as it's clear someone put a lot of time and effort into compiling the links and information in the original event articles. Luchuslu (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll follow your suggestions and let you know once I have edited it to get more comments to further improve it. Jfgslo (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

There's no way to make the page useful with that much info in the same view, that's why nobody else on the entire web is dumb enough to do it. The number of refs is necessary, and worked perfectly fine on the event pages which are in line with everything else sports related on wiki. The only problem is that decisions here in MMA like the one Jfgslo is following have nothing to do with merits of presenting info. Ridiculously bad pages are what result when solutions are politics first and substance second. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 00:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick tidbit of friendly advice, name calling is the quickest way for people to tune you out and not listen to any of the positive ideas you most likely have on how to improve MMA articles on Wikipedia. Try to WP:BENICE and explain what you do and don't like without saying things like "That page looks like ass" or "nobody else on the web is dumb enough to do it." Also, calling out individual editors is generally frowned upon. Luchuslu (talk) 11:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I've read over the archives, and combined with first hand knowledge of how people critical about the decisions made by outsiders are treated, it's pretty clear there's no interest in improving anything for real users. Let me be clear: in something like 100 single spaced pages of lawyering, there was ZERO consideration for those reading the material, not even lip service.

The original formatting here was SAME as how wiki does all sports, but that was overturned with a selective interpretation of "rules" for removal or hideous presentation. On the other hand, anyone pointing to the letter of rules violated is "lawyering" and threatened with whatever. That's how hypocrisy is defined, but the truth hurts so we must ignore it. LOL. Let those of us interested in writing content without it getting mangled know when the situation changes. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the archives and how we got here over the past two years, we can do so on my talk page if you're interested. Luchuslu (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have done a partial update following Luchuslu's recommendations for the first three events (I've been busy and was unable to finish th last three). Let me know how that works and what to improve, in order to do the same for the other three events and the the other years of Jewels events. I'd like to finish this before the first Deep Jewels event, so please don't hesitate to leave your comments. Jfgslo (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

UFC 157

I know that the number of active editors has dwindled to a very small number after that draconian edit war (I still don't know if it's done), but I really think it's time UFC 157 was restored to a full page, considering it's been established as one of the most notable events in MMA history. I believe on a technical level it would require someone to revert the template redirect in the edit history (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_157&action=history) and then make a page for it (the core of which can be taken from the omnibus section the redirect points to), but I don't know what sort of approval is required here. Would an AfC submission be better? Thoughts, and anyone up for looking into this? Beansy (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You may take it as a foregone conclusion, but there are still significant problems.

Citations to claims doesn't even mention UFC 157 (UFC 156 officially draws 10,275 attendance and $2.4 million gate)
Citations to sources of questionable notability( The MMAPayout.com Blue Book is an unofficial database of MMA business statistics made available as a complimentary service to the MMA industry. Please cite “MMAPayout.com Blue Book” when referencing any information. - MMA Payout)
Enduring coverage (including analysis after the event) has not been attached to the proposed spinout
Enduring notability (including significant coverage after the event) has not been demonstrated for this proposed spinout.

Attempting to get the creation by passing this out of AfC (which happens to be annother of my focus points) is not really the purpose of that process. The proposed spinout has already sustained a AFD, a DRV, and the redirect is fully protected due to editors attempting to recreate in contravention of the consensus that has been established. AfC is supposed to be for those editors who can't create new article space pages on their own, not make an attempt to circumvent the deletion discussion. All the AfC volunteer would be able to do is to evaluate the article and then get stopped by the same full page protection that is currently preventing the redirect from being turned back into an article. Therefore, I consider the restoration of the UFC 157 spinout article premature until such time that the problems asserted here, at the AFD, and at the DRV are resolved. Hasteur (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I was actually hoping someone would re-write the thing from scratch since the omnibus version is so ridiculously underdone, and was soliciting an article writer's opinion for that (I know there aren't many good MMA article writers left after everything that's happened but I'm out of that game). There are a gigantic amount of sources for this particular event. I have no idea why they're not in the omnibus, but if you look at the article before it was deleted several months prior to the event, it included sources such as USA Today, Queerty.com, the Orange County Register, and the Daily News (Los Angeles). Looking now, it was even mentioned in the freakin' Atlantic for Christ's sake (months prior to the event). Now after the event, it's been mentioned in a ridiculous number places, and Ronda Rousey was named one of the "Women Who AreChanging The World" by Business Insider (#42, one spot above China's first lady Peng Liyuan), among other accolades she's gotten in the mainstream that are breaking new ground for the sport. The performance also led to her being the first female to be a lead coach on the long-running reality show The Ultimate Fighter (she will be opposite #1 contender Miesha Tate on Season 18). The event did several times the previous highest number of PPV buys for a combat sports event headlined by two women, and that was a boxing title fight between Laila Ali vs. Jacqui Frazier (daughters of Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier). It's notable in any number of ways. Heck, a simple google search of "UFC 157 History" will bring up a number of mainstream articles citing the importance of it. Assuming that someone takes the time, it really should be little trouble to find good and varied sources. You may disagree, and that's fine, but that was the operating premise of the question I was posing.

So, I'd like to ask, since you're so eager to explain the ways this article can't be made, and thank you for the feedback on that, what are the requirements to making UFC 157 article in your opinion? Something more specific than just vaguely pointing to something like WP:NOT would be most helpful, as the different interpretations of notability led us down a two-year edit war before. Therefore, what, in your personal opinion, would be the specific requirements you would find satisfactory to put UFC 157 over the threshold? Beansy (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

"So, I'd like to ask, since you're so eager to explain the ways this article can't be made, what are the requirements to making UFC 157 article in your opinion? Something more specific than just vaguely pointing to something like WP:NOT would be most helpful, as the different interpretations of notability led us down a two-year edit war before." Yeah its funny how little some of these editors are actually interested in improving UFC coverage on Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed on older MMA record tables

Hey folks, i've been working on some of the older MMA articles, updating them to the current version of the MMA results table. Lee Hasdell is probably the best example of what i'm struggling with that i've found so far. In his MMA record table he has 8 fights that are sourced in the notes, but the fights are not listed on sherdog, and some of the sources are terrible. I guess my basic question is, what do we do if a fight is not listed on sherdog? Is there a go to list of acceptable alternative sources for fight records, or is it case by case? Kevlar (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I usually remove results not included in Sherdog on sight. But since these ones in particular have sources, you can tag them with something like {{Refimprove}} or {{Verify credibility}} and start a discussion on the article's talk page. If no one complains or remove the tags (with a good reason, of course) after a fair amount of time, then you should just remove them to conform with the standard reference (Sherdog). Poison Whiskey 20:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Guys like Hasdell are more an exception to the rule, as Sherdog doesn't count many of the RINGS events, since some of them are known to have been works. All the RINGS fights (both shoots and works) are listed on prowrestlinghistory.com, but I go off of a case-by-case scenario, only use those that were from tournaments or title bouts (see Masayuki Naruse). Not sure what the overall Wiki policy is on that, especially since Sherdog lists some works as well (Coleman-Takada, for example) Luchuslu (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Good catch, RINGS was also a pro wrestling promotion. You should remove all pro wrestling results from the MMA record table. Poison Whiskey 14:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll go through Lee Hasdell's record table sometime tonight and straighten it out. Luchuslu (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

RINGS most definitely promoted MMA fights as well. Beansy (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I should mention that the database at http://www.mixedmartialarts.com is also considered reliable (if not as complete as Sherdog), and is technically the official database for the Association of Boxing Commissions, which is the unifying body for all American and Canadian state and tribal athletic commissions. It is also, along with Sherdog, one of the two databases that are considered acceptable verification by the UFC when applying to be on The Ultimate Fighter. This is made clear on the show's application form. Lee Hasdell's wikipedia record seems to include fights not in either database though (although it does seem to list a few fights for him that Sherdog does not). Beansy (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

OK - So I reformatted his MMA table to Sherdog's results, plus a bout I found where he won a title. I haven't checked mixed martial arts.com yet, but if someone wants to add those, go for it as long as you source them. Luchuslu (talk) 12:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment — I would agree with mixedmartialarts.com as an alternative source to the MMA record (or even as the main source, replacing Sherdog). But i think it would be better to discuss this in another (new) section. Poison Whiskey 14:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Help watching an article?

Hi! I need some help watching an article, Daniel Puder. I came across it because someone (User:DanielPuder) purporting to be the subject of the article has been adding promotional content to Wikipedia in the original article and for other articles. His edits have been either wildly promotional or to remove things by saying "I'm Daniel Puder and this is all false" without discussing anything on the talk page of his article. I've left a warning about the advertising and COI editing on his page, as well as recommending that he come here to request any help editing the article. I would appreciate some more eyes watching the page just in case. His edits have been fairly bad so far, but I'd like to give a slight benefit of the doubt since nobody has given him any warnings or attempts to inform him about Wikipedia policies. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:00, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The user in question is actually inactive since 2011. Yet, an IP was claiming to be Puder and has done similar edits recently. I'll pass by their talk page and deliver a warning, but if they insist, wouldn't be better to bring it to WP:COI/N? Poison Whiskey 13:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Strikeforce

Should this event be listed here? It does appear here but not on the previously mentioned wikipedia list so i was confused if there was a good reason or an oversight. Kevlar (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Listed notability guidelines

Forgive me if this is nitpicking, but I feel like there is something of a disagreement between what is presented as fighter notability as listed in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) article and what is listed for the wikiproject Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability.

On the notability sports page, it lists two criteria that provide a presumption of notability if either one were fulfilled. Under the project page, there are much broader suggestions, which only infer that they weigh for or against notability. It mentions the two criteria that are listed on the sports page, but now only says that they just support notability. There is no mention of a presumption, and it would appear to be suggesting that each fighter should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

Personally, I think that the criteria listed on the project page is preferable to the notability sports article, as the latter almost seems to suggest that notability is both assumed and inheritable merely by being involved a few times with a certain organization. But I don't think my or anyone else's opinion is likely as important as just bringing a greater congruence between these two areas of suggested guidelines, whatever that may be.

With editors already needing to consider WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BASIC, among other things, they last thing they likely need is a muddled clarity when it comes to notability guidelines as specific to MMA. Buddy23Lee (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The specific notability guideline for MMA fighters evolved as a response to the need to draw up specific rules for MMA fighter biographies that both were reasonable and at the same time had some level of selectivity in terms of which bios are patently notable when judged by the criteria, and which ones require a proper discussion and evaluation of consensus to determine what should be done with the bio. Hasteur (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Serial flag icon adder

This editor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Silva184) is a serial flag icon adder. I already warned them on their talk page, but it was ignored and they started reverting edits. Just wanted to let folks know. Udar55 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

TUF 18 added

With the premiere just over a week away, I felt it was time to add the The Ultimate Fighter: Team Rousey vs. Team Tate entry. Feel free to update. Udar55 (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject watchlist expired

The watchlist in the external links section of the project page links to an expired page.--Phospheros (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting in contact with the person who wrote it to see what the deal is, but this isn't explicitly MMA based, but related to the toolserver account being suspended? Hasteur (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I've updated the link to point to Tim1357's clone.--Phospheros (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Ronald Jhun

A discussion has been launched about improving the above mentioned article at Talk:Ronald Jhun. As the primary project to support this page any help would be greatly appreciated. Hasteur (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of MMA-Manifesto.com as a source

I've seen MMA-Manifesto.com used as a source for fighter salaries before, usually from UFC events, and I'd like to strongly discourage it. They regularly release what are actually estimates for UFC event salaries in jurisdictions where the athletic commission doesn't publicly release salaries themselves (or for overseas UFC events in places where there is no commission), and occasionally other news sources parrot this, albeit usually with attribution. The problem is their figures from events where figures aren't disclosed are only a guess and from what I can tell even the guess on salaries are very often erroneous (they take whatever the last actually publicly released salary of someone was for most fighters, and just put down $6k + $6k for entry-level fighters, both of which very often lead to incorrect figures for multiple reasons). I'd strongly encourage people not to use them as a source and to remove or fix any information attributed to them. There are a number of reliable news sites that release legitimate salary information when athletic commissions publicly disclose them that can be used. If they're not released, don't use MMA-Manifesto's guesses. If anything just say that fighter purses were not publicly released for that event. Beansy (talk) 07:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Inaugural L2 Research Hackathon

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Labs2/Hackathons/November_9th,_2013
Not MMA, but i thought i would bring it to everyone's attention anyway. Wondering if anyone is thinking of attending this. i do plan to go to one of them, i'm basically right in between Minneapolis, MN and Evanston, IL so could go to either, if anyone's thinking of going but has a preference let me know and i'll go to that one. Thought it might be interesting to go to lunch and or have a beer with some fellow WP:MMAers. Kevlar (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not to rain on your parade but Wikipedia is considered something of a joke in the elite tech community: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6581533. It works OK as a basic tool by itself, but judging by the remarks at YCombinator what happened here in MMA is a concentrated microcosm of what befalls domain experts sooner or later. A debilitating and bumbling bureaucracy is no place for creative and talented people. 75.165.4.194 (talk) 09:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  - I don't have the tech skills to go to any event involving the elite tech community. I just hope it will be fun to meet some nerds, learn some stuff and have a beer or two after. Kevlar (talk) 14:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  - Crowdsourcing itself has been a hot topic for conferences so look into those if you have interest. I would expect a better audience at those than would bother showing up at a wiki-centric meetup. 75.165.4.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

New articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/New articles has been created. Please feel free to tweak the rules, or edit the page as much as needed. Kevlar (talk) 04:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Making ONE FC a Top-Tier MMA Organization

ONE FC is going from strength to strength and seems to be universally regarded as the biggest / number one MMA organization in Asia. (can provide numerous links from major MMA websites and national newspapers as evidence if necessary?) The shows attract crowds of up to 20,000, much bigger than Bellator has ever achieved, and the roster is much stronger than Shooto and has established stars like Bibiano Fernandes, Shinya Aoki, Melvin Manhoef, Andrei Arlovski etc. Plus ONE FC is broadcast all over Asia by Star Sports. The mainstream media in multiple countries inside and outside Asia seems to regard it as a top tier MMA organization so why doesn't Wikipedia?

Sadoka74 (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Needed: Links from independent sources (not PR/Advertising), Link to the organization so editors not hip deep can take a look. Don't try to use the "But XYZZY is top tier so YZZYX should be top tier" argument. All that does is demonstrate the weakness of the argument. Each promotion to top tier should be evaluated only on the merits of that promotion, not on it's relative strength against other promotions. Hasteur (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As WP:MMATIER currently reads, you would first need to find some independent top 10 lists that have a number of ONE Fighting Championship fighters on them. "Active organizations with multiple fighters ranked in the top 10 in any of the 8 weight classes were placed in the top tier." Kevlar (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It's not the crowds they draw, or their media exposure, or their revenue, it's their credibility that establishes if they are a Top-Tier organization. I'm not inherently opposed to making ONE FC a top-tier organization but I think you need to follow the guidelines. While making this post, I looked through the Top 10s on Sherdog, MMAJunkie, ESPN, the USA Today/SBNation meta-rankings, FightMatrix, mmarocks.pl, MMAWeekly, and Globo Esporte, which I think covers all the major rankings and then some. Bibiano Fernandes showed up on all of them except Sherdog's. However, he was the only current ONE FC fighter to show up on any (Tatsuya Kawajiri also showed up on at least one list as a "ONE FC" fighter, but he just signed with the UFC and hasn't actually fought for ONE FC since March of 2012 anyway, so I'd say he obviously doesn't count). I'm sorry, but I don't think they quite qualify under the current rules. If you can produce rankings from a non-obscure source where ONE FC meets the "multiple Top 10 fighters" criteria, I might reevaluate my opinion I suppose. Beansy (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Abbreviation of names of states in tables

Not 100% sure on the Wikiproject rules, but Wikipedia generally doesn't use abbreviations for states and provinces, or treat the UK nations separately from the state. Going through a few articles, it seems MMA results generally don't either. So maybe keep an eye on this IP? I've reverted one that was on my watchlist, but the top heavyweights are still affected. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I left a note on the editor's talk page asking them to participate in this discussion. I am not aware of anything specific to the MMA project or Wikipedia in general about this issue except that we shouldn't use abbreviations unless it's really needed in order to save space. I imagine that a lot of readers are not familiar with US abbreviations for state names so using them just makes the tables a little less friendly. It also does not appear that using these abbreviations is really all that useful or necessary to save space.

Update. Using state abbreviations can make the tables smaller (going from two rows to one) as seen here: abbreviations vs. no abbreviations. But I'm not sure how much of this is dependent on user settings and screen sizes. SQGibbon (talk) 21:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for discussing this, rather than reverting everything, like some robots do. Yes, primarily to reduce the verbosity in the tables, since that column is often the busiest, and does not need to be. I've also abbreviated the months, which is supported by the dts template and therefore acceptable. I reckon the name of the city is good enough for the Location column, and by providing a link, it's just one click away from, "Oh, that's where it is." Thoughts? 110.32.169.30 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If the abbreviations would always reduce tables from two rows to one then I might be more inclined to embrace it. Requiring readers to click on a link just to find out what an abbreviation means is definitely a bad thing. Clicking through should be for finding out more information about that topic; not for figuring out what the topic is. For me, based on these two considerations, I am inclined to oppose the abbreviations for state names. I haven't thought much about abbreviating months but I'm pretty sure that anyone who is fluent enough in English to read the English encyclopedia would be familiar enough with them. SQGibbon (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

On my screen, only the last Velasquez fight in Houston changes size, the rest are one row, either way. The MoS on Abbreviations says "Postal codes and abbreviations of place names (e.g. Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks (Yorkshire) should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text."

Not exactly clear what "normal text" is. Regardless, a bit confusing, especially for non-Americans, and confusion is frowned upon. ME, MI, MO, MA, MB, MN, MS, meh. Readers could click the link to learn the state, but that seems a bit distracting. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm guessing that "normal text" would be text in the main body of the article, i.e., not tables and infoboxes. Still, your point about the "M" states makes it clear that even for a native to the US, figuring out what a particular abbreviation means would require clicking on the link which as I state above I think is far greater sin than possibly having two rows in these tables. SQGibbon (talk) 23:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Since we're talking about the location field I might as well say something about that. I've always been bothered by tables that have more information than they are minimally required to in order to fulfill their function. So my question is, is the location needed at all? For notable events a reader can click through to see where that event occurred if for some reason they are interested in that detail. But even if the event is not notable enough to have an article what more information is being made available to the reader about the results of the subject's fights by knowing that the fight was in Mesquite, Texas, United States? Or if the consensus view is that the location is important to understanding who won the fight do we need the city? The state? Or perhaps would just having the country suffice? SQGibbon (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I've found state/province/territory names useful is result lists, just to better visualize where a promotion/fighter has been through time. Easier to remember where larger regions are than specific cities. Easier to do in one glance than by clicking each row. I mainly do it with wrestling results, since their frequency makes them easier to track, but UFC is really starting to tour lately, in all corners of the world. This will lead to new unfamiliar abbreviations, and to new "foreign" viewers wanting to learn more about the fighters' histories and coming here, where at least a few will think Anaheim is in Canada.

I've found state/province/territory names useful is result lists, just to better visualize where a promotion/fighter has been through time. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's not relevant to the point of the table which is to be a record of fights and their results, it's not useful to know that a fight was in El Paso Texas to know that fighter X won via KO. But I have yet another compromise solution below. SQGibbon (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Or not. Not a big deal to me, just weird enough to bring up because you don't see it in any "normal text". InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

As a note Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) seems to be the section of WP:MOS that speaks to this topic. It does not specifically discourage abbreviating in all cases. The two times that it does mention abbreviations, for Australia and Italy, it does discourage the use of abbreviations. Another place we could look for guidance would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography. Kevlar (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

UFC's pretty busy in Australia, and will probably crack Italy soon. We'd have to choose between mild inconsistency or mild rule-breaking for guys like James Te Huna and whoever fills Sakara's spot. I'd rather the rule-breaking. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so relevant points are:

Condensing multi-row rows into a single row. This is a worthy target, but in reality text size and screen size are difficult to cater to, which is why large tables should have condensed text, wherever reasonable and consistent, e.g. "UFC 167" instead of "UFC 167: St-Pierre vs. Hendricks". I vote the abbreviation of names of states is reasonable in this context.
"Requiring readers to click on a link just to find out what an abbreviation means is definitely a bad thing." In this case, the name of the location (city) is unabbreviated, and it is obvious that what follows is the location of the city in the particular country. It is less relevant which state hosted the event. The reason it is there, is because of ambiguity of names of cities, e.g. Portland, OR, Portland, ME. The link is to the page for the city, where the reader can find out more about where it is located, etc. The abbreviated name of state does not hinder the recognition of the name of the city. Yes, technically it does, but you get what I mean.
WP:MOS: Normal text refers to using the name by itself, e.g. unacceptable to write, "Las Vegas is in NV." I searched the whole article for "Australia" and found one reference to spelling "defense" vs. "defence" and only one other reference to the abbreviation of the currency. I live in Australia now, and you rarely see unabbreviated names of states. Even spoken conversation abbreviates some states, e.g. NSW, WA.
Removal of the column. The column can provide interesting content at a glance for some fighters who fought internationally, e.g. wow, I didn't know Bigfoot started his career in England.

More to the point: the Location column often contains more text than any other column in the table; repetition of unnecessary text. Abbreviating the names of states focuses attention on the name of the city, which if unfamiliar to the reader, contains a link to more information. Thanks for the civil discussion, it's very encouraging! 110.32.169.30 (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm good with whatever most of you are. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how i missed MOS:ABBR before, if i'm reading that right there are some countries that we can abbreviate but states/territories are still discouraged. Kevlar (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

“

Postal codes and abbreviations of place names (e.g. Calif. (California), TX (Texas), Yorks (Yorkshire) should not be used to stand in for the full names in normal text. The practice is common when specifying places of publication in source citations, especially after the first occurrence.

”

Already addressed above. When they say "normal text", they must mean general sentences/phrases, otherwise every instance of written English can be construed as normal text. 110.32.169.30 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Could be a way to distinguish from markup text or reference formatting. Or maybe it means all text unless there are abnormal circumstances to consider (maybe a row space issue, like here). Just guesses, though. I'll try asking who wrote it. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The edit was made almost seven years ago, but the editor is apparently still active. Left him a question. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

And here is his answer. Also some tips for saving table space. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

That conversation looked promising, but finally hedged on the pros and cons, and is not definitive either way. It is clear that what follows the name of the city is the location of the city, and it is not within the scope of the MMA fighter record table to ensure that the location of the city is known at first glance to every reader. It's not like we are abbreviating Los Angeles to LA. On the other hand, it allows much neater content in the table and in some cases, more compact rows. If there are no other objections, I reckon this has been enough discussion. 110.32.166.253 (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

While I'm still not convinced that the location is needed at all in a table that is a record of fights there are a couple of things we could do.

1) Since there is disagreement about state abbreviations and there is not a clear Wikipedia-wide consensus on this particular issue (with tables) then how about doing as suggest by Rich Farmbrough and abbreviating just the country names? That would help out a lot especially with "United States" which does take up a lot of space where "US" would work just fine. And anyone reading the article will know what "US" refers to (as opposed to ME which even people born in the US probably don't know what state it refers to).

2) Just put the country in that spot. This would still show the reader where a fighter has fought (just domestically or internationally) which some people might find interesting.

3) I still firmly believe that requiring readers to click on a link just to figure out what is being referred to is contrary to how an encyclopedia like this should be constructed. Clicking through should be reserved for explaining what something is, not telling you the common name for it. If listing the full name of the state creates such a problem with spacing then maybe we should reconsider whether it should be listed at all (as above).

4) Given that different browsers on different systems will render these tables different is it really necessary to reduce the number of rows to one for some readers? Also, since the tables generally occur at, or near, the bottom of the article is it really that big of a deal? If the first section of an article was this table then by all means we should find ways to minimize the size but is it really that big of a deal given where the tables are actually located? SQGibbon (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Good compromise. This won't help much in cases such as Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA, Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA. There may have been only a few events in these places, but one instance is enough to expand the column width unnecessarily.

2. How about just put the city in that spot. It's more information than just the country, and if the reader wants to learn more, they click the link. Although I vote city + country.

3. We are not requiring readers to click the link just to figure out what is being referred to. It is clear that what follows the name of the city is the location of the city. The link is appropriate and sufficient.

4. This is not the target of the exercise; it is a probable bonus consequence. The target of the exercise is to reduce the clutter in that column, especially in the larger records, e.g. GSP's plethora of Canadas and United States camouflage the actual locations. And additionally, reduce the size of the table and/or provide the saved space to the columns that need it, e.g. Opponent, Event, Method. 110.32.166.253 (talk) 11:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

1. So we can all agree on the three letter format for country names? E.g., USA, CAN, BRA, etc.?

2. If we include just the city and no state then there will be confusion when the same city name occurs in more than one state.

3. "We are not requiring readers to click the link just to figure out what is being referred to." When state abbreviations are confusing for even natives of the US, then yes we are. "It is clear that what follows the name of the city is the location of the city." Except that it's not clear in what state the city is in.

4. "This is not the target of the exercise; it is a probable bonus consequence. The target of the exercise is to reduce the clutter in that column, especially in the larger records," Then why not just the country name? The 3-letter country name? SQGibbon (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I can only surmise that the usual wikicrats haven't come to stupify this debate because they can't understand what's being discussed, though that isn't something which necessarily discourages the dunning kruger archetypes. You should just be bold and take the initiative fix it to a reasonable standard as this is a case where consistency trumps specific formatting before they start to believe otherwise. 71.212.32.88 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

WSOF event articles

I see that articles are being created for every World Series of Fighting event. These articles appear to be merely a listing of the fight results. Rather than put them up for AfD, I was thinking it would be better to either list the events in the WSOF article or create a "List of WSOF events" page. I would appreciate the suggestions of other editors. Papaursa (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I would definitely go with omnibus articles, and break them up by year, maybe combining 2012 and 2013 since only the inaugural event was in 2012. A separate "List of WSOF events" could just list the events by name, date, and location, and link to the events within the omnibus articles. Beansy (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
My understanding was that we (sort of) agreed that omnibus articles were where all events should technically start no matter where the promotion is on WP:MMATIER. Then events would be discussed before being WP:SPLIT. I would support an omnibus for the WSOF event articles, as it would more than likely retain all of the content. I'm also going to leave a message on User:JMichael22's talk page to bring him into this discussion and invite him to join the wikiProject. It can be a real kick to the nuts to log in and see that 8 articles you've created/put a bunch of time into are being AfDed, even though that's not what it looks like we are looking to do, it will still feel the same. In my opinion he's done everything 99.9999% right, and looks like the exact kind of editor we would want to have be part of the team. Kevlar (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi!! I understand everything I just thought since they are single events I thought they should have their own pages like the UFC events do but I understand if things need to change I actually first thought of the 2012 and 2013 event pages but since only one event took place in 2012 I figured solo pages would be best please let me know what your final decision will be thanks JMichael22 (talk) 18:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Welcome JMichael22! OK, so it looks like we are all on board to merge these articles. It looks to me like we took care of step I, of Wikipedia:Merging so to take care of step II i've gone ahead and added the Move template to WSOF:1 to be moved to 2012 in World Series of Fighting and the Merge templates to the others to be merged to 2013 in World Series of Fighting with the merge discussions for them all happening here. On to step III to move the discussion to the appropriate pages. Kevlar (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, I also wanted to know if you knew how to get the event posters for the WSOF events JMichael22 (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Nice to see agreement reached so readily. Papaursa (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Kind of late to all this, but I want to chyme in and say I agree that it's really nice to see a civil discussion about how to deal with stuff like this instead of someone immediately exercising the deletion option. I hope this is the predominant trend in the future in WP:MMA. Beansy (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Mixed martial arts

I think the Biggest MMA names section of the Mixed martial arts article should be removed as unsourced fancruft. I was going to do it myself but thought I'd check here first. Thoughts? --Phospheros (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. A section like that could exist if it was sourced and discussed those people and what made them "big names". We would need to establish some criteria for belonging to that group which would of course open up a whole new can of worms. SQGibbon (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Sections like this are really difficult to quantify. In addition to this section there are "Notable Fighter" sections in many of the articles on individual MMA Promotions (example: Pride). I always wondered how people picked what fighters were "notable". Kevlar (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability change notice

A proposed change to the MMA Fighter notability has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 8#Changing Notability. Please review the discussion and feel free to comment if you think it is appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

World Mixed Martial Arts Association

A section has been added to Mixed martial arts under the Legality of professional competitions which reads like a press release and makes unsubstantiated claims: "World MMA Association is the only organization that manages and develops mixed martial arts in the world, establishes rules and procedures governing amateur MMA competitions. World MMA Association includes national MMA organizations, representing the sport and registered in accordance with national law."

A news search on the org. only brings up a couple articles from Azerbaijan talking about the first event promoted by the WMMAA in Baku. This strikes me more as an attempt at advertising than anything else. Thoughts?--Phospheros (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the blatant copyright violation and turned an external link into an actual reference. I do agree that the opening text reads like an advertisement and I suspect it's probably a copyright violation as well but a cursory look did not reveal anything. The section needs more work. SQGibbon (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to User Study

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC).

Should Womens MMA get a separate article?

Does anyone think that Women's Mixed Martial arts should get a separate article or not I think its notable.Dwanyewest (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really "work here" lately, but I don't see the point. Genitals aside, the women play the same sport, by the same rules (aside froms shirts and jockstraps), in the same promotions (other than Invicta). Seems a bit pointless to distinguish the topics. Different for sports with separate leagues and collegiate systems. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's weird. The article was redlinked before I posted, and blue after. Guess it's a moot point. Won't argue for deletion. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Moved it slightly, just for capitalization. If there was a Women's Ultimate Fighting Championship, caps would work. Not for generic sports, like mixed martial arts, baseball or rugby. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I also think Women's MMA should redirect to Women's Mixed Martial arts as I think its a common abbreviation for the subject. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Reversed Asian names.

Is there a policy (MMA or general) about whether we spell Asian fighters' names frontwards or backwards? We have Takanori Gomi, but Zhang Tiequan, and The Ultimate Fighter: China goes one way for the contestants and the other for the UFC guys and coaches. If there's no policy, can we agree to write in English, for this English encyclopedia? InedibleHulk (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:JATITLE, we always should use the ocidental order (given name + family name) for modern people (born after 1868). However, this only applies to Japanese people. It may be also worth looking at WP:MOSCHINA. Poison Whiskey 14:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Korean names also seem totally Westernized here, MMA and otherwise. Seems odd to hold Chinese to a different standard. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The policy for ALL articles is to use the English common name as used by most reliable English-language sources that cover the subject. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:EN. When an entity doesn't have an established common name in English, then it is favored the name used in other Latin-character based languages or where the majority of sources cover said entity. When those also do not have an established common name, then the specific guidelines for each language apply. In the case of Zhang, his name should be reversed since the majority of reliable English sources use Tiequan Zhang and I believe there is an established use of that name in them. When in doubt, remember that WP:AT is a policy, so it has precedence over all Manuals of Styles and most other guidelines. Jfgslo (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, for titles. For the names in the TUF: China article, AT and COMMONNAME don't hold so much weight. At that article, another editor and I've decided to use whatever style UFC uses, since the secondaries are a bit of a mixed bag. Less consistent in text, but more consistently sourced.

I agree the policy strongly suggests we should have a Tiequan Zhang article instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You are right, fighters in the TUF: China most likely don't have enough notability to have their own article yet, so here naming conventions (WP:EN) and MoS guidelines apply. Checking the history of Zhang, the article was created in 2010, before he was fighting in the UFC or even WEF, so there wasn't much coverage in English sources, so his article title was correct at the time, although I'm not sure about his inclusion in Wikipedia since I don't think he met notability at the time. Anyway, you can do the move yourself if you want to. Check WP:MV. If you are unable, you can request the move at WP:RMT. I think it would be an uncontroversial technical request. Jfgslo (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe soon. I've got a bit on my Wikiplate at the moment. Seems potentially controversial, but no, probably not very. If you want to beat me to it, go nuts. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Mike Pyle's Wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pyle_(fighter)
A thread was created on Reddit about the wiki page of Mike Pyle that peaked my interest.
The revision in question:
Revision as of 02:17, 20 February 2014 (edit)Dickmuncher102
This http://i.imgur.com/EifYmrV.jpg (Grabbed from the Reddit thread) is the image in question.
Wiki code: File:Hector_2014-02-19_20-14.jpg
I removed it.

I am guessing its a joke or some type of smear.
Niklas9999 (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The editor went on quite a spree vandalizing a number of articles but has been blocked and all their edits reverted. SQGibbon (talk) 21:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Awakeningfighters.com

A new editor is adding links to awakeningfighters.com to the articles of women MMA fighters in the External Links sections. Apparently the website exists to promote women's professional MMA fighting. I think this is admirable and wish them the best but I wonder if adding them to all these articles is justified. Is this considered a notable or reliable source? Does it provide any objective information (like stats) that Sherdog does not? We do not link to every site that provides fighter profiles because there are so many and it would be redundant and of little value. The editor is clearly spamming the site (not maliciously, I believe) and I am going to leave them a note about that (and possible conflict of interest issues) and invite them to this discussion. WP:MMA mentions three external links: Sherdog, official site, profile on whatever promotion they are part of. I don't know if this means that other external links are forbidden but in general, and as per WP:ELNO we are to keep links in this section to a minimum (and there's nothing wrong with not having any). Thoughts? SQGibbon (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm the new editor in question and I thank you for sending me the personal message to join the conversation. Bare with me, I am new. A little background on me - I have always wanted to contribute to wiki but never really had a purpose before, until fairly recently. My daughter is a muay thai fighter and Awakening Fighters contacted her coach a few months ago, with an interest of getting info for her profile on their site. After they made her profile, it was shared and she started receiving new fight offers! I'm grateful to them, I see the relevance of having such a site listed in External Links. My plan was/is to pop on for a bit each night and add some of their info to the wiki female fighters profiles. As well as External Links, I have also been adding Style, Weight class, Reach, Rank - these aren't listed by Sherdog (with the exception of weightclass). As Awakening Fighters lists all female martial art styles as far as I can see, I was going to do the WMMA fighters first, then go through the female boxers and then female kickboxers filling in some of the gaps. At a later stage, I hope to learn how to add written parts to the Bio sections as Awakening Fighters also have interesting stuff that other sites don't. Right now I only feel competent to add the simple stuff, but I do aim to come back through the pages twice. I hope you can agree the relevance of their site because I'm enjoying my new hobby!Marajade75 (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Further standardization of WP:MMABOX

I'd like to propose the standardization for all fields in the Box. We currently have not standardized on Date format and the value to be provided if fields are left empty. Since the Notes field is optional I propose it can be left empty, all other fields should contain N/A when they are not known. Dstrange (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Please don't let the tail wag the dog. How dates are shown in Wikipedia is determined according to rules elaborated in WP:MOSNUM, to ensure that date formats within an article are uniform. It is not within the province of any project to unilaterally declare date formats for any article or part thereof, as was done here, here, here and here. The dates inside wikitables, which were uniformly in dmy, were all flipped and rendered inconsistent with the rest of the article; furthermore, many of the subjects are British and Australian respectively, and thus should be entirely dmy per WP:TIES; those that were already consistent should not have some dates arbitrarily changed. It would be appreciated it if you would restore the date formats you changed where there was already an established or prevailing style.
I will not comment about the other standardisation measures proposed. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 04:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not an attempt of tail wagging the dog, the data point was brought up by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tam_Khan#Date_format to which I immediately opened this discussion here. Out of 1457 fighters a small percentage contained dmy so I began updating them to the majority. All of the examples you listed display MDY on their official sites for records. example:http://www.fedoremelianenko.tv/eng/fightstats/ and http://georgesots.com/category/tuf-episodes/ and http://www.ianschaffa.com/team.html Dstrange (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Date formats should generally follow MoS conventions such as MOS:DATEUNIFY. For example, US style may be consistent for an American MMA biography, but disruptively inconsistent and inappropriate for most other nationalities e.g. an Australian or British subject. As for other fields, "N/A" seems a reasonable placeholder value. Dl2000 (talk) 05:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Would Vitor Belfort be US mdy or dmy and in contrast Alistair Overeem be dmy instead of mdy. Dstrange (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Vitor Belfort and Alistair Overeem are not at issue because you did not go and arbitrarily change the date format thus affecting the presentation of the article. I would have no issue with changing date formats if they were for American topics, or if the dates were otherwise not consistently mdy already. What you did was to take an external source and used that to justify date formats in ONE SECTION of a bunch of articles, and by doing so falling foul of the consistency requirement in MOSNUM (because they were mostly consistently dmy before you changed them). Whilst wikipedia rightly insists on citing sources for what we put into articles, we do not adopt a source-based approach in matters of style. WP:MOSNUM defines the rules that should be followed for dates. There is no project-based consistency on date formats, nor requirement for same, AFAIK. You were rightly challenged at Tam Khan. Would you be so kind as to revert the relevant changes identified as arbitrary? Thanks and regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I concur that date formats in these boxes should follow the formats used in their respective articles. Though some MMA websites may use mdy, it isn't a situation like the US military where dmy is specifically preferred by the organization over the norm for the country. As far as I know there is no standard date format used across multiple MMA promotions, and there's no reason to impose a single one on articles for fighters of different nationalities. Nick Number (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

sources for fighter notablity

I'm trying to source Ryan Chiappe, a rising star in Canadian/BC MMA, and have read the notability guidelines..... a lot of MMA reporting is not to be found in national and international newspapers, which largely ignore the sport. I note the only cite on Bill Mahood (also from Prince George BC) is from sherdog.com..... prob the same on other bios. And what's a top tier organization as stated in the notability guideline; Chiappe has been in Extreme Fighting Championships (XFC), King of the Cage Canada, and I'm not sure what else at this point; he is now with Battlefield Fight League - are those all "top tier" (I know KOTC is but the current page there and the events page is all about the US) and has been appointed Director for Recruitment for BC's contingent for selection of a national MMA team for the Canadian Mixed Martial Arts Federation. That notable enough?Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Another rising Canadian fighter is Collin Baikie of Labrador, google here and note that the CBC items, though of a national network, may be only regional in coverage/access. The other news cite for him is The Labradoran which is the main newspaper in Labrador, but is not national in scope.Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

So re citations, sherdog.com, tapology.com and mmafighting.com and the like are usable as cites or not?Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Top tier promotions are here. King of the Cage is second-tier. The sites you list are good for citing facts once an article exists, but not for establishing notability in the first place. Like you say, not much significant coverage in news sources. I don't think these guys are ready for Wikipedia. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know about OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but I don't see three top tier bouts on Bill Mahood. Which as implied is cited only by sherdog.com. In Canada these guys are notable, as is KOTC (given the way the big media ignore these sports - though local papers do cover them - I'd say an adjustment to the guidelines is needed, or nobody will be notable unless they're in the NYT or the Globe & Mail, and other than Georges St. Pierre and certain others with a media profile beyond the sport, that's just not gonna happen anytime soon; Sports Illustrated doesn't even cover the sport (much? - or maybe?). I think Chiappe had some talks with Bellator but he's with Battlefield Fight League now. The club he's affiliated with is Revolution Fight Club, easily the most notable MMA club in BC; both he and Baikie are also with TriStar Gym in Montreal, which if it doesn't have an article definitely should. Other than Shooto the top tier orgs seem USian; granted as with most pro sports the US is the driving market; are there no European orgs (or other Asian orgs than Shooto) that are 'top tier'? Not the Philippines Extreme Fighting Championship, I think it's called (PXC is the acronym I think). Nothing in Brazil?Skookum1 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Mahood's article is definitely messed up hard. Where's the body? Anyway, the meat of general notability is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. If any of these fighters is notable for non-MMA reasons, and you find that in local sources, you may have a case, despite the lack of top-tier fights. As for Sports Illustrated, it still covers the fight game. And Tristar Gym (lowercase s) has an article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Should this article exist?

Fight Force I don't believe is a notable organisation what does everyone else think? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If Fight Force is as "premier" as this says, it should have a source. If it's not, this shouldn't exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Israel Fighting Championship seems another dubious organisation I think I have used basic sources to make EFC Africa notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Instinct MMA and Cage Wars I think should be deleted too there seems to be quite a few dodgy MMA organisations that shouldn't exist. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Making ONE Fighting Championship a Top-Tier MMA Organization

I would say that One Fighting Championship now meets all of the criteria to be a top tier organization. This article was on the front page of the New York Times last week ^[1] this article was on the BBC recently ^[2] and coverage of ONE FC in national newspapers in Asia is routine, I would say the only promotion in the world which gets a similar level of publicity is the UFC so ONE FC more than meets criteria 1.

ONE FC has promoted 14 events so far, twice as many as Invicta FC and has two more booked before June so meet criteria 2 and the first event was in September, 2011 so it is older than top tier ranked Invicta FC and therefore meets criteria 3.

In terms of criteria 4 www.fightmatrix.com has Ben Askren ranked as the #8 welterweight and Bibiano Fernandes ranked as the #3 bantamweight, www.mmaweekly.com has Askren at #9 and Fernandes at #4, www.mmajunkie.com has Askren at #8 and Fernandes at #7 so ONE FC has multiple fighters ranked in the top ten in their division.

For the reasons stated above I think ONE FC should be promoted to a top tier MMA organization. In addition it is widely regarded as being the number one organization in Asia, I don't know exactly what criteria this fits into, but Asia is an enormous area and I think this should count for something. Sadoka74 (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Now that ONE FC had done more events and signed more top ten fighters it meets all the criteria to be a top ten organization.Werda66 (talk) 10:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep. They basically run Southeast (and miscellaneous) Asia with their One FC network. There are other factors, but population-wise, that's about twice the size of UFC's CAN-AM-UK core. If they play their cards right, they could be the top tier promotion soon. As for now, big enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

This should probably be a separate post but a sensible criteria for top tier inclusion would be nomination at the World MMA Awards. Last year the promotion's nominated for 'best promotion' were Bellator MMA, Cage Warriors, One FC, UFC and WSOF. Sadoka74 (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

One FC does not yet meet the criteria for a top tier organization of having multiple top 10 fighters. The standard used is where they last fought which mean Askren is still considered with Bellator until he fights for One FC. Fernandes is not currently ranked in the top 10 by Sherdog which is the ranking used for this purpose. Mdtemp (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I also oppose including it as a top tier because it doesn't meet the standards that have been in use. I have removed it from the top tier listing because decisions like this require consensus and editors must have a chance to comment. Papaursa (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize the discussion was already over.Mdtemp (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

where does it state sherdog is the only ranking which counts? I thought it was consensus from various independent rankings like MMA Weekly, MMA Fighting etc Sadoka74 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In earlier discussions (several years ago) it was decided to only use only 1 ranking since there are lots of MMA sites and Sherdog is the best known. I believe that One FC will become top tier, it's just not quite there yet (unless you can find some other top ranked fighters). I'm just trying to keep the standards consistent with the previous decisions. Mdtemp (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Several years ago is a long time. If we're having a new discussion, I think it's unfair to give such weight to one secondary source. Weekly, Fighting and Junkie (they'd have a great name if they merged) have paid their dues. We shouldn't be UFC or Sherdog-centric. Too many cooks spoil a broth, but one cook can easily poison it. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Unless you have a good reason, I don't see a need to change the existing criteria--and I don't think a good reason is "not getting the results I want." If it's truly top tier, it shouldn't be that hard to find multiple high ranking fighters. If you can't, it probably means the organization is not on the same level as the other top tier organizations.Mdtemp (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Where'd you find that quote? I don't even see it paraphrased above. There's stuff about how many events they've held, how big a market they reach and which world-ranked fighters they have. I barely care about results. More about learning why people want what they do.

On that note, any reason promoting One FC is a bad idea, aside from it breaking tradition? (If the tradition really does include ignoring non-Sherdog rankings.) InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not against One FC, I just say it's not ready for top tier status yet (although I do believe it will get there). If you're struggling to find 2 top 10 fighters, how do you claim that it's on the same level as the UFC which has many top 10 fighters? The criteria isn't that stringent--if the organization is truly drawing the world's top fighters, not just an occasional exception. The original assignment of tiers was done by counting top 10 fighters (back when there were more organizations) and is explained at WP:MMATIER. A similar methodology was used for the women's organizations.Mdtemp (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody's struggling. Sadoka named Fernandes and Askren to start us off. There are things to consider besides roster depth. Money, reach, coverage, awards. Things have changed quite a bit since June 2010 (or October 2012, for the ladies).

For example, that month, when consensus was allegedly reached, someone was already arguing that World Victory Road should be top-tier, as "definitely one of the Top 10 MMA Promotions in the world- and I could make the argument that it is Top 5." The one person who responded 17 months later agreed, and also pushed for top-tier BAMMA, Cage Rage and EliteXC. If there's consensus, it's a strange one. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've supplied a bit of history below, but I don't think one crucial fact has changed--top tier organizations have top tier fighters and you only get to be a top level fighter by taking on other top level fighters. Otherwise, you're just a big fish in a little pond. Papaursa (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

As someone who was asked to participate, and took an active role, in the drawing up of the original MMA notability standards I can help explain the discussions and thinking that occurred in 2010. First, let me say that nobody got exactly what they wanted but everybody involved thought the final decisions were reasonable. Sengoku did have several top 10 fighters at that time, as did the other active top tier organizations (UFC, WEC, Shooto, Dream, Strikefore, etc.), so there was no 17 month lag in adding Sengoku. You can see that by looking at the history of the MMA notability page--World Victory Road/Sengoku is listed as top tier back in June, 2010. The discussion started with how to get an objective standard of notability for both fighters and organizations. It was decided that looking at the top 10 fighters as determined by an independent ranking was a good way to do it. The undisputed belief among MMA editors at that time was that a fighter couldn't be considered notable unless he was fighting top flight competition. There were various proposals about how many tiers to have (based on the number of top 10 fighters) and how many top tier fights a fighter needed to have to show he was really competing at the highest level (a general condition for all sports according to WP:NSPORTS). In the end, simplicity carried the day with basically 3 tiers--the third, and unlisted, tier are the organizations that exist and are on WP but are basically local/regional operations. Papaursa (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think OceFC even comes close and although not against promotion in general (I am sure it will happen just as there may be demotions) it should not be done easily and more important not be done retroactive.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that Shooto doesn't belong? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a discussion for a separate section. I should also mention that I checked with an admin about the usual WP policy and he agreed with what Peter Rehse said--notability is not retroactive. That means that when an organization changes tiers, we need to put the dates when that organization was top tier because fights when the organization was second tier do not count towards notability. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the ranking of the fighters should be one of the criteria, not the sole criteria. The UFC has approx 95% of the top ten ranked male sherdog fighters and the only way to break into the top ten is by beating someone else in the top ten, so the current criteria basically means the UFC is the only top tier org. The UFC is quite clearly THE top MMA promotion, but the current criteria makes it impossible for any other promotion to be considered top tier. I think the current sherdog top ten men situation is 1 ONE FC fighter, 4 Bellator fighters, 1 KSW fighter and 74 UFC fightersWerda66 (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that check. You make a reasonable point about the distribution of highly ranked fighters. It's true that the UFC has greatly increased their share of top 10 fighters. However, I'll stick with my earlier comment that you can't be a top tier organization without top tier fighters and fighters can't be considered top tier if they don't fight other top fighters. While it may seem bad to have one very dominant organization, and in some ways it is, it's not different from many other sports that have 1 major league and many minor leagues--is there any doubt that the NBA, NHL, NFL, and MLB are the dominant leagues in their sport? If you were putting together a list of the 10 best basketball players in the world, that list would probably consist only of NBA players. Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

the points people make are very reasonable but what upsets me is when fighters who don't have the prerequisite number of fights for top tier organizations but are very famous in their own right seem to get automatically deleted. For instance Eddie Ng who is very famous in Singapore and Hong Kong and is always in the newspapers (something which can be easily verified) or Kevin Belingon who is the second most famous fighter in the Philippines and is regularly featured in national newspapers and major media there. No-one seems to respect the 'Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations' criteria when deciding whether or not fighters should be deleted. Sadoka74 (talk) 11:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Do Sherilyn Lim and Ann Osman deserve articles?

Sherilyn Lim and Ann Osman get their own MMA articles there seems to be alot third person sources Dwanyewest (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

see

Pioneers of Asian Women’s M.M.A. Step Into the Cage

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/sports/pioneers-of-asian-womens-mma-step-into-the-cage.html

http://time.com/12066/muslim-female-mma-fighter-ann-osman/

http://msn.foxsports.com/ufc/haymaker/ann-osman-balances-mma-religion-as-muslim-female-athletic-pioneer-031114

http://www.thestar.com.my/Lifestyle/People/2014/03/18/Ann-Osman-is-breaking-barriers/

I don't see the notabilty. One has won one fight, the other lost one, then missed weight. The angle these stories take hinges more on gender, race and religion. Human interest, more than sports. We should judge fighters on their professional accomplishments.

Can anyone else read the FOX Sports one? I get a menu blocking everything. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

UFC 41-67

I've been going through all of the UFC events to make sure the results boxes are uniform in their info. Anyway, I noticed that UFC 41-67 are still on the old text results format. Just wanted to give everyone a heads up. I'll be fixing some here and there, but if anyone else wants to bring them over to the box results format, feel free. Udar55 (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Shooto still top tier?

In the previous section, InedibleHulk proposed dropping Shooto from the list of top tier organizations. I suggested that should be discussed separately, so I started this new section. I checked Sherdog's rankings and found none of Shooto's world champions listed. Unless someone can point out some other ranked fighters currently fighting for Shooto, I'd be inclined to support InedibleHulk's proposal. As I mentioned in the previous discussion, if consensus says to demote Shooto we'd need to determine the period of time when Shooto was top tier (or equivalently, say when Shooto stop being top tier). Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the demotion of Shooto to second tier. It seems to have become much more amateur focused. I would recommend leaving its listing under top tier and labeling it as top tier through 2013.Mdtemp (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

And choosing a stop date sets a good precedence for future promotion/terminations. I am generally quite happy with setting a date as close to present as possible since that would have less effect on articles.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Shooto no longer has high ranked fighters — nowadays, it only seems to have some up-and-coming Japanese fighters. I would say that Shooto was top tier probably until ~2010, as the last remarkable fighters (ranking wise) that i can remeber were Hatsu Hioki, Masakatsu Ueda (i don't know if they were ranked in 2010) and the top flyweights (Shooto bantamweights) Shinichi Kojima, Yasuhiro Urushitani and Mamoru Yamaguchi. Jussier Formiga can also be mentioned, but his sole fight in Shooto (Japan) was in 2009. From 2010 until now, he fought only in Brazilian promotions (Shooto Brazil), Tachi Palace Fights and the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Poison Whiskey 12:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Just adding a little research: based on the Sherdog rankings, by the end of 2011 Ueda was ranked #10 in bantamweight, Urushitani was #3 in flyweight, Yamaguchi #4, BJ Kojima #6, Yuki Shoujou and Kiyotaka Shimizu were #7 and #8 respectively. Hioki was ranked #2 in featherweight at this time, but he was already in the UFC (He was #7 in 2010, and his transition to the UFC happened in mid-2011). From 2012 and on, i wasn't able to find a satisfactory number of Shooto fighters regularly in the rankings, so i think 2011 is a reasonable enough limit for Shooto to be considered top tier per WP:MMATIER criteria. Here are the sources -- Sherdog rankings (December 2010); Sherdog rankings (December 2011); Sherdog rankings (December 2012). Poison Whiskey 13:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice research. I knew Shooto met the criteria in 2010. I'll go with Poison Whiskey's date--Shooto was top tier through 2011.Mdtemp (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It appears we have a consensus to call Shooto top tier through 2011. Papaursa (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

TUF 20

Since there is already a wealth of info about The Ultimate Fighter 20, I went ahead and started a page for it. Udar55 (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

spamming for mixedmartialarts.com

Dancadwiki (talk · contribs) has been spamming mixedmartialarts.com into the External Links sections for a bunch of articles on fighters. If the community thinks this website is as notable as Sherdog, please let me know. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO mixedmartialarts.com is reliable as Sherdog... though, having both in the external links section is surely redundant. If i were to choose, i would prefer Sherdog over mixedmartialarts.com. Poison Whiskey 21:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Fight Records

This bullshit about going by what Sherdog says is incredibly obnoxious. If a fight took place & isn't listed on Sherdog but can be proven legitimate then it should be listed here. This site shouldn't just copy & paste all of Sherdog's errors.

If Sherdog lists a fight result as simply submission (choke) & there's information on what type of choke it was somewhere else that should be added & not undone.

Kendall Grove had a fight take place November 10, 2012 that is not listed on Sherdog. There's an article vouching the existence of this fight: http://www.bjpenn.com/just-scrap-returns-to-maui-march-15-ufc-news/ & there's actual video of this fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in5hj9eB6oI

Of course, the fight isn't on Sherdog so it... never happened...? Really? That's just idiotic.

Sherdog also is incredibly inconsistent with the names of submissions. An americana & a kimura are both "keylocks," the kimura is just the reversed form. Yet Sherdog will randomly use either of the three names & commonly get it incorrect. A separate source will give the correct result but will be discarded unjustly.

D'arce/Anaconda/guillotine are also mistaken sometimes even when correctly announced on air & when I try to fix this I get the old "we go by Sherdog here." Wah!? If it's wrong, it's wrong! Same thing for Achilles lock/ankle lock/foot lock/toe hold. People don't seem to know the difference but refuse to accept the corrections.

The Can Opener is the name of a common submission used back in the old age of MMA & for some reason Sherdog will use it 15% of the time; opting to go with the generic "neck crank" more often. Every other site that covers the fight, that this submission takes place, will give it its correct name but Sherdog will not. There's tons of different "neck cranks!" The "can opener" is a specific one. Calling the Americana, Kimura, or Omoplata simply "shoulder lock" on all fights would essentially be the same thing.

I just don't see the point of using incorrect results simply because Sherdog is a big name. If I wanted Sherdog's results, I would go to Sherdog. If I want to see if Sherdog missed something, I want to be able to go here & find out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.148.42 (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The MMA project guidelines state "In the column Method, unless sources within the body text of the article state otherwise, always use the result that is available in a fighter's record at Sherdog Fight Finder...." This means that if you have reliable sources for your information and cite them properly it can be used in lieu of Sherdog. SQGibbon (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Good to hear because whenever I attempt to do this, I get scolded. It's incredibly frustrating. I have provided sources & all I get in return is "Sherdog doesn't say this..." People need to stop undoing edits simply because it's not on Sherdog. It is not helpful. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@24.102.148.42: You've been reverted multiple times because your sources are unreliable or you've used the source improperly. I don't care to investigate your claims but I would be very careful making edits contrary to Sherdog. This WikiProject recognizes Sherdog as the trustworthy source. You may disagree with that but it's not up to you. We welcome your contributions but if your edits don't stand up to scrutiny you're gonna have a bad time. Chris Troutman (talk)

Again, complete bullshit but your reply falls completely in line of the continuous idiocy on here so I'm not surprised. If what you are putting on here is wrong, then it is wrong. If following sherdog blindly is the only reason you continue to make errors then change the goddamn rules. 06:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I mainly do it because the infobox has "MMA fight record from Sherdog". Since there's no citation on the tables, it becomes a de facto citation. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"MMA fight record ~~from Sherdog~~" Problem solved. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Linked to...nothing? Just those three words, sitting there? Sounds cool. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As for the specific Grove vs Cisneros thing, it wasn't sanctioned. Didn't officially happen. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

According to that site, half of Grove's fights are unsanctioned. Either remove all of the "unsanctioned" fights or leave this one alone. As far as I can see, the ONLY reason it keeps getting removed is because Sherdog has made an error & apparently Wikipedia is not a collaboration of a bunch of sites but a strict copy Sherdog's faulty records. I just don't get the reasoning behind WANTING an incorrect system in place. I keep getting the "your sources are not reliable" line when in reality it just means "yours sources are not Sherdog." 24.102.148.42 (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I was just offering it as a reason Sherdog might not count it. Not saying they're correct or not. As long as we claim the record's from Sherdog, it's correct for us to back that claim up with Sherdog. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Remember this is Wikipedia. I would say that anything that is supported by a reliable independent source can be posted, as long as the source is listed. Sherdog has earned a position as the de facto MMA standard, but that doesn't mean it's the only source that can be used. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

As long as we claim the record's from Sherdog in the infobox, the numbers should all add up in a consistent, verfiable way. Let's say Tim Means fights an actual dirty bird in some barnshow next (I hope not). We elbows the crap out of it, some yokel YouTubes a cell video, BJPenn.com links it and we add it to the table.

Now, we've got the infobox saying 20-6, but anyone counting it up will see 21. If we adjust the numbers, that's WP:SYNTH, since the chicken flick doesn't mention his overall record, and the record source doesn't mention the bird. We'd need to use an all-inclusive record listing for the infobox. Or none at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I see your point, but it also gets back to what I was saying. If you claim the record's from Sherdog it should match Sherdog. However, I don't see a problem with putting things into the article (like fights or methods) that are contrary to Sherdog--as long as they're clearly documented and from a reliable source. Papaursa (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

MMA record

I'm new to this, so I'm not even sure I'm commenting in the correct place. But I'd like to make a proposal for allowing future bouts in the MMArecordbox, provided the bout has been officially announced by the hosting organization, a reference to the announcement is included, and fields with undetermined values (ie Res., Record, Method, Round, Time, etc) are left empty.

This would contradict the current guidelines, which state: "Never add future bouts. The purpose of the record table is to provide a quick account of a fighter's past career, not to speculate about his/her future. Upcoming bouts that have been officially announced can only be mentioned within the body text at the end of the Mixed martial arts career section, provided that they are notable (covered by reliable third-party sources.)"

In my opinion, this would be the most ideal place for a person to find information about upcoming bouts for a particular fighter, and shouldn't cause any conflicts with the data for completed bouts. --Txaggiemichael (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Txaggiemichael: Yes, this is the correct place for your question. While I agree that Wikipedia has become a convenient place to look up facts like that, WP:CRYSTAL prohibits future events because of the ephemeral nature of the future. How often do we have reliable sources for these predictions? Yes, I could hear Dana White say that one fighter is going to face some other fighter but everything could (and often does) change. Sticking with what actually happened in the past makes more sense to me. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I get what you're saying, but with that logic, wouldn't that mean we shouldn't be putting the "official fight card" on articles for future events? (ie UFC 173) --Txaggiemichael (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that, too. Typically these events move forward as scheduled and so no massive deletions ever happen. Because of that editors let it go. Editors may agree with your logic regarding the announced fights. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Again, my argument only pertains to those bouts that have been "officially" announced, and are verifiable via the hosting organization. In that sense, it is essentially presenting factual information to the readers, not so much "speculation", in my opinion. I don't mean to sound crass or stubborn, just trying to explain how I think this could benefit the readers. Theoretically, would one simply modify the guidelines on WP:MMA with a detailed description of these altered guidelines? --Txaggiemichael (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a fine idea. Doesn't imply they will certainly happen, only that they're booked. "Card Subject to Change" is more of a rule than standard disclaimer. Wikipedia should relay what the promotion presumes, but not make those presumptions itself. When the card changes, so will the tables. Like any article. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not have a strong opinion on this but I very generally prefer to keep a "record table" as a record of events that have happened. Additionally, while everything is always a slippery slope to somewhere, it seems easier to police the addition of any future event to these tables than to determine the reliability of a cited source.

That said, I think there is nothing wrong with displaying upcoming fights in a prominent manner somewhere in the article (not just in the main text.) Like maybe something in the infobox or an addition to the record table template that makes it very clear this is a future fight subject to change. SQGibbon (talk) 16:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@SQGibbon: While I wouldn't be opposed to moving information about a fighter's next scheduled bout, I'd argue that the recordbox seems the most logical place for this information. Not unlike a schedule for a team sport. --Txaggiemichael (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Txaggiemichael:I just noticed that you changed the WP:MMA project page to reflect your preferred conclusion. You should not have done this as there is no clear consensus to change the guideline. In the event that there is no clear consensus for change we keep the status quo as per WP:CONSENSUS. SQGibbon (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@SQGibbon:Okay, so how do we go about achieving a "clear consensus"? I read WP:CONSENSUS, and honestly, it's a bit vague in what exactly "consensus" means. I was under the impression that the few people involved in this discussion had decided that the proposed change seemed logical. Txaggiemichael (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How did you achieve that impression? I did not say that I agreed with the change and neither did Chris troutman. You and Inedible Hulk want the change. Consensus is not a vote, by the way, but an agreement by involved editors inline with existing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I am not aware of any policies or guidelines that directly affect this issue (beyond things we all agree on like reliable sources and the like, but that's all indirect stuff) so it comes down to achieving an agreement among interested Wikipedians. As I said, I do not have a strong opinion on this but do lean toward not including future fights. Not only is the table a "record" of the fighters' accomplishments but given the nature of the sport fights are cancelled. When dealing with most sports teams schedules are made months in advance and only acts of god prevent a scheduled match from happening. In MMA (and other individual sports) anything can happen including injury, sickness, failing to make weight, contract dispute, retirement, plus all the usual acts of god. Putting a claim like this in a record table is telling the reading public that the fight is going to take place without any implied disclaimers (remember, this is a general encyclopedia and the content is meant for the average person and not for MMA fans). Including an upcoming fight in the main text is a different beast as the prose can be written such that it's clear that the fight might not happen "SQGibbon is scheduled to fight Jimbo Wales Christmas Day 2014" and then when Jimmy chickens out we can provide that explanation with a reliable source. Records tables do not allow for any such nuance or explanation but just present facts.

Additionally, policing records tables is already a full-time job just to keep out the vandalism and other violations of the guidelines. Requiring us to check the source used in an edit to make sure it is an official announcement just adds to the pain-in-the-assness of the whole business.

Finally, like I said, I'm not opposed to including the information somewhere else or even in a special row of the records table that is designed in such a way as to make clear that this is a "scheduled" fight with a clear spot for a link to the official announcement. I agree that it is useful for people to be able to easily find whom a fighter is schedule to fight next but feel that we need to make sure we don't just lump it in with other information in a potentially misleading manner.SQGibbon (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@SQGibbon:Okay, point(s) taken. I definitely agree with your logic on where the information should reside, but definitely feel that scheduled fight information is valuable information that should be displayed somewhere. Where exactly, I don't know. Could there possibly be a precedence for this type of information in other wiki projects? Maybe a separate table, labeled something like "Scheduled Mixed Martial Arts Bouts" would be ideal? Wherever it resides, I think it's important that at very least the scheduled date and event name/wiki article link be displayed as well. Txaggiemichael (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Txaggiemichael: I am not aware of any precedence that directly relates to this. However, two thoughts occur, adding to the MMA records template a new box that is separated from the main table and clearly labelled that can have the content we want or adding the information to the infobox like "most recent result: defeated Jimbo Wales by brain lock \\ next scheduled fight: Jimbo Wales New Years Day 2015" or something that maybe compresses a little better. Just ideas. SQGibbon (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@SQGibbon: @Chris troutman: @InedibleHulk: After pondering over this for a couple days, I am really starting to think the infobox approach seems the most logical for a "Next scheduled fight" value. It would be quickly accessible, very separate from a fighter's record table (which is the primary goal here), and could be displayed in a relatively short, three-point statement: ie. "Next fight: Alexis Davis at UFC 175 on July 5, 2014". Would everyone agree to this proposal? The only reason I might prefer an entirely separate table is that it would allow you to display some of the less-critical information, like geographical location and notes about the fight. Txaggiemichael (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sounds handy to me. Good idea, regardless of the table issue. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Txaggiemichael, SQGibbon, and InedibleHulk: I disagree. The record table is the natural location for this information. Creating another location is counter-intuitive and ultimately redundant. We're trying to be like Britannica and if they discuss a fighter they don't discuss the next fight. WP:CRYSTAL is about sticking to what happened, not being forward-looking. This infobox idea is also out of step with the rest of Wikipedia. Finally, this discussion is too small to develop a real consensus. (I can only assume the rest of this WikiProject is busy watching old Shooto fights.) You'd need to start an RfC to get a definitive answer. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If we were really trying to be like Britannica, we'd omit UFC, not let outsiders add it and charge readers a thousand dollars for 145 pounds of books about other stuff.

But yeah, we agree on the small discussion problem. RfC is best, but I don't know about this RFC promotion. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Chris troutman:Yeah, not so sure about the whole Britannica argument. While I agree with the statements made in WP:CRYSTAL, I don't think they pertain to this discussion. We're not discussing whether or not to include speculative information. Scheduled fights are a fact provided by the hosting promotion. Whether or not the PROMOTION is speculating is an entirely different discussion, but I don't think it violates the principals in WP:CRYSTAL. Therefore I don't think it should be a question of whether or not to include scheduled fight information, but rather how and where to include it. That's the discussion I think we should be having. Txaggiemichael (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Should these articles exist?

I am not sure if these articles are notable and should be deleted. World Vale Tudo Championship, Xtreme Fighters Latino, Pacific Xtreme Combat, International Fighting Championships, Ironheart Crown Dwanyewest (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at these articles and none of them have a single source that provides significant independent coverage. I'd be inclined to vote to delete all of them if there was an AfD, at least as they're currently written. Papaursa (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have started to nominate World Vale Tudo Championship, Xtreme Fighters Latino, Pacific Xtreme Combat, International Fighting Championships, Ironheart Crown Dwanyewest (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Mixed Martial Arts At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A draft at AFC needs your attention

Is Draft:Katie Howard an acceptable article? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

World Series of Fighting to Top Tier

WSoF was recently bumped up to top tier (please see here). There was a relatively recent discussion in Archive8 of that talk page about its promotion to Second Tier but no further. I feel that Archived discussion got it right. To be fair the poster got no responses after 2 weeks so I can't fault his action but I still think it should be reverted. Would prefer a bit more feedback before I do it and suggest any comments be put on the WP:MMANOT Talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Duda Yankovich article

Should Duda Yankovich get her own MMA article she was also a pro boxer. Dwanyewest (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look at BoxRec - she would meet WP:NBOX easily. Had trouble finding her on record Sherdog but I think, based on boxing, she deserves an article.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

She's not notable for her MMA (1 win, 3 losses), but I think she qualifies as being a notable female boxer. Papaursa (talk) 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Gsfelipe94

This guy continues to add original research to fighter's records with no sources to back it up. He is unable to find a source because he is wrong and refuses to admit it.

Charles Oliveira, for example, just won a fight with an anaconda choke but he pulled guard on it instead of doing the gator roll most are familiar with. This user is unaware of this option when executing the choke and thus has continued to list it as a Peruvian Necktie. The Peruvian Necktie not only has an entirely different hand position but also a different body position. The reason he believes it to be this choke is because Oliveira had his leg over his opponent's arm when he pulled guard, similar to a triangle setup, but with a Peruvian you need your leg over his head and to be essentially on the side of his body leaning back and pressing down on his head with your leg. In reality, the choke was not even close to a Peruvian Necktie.

Though I definitely don't agree with following Sherdog blindly, we are suppose to follow it unless we can list a credible source stating its inaccuracy. Since no source exists, we should go by Sherdog, who has it correctly listed as an anaconda and almost all other sites do as well. Only the uneducated have it listed as some sort of D'arce/Peruvian hybrid (which is even more incorrect because the D'arce would be the opposite arm position of the Anaconda)

I will continue to correct this users constant vandalism but I would appreciate if someone could inform him that he is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.148.42 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The pages were locked for a time but as soon as they were open he started undoing the correct results again. Any help would be appreciated. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

And you add a "reverse" to "calf slicer" and want to come here bragging you're avoiding vandalism and trying to help the article? All you've been doing here is being stubborn and decided to pick some stuff and change them all by yourself to be happy. Find something else to do if you're going to be such a stubborn person. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The reverse was already there and you undid it. People smarter than you had already added that bit and you decided to take it down. There's tons of articles on it being a reverse calf slicer and the Gracie Brothers even have a breakdown on it referring to it as such. Do you know better than them? It's clear you just didn't understand the submission Oliveira pulled off and when you realized you were wrong about it being a "Peruvian Necktie" you refused to admit it and resorted to adding "modified" in a desperate attempt to save face. I'm not being stubborn. I'm adding the correct information with a reliable source and you continue to remove it after already being scolded by others. You're not helping anyone, just move on. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really. You're the one being stubborn and updating articles all along to match your interests. If you saw Kenny Florian for example, he refereed to the modified choke by Charles Oliveira. You're just here to pick on other people. You'd better find another IP because this one will get a good suspension unless you change your behavior. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

what do you have against IPs? Jeez. My interests include the truth, so yes, I am changing them to match my interests. You need to source your claims and you are incapable of doing so because your claims are wrong. You don't understand the submission, move on! There are many sources for my claims, I have sourced them, and you reverted them. I'm not wrong here. It appears no one is around to resolve this though. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 05:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The MMA Torch has a fair description of the move, and likes the "Bronx Necktie" name some Twitterer(?) invented. Food for thought. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

How to handle Bellator MMA going forward?

From what was said yesterday, the company will apparently be abandoning the season idea in favor of a year-round status with fewer (but bigger) individual events. So obviously a grouping under season 11 would be wrong. Here is the problem - at one point Bellator events had individual pages and Wikipedia mods struck down that idea and the resolution was to have the season pages. Any suggestions on what we do now with it seeming they are going to focus more on individual events? Udar55 (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Do it like the UFC (2014 in UFC), with yearly or half-yearly lists if it gets too long. Poison Whiskey 19:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Poison Whiskey has it right. Papaursa (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, with four matches announced for Bellator 123, I went ahead and started the Bellator MMA in 2014. With no weekly shows/season, the rest of 2014 can go here. Udar55 (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you weren't totally confused, you should be now. Scott Coker announced that this fall section will continue the weekly events and they have referred to it as Season 11 in official Bellator press releases. So, the page has been changed to Bellator MMA: Season Eleven. Udar55 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Joanna Jedrzejczyk get an article?

Joanna Jedrzejczyk apparently was also a Muay Thai world champion also as well as being an UFC entrant. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

UFC entrant isn't enough. She needs three fights in a top-tier promotion, by the rules. If you could clarify and verify what this apparent Muay Thai world championship was about, that might help her notability case. In any event, she won and looked alright doing it. UFC is building toward a Poland show and their new weight class. She'll have her significant coverage (and next two fights) sooner than later. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Mixed martial arts

An IP keeps adding the following to the lead of Mixed martial arts:

The greatest MMA fighter of all time (G.O.A.T) is considered by experts, fighters and fans to be either heavyweight Fedor Emelianenko (fan favorite) or middleweight Anderson Silva. UFC color commentator Joe Rogan responded to a fan's question: "Joe, is Fedor the Greatest Of All Time? It's him or Anderson, and I could see the argument going either way honestly. Both guys have had truly magical moments in competition against some of the best in the world."

This clearly doesn't belong in the lead, no other sport lists anything like it in the lead.--Phospheros (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this isn't Sherdopedia. Besides, Dan Severn's the goat. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree and reverted yet another attempt to put it back. Its clearly a supported POV which would have a hard time being in any part of the article. Definitely not the lead. The best place to discuss this is the article talk page.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Should Justin Kish get an article?

Justine Kish is a World Muaythai Council champion also so should she get her own article[2]. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can reliably source her WMC championship that looks like it would be enough to meet WP:KICK, although I'd a bit concerned that the WMC doesn't seem to hold women's title fights very often. Personally, if you can find a reliable source with the fight information (I couldn't find her listed at the WMC website) I'd say go ahead. I'd also be curious about any title defenses since the claim is she won the title in 2012. I just did a quick search and I found the title claim repeated but no information about the fight (when, where, opponent, etc.). I'm afraid without some proof, her article would just get redirected to the TUF 20 article. Papaursa (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys, I would like to join this auspicious project. I have been doing little bits here and there, Cheers Mpasqualy (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)User|Mpasqualy

Which title is correct?

Should the article be EFC Africa or be retitled Extreme Fighting Championship Africa? Dwanyewest (talk) 12:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

According to the lead sentence, the answer is "retitle". Would be consistent with how more people say "UFC", but Ultimate Fighting Championship is more "proper" (though "championship" is, of course, a strange word for any promotion/association/league). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this guy Jose "Pelé" Landi Jons notable?

Jose Landi-Jons, although he has fought in Pride twice he has being subject to multiple international international sources. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Dwanyewest (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect if he doesn't meet WP:NMMA his article will quickly be put up for deletion. If you want to make a better case for notability, find a significant article on him that's not from an MMA website. Papaursa (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Are these MMA fighters notable?

Danielle West and Alexandar Komanov don't seem notable under the current criteria. Dwanyewest (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The first one I am just going to PROD, the second I really don't know. On purely MMA grounds no - but his Kyokushin background looks impressive.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither of them are notable MMA fighters, but I think there's a good chance Komanov passes WP:MANOTE so I would leave his article. Papaursa (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"The Honey Badger" is a cool nickname, though. For that, I wish her luck in becoming notable. Getting a bit late. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Lesbian mixed martial artists

I know Tonya Evinger, Stephanie Eggink are open online about being gay, surely there must be more notable gay MMA fighters? Dwanyewest (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Liz Carmouche's whole gimmick revolved around it when she fought Rousey. Raquel Pennington mentioned it on TUF. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where you want to draw the lines, but Fallon Fox is in the National Gay and Lesbian Sports Hall of Fame. Jocelyn and Jillian Lybarger are double gay, but neither has a Wikipedia article. Maybe soon for Jocelyn, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Jorina Baars is she notable?

Jorina Baars apparently was an ISKA champion I dunno if that makes her notable I thought I better ask than risk being deleted. [8] Dwanyewest (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're asking in the wrong forum. She is definitely not a notable MMA fighter. However, I think you can make a good case for her being a notable kickboxer. Papaursa (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

In regular boxing, even fighting for a major title is good enough. No kickboxing section in the sports notability page, so I guess we should assume it's basically the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are a set of notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. I've copied it to the sports notability page. (And yes, ISKA champs are notable.) InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Paloma Fabrykant what to do with her?

Recently I have created articles about martial artists with great caution to met the criteria after the EFC Africa disater. Paloma Fabrykant I believe is a sport journalist and color commentator in her native Argentina. If I can find enough info in Spanish and English to prove that is true would that be enough to make her notable despite her MMA career? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

People can be notable for anything. Whether she is, I don't know, but not having it as a fighter doesn't hold any weight on whether she has it as a journalist/commentator (or even a seal whisperer on the radio). If she gets an article, it call all be discussed in there. But almost notable in one thing plus almost notable in another does not make her more notable than someone who's obscure in just one thing. There are people out there with a dozen careers, but they're still "nobody" until they get noticed by reliable sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Dispute on Royce Gracie page

Could someone please weigh in on the dispute at Talk:Royce Gracie. This is in regards to what was to be a semifinal (tournament) match at UFC 3 between Gracie and Harold Howard. Gracie threw in the towel before the match began due to dehydration from his previous match. This is covered briefly in the article text, which is not disputed, but the user User:CrazyAces489 is very intent on adding this match as a loss to Royce Gracie's fight record.

Whether you, or I, or CrazyAces489 thinks this fight should count as a loss is irrelevant, because Wikipedia editors do not make these judgements, we defer to reliable sources. In this case, the reliable source is Sherdog. Sherdog is the definitive MMA database; it is the project's consensus to use Sherdog and it has been used to source virtually all MMA fighters' articles here. You can plainly see that Sherdog does not list any fight with Harold Howard on Royce Gracie's record: [9].

I wish I could tell you what CrazyAces489's position is, but I don't really know what it is. Talking this out with him has proven difficult. Rather than respond to my points, he just reiterates variations of "he threw in the towel!" which is not even the point of contention. But by all means, read what he has to say on the talk page and please voice your opinion on whether this 'fight' should appear on Gracie's record. --SubSeven (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The fight was originally and for several years counted as a loss. Even Sherdog puts the fight as a loss [10]. It must be understood that Rorian Gracie was a former owner of the UFC, he is the brother of Royce Gracie. So the UFC may not necessarily be the best source. The fight and Royce quitting can be viewed here. [11]. The book A New Generation of Warriors: The History of Mixed Martial Arts By Jim Whiting counts it as a loss. [12] Mixed Martial Arts .com counts the fight as a loss [13] . Black Belt Magazine, he forfeighted the match. [14] , MMA Mania counts it as a loss [15] , Brazil Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Republic, Volume 1 - lost to Harold Howard by default [16] , Inside the Lion's Den By Ken Shamrock, Richard Hanner Gracie surrendered [17] Brawl: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Mixed Martial Arts Competition By Erich Krauss, Bret Aita - Harold Howard was declared the victor. [18] Inside BJJ Royce lost to Harold [19] Sherdog article states that Howard had a 2-3 record (2009) [20] with a 2-2 record in the UFC [21] . The archive record shows that it is 2-2 because of the Gracie fight. The current Sherdog [22]has been revised to not show the Gracie fight so the 2-2 record isn't correct. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The fight also shows to have taken place as a loss in this fight record. [23] The fight shows as a no contest on this database. [24]

Maybe you should explain why you would favor a Sherdog profile from from years ago, rather than the Sherdog profile RIGHT NOW.

Do you think all MMA fighter articles should be sourced by a profile from a random time in the past, maybe whichever one the editor chooses? --SubSeven (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The fight happened. It was stated to be a loss for many years. By a number of sites. [25] The Gracies have a history of being involved in doctoring results. [26] Sherdog was banned by the UFC for a while. [27] . CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying Sherdog is not reliable? --SubSeven (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If you have one source giving two different claims. What would you deduce? That is a big reason I advocate other opinions. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

They are not giving two different claims. --SubSeven (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OK we are notified. Take it back to the talk page where this belongs.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Bellator moving forward into 2015

It was discussed earlier here, but with Bellator moving to a once a month format, the idea was to change it from a season page to a year page. With the first two events announced, I went ahead and started it at Bellator MMA in 2015. Same basic format as a season page, but if anything needs to be added, feel free to let me know. Udar55 (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Two plus one

I understand the minimum requirement for a MMA fighter is that they have fought in 3 times in major organisation to have an article created. What happens for example if a fighter has fought 1 fight in Bellator and in 2 UFC fights would that still count as fighting 3 times in major organisations or does it only count if all 3 bouts were in 1 organisation? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

All would count together.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"mixed martial artist"

Hello, WikiProject Mixed martial arts. You have new messages at WT:BIOG#PROPOSAL: the standard disambiguator for mixed martial arts practioner.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've proposed that "mixed martial artist" become the standard disambiguator for MMA fighters, as "fighter" has uses in many other sports and in the military context. For the RFC, see WT:BIOG -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 10:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome I think it should be included in the MMA Project Page for future reference. This tends to come up frequently enough.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Alex Chambers yes or no?

With Alex Chambers having one fight in Jewels, 1 fight in Invicta and likely 1 fight in the UFC would that be enough to be an article. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

They're all listed as top tier, so I don't see why not. But after the UFC fight, not before. Card subject to change, and all that. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, her Jewels fight does not appear to be top tier. Jewels fights are only top tier if they're for the Jewels championship or they won one of the Jewels' tournaments. This does not appear to be the case for Chambers, so right now I would say she does not meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is EFC Africa good enough now?

Does EFC Africa have good enough sources now [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36][37][38][39]. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't access about half of those links. The others don't seem to provide significant independent coverage of the promotion. At best there are some passing mentions. Given that the article has already been deleted 3 times at AfD, I'd suggest not recreating it until you have some iron-clad solid references. Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

UFC Fight Pass article

We don't have one. Someone might want to make one. Maybe not. It's fairly significant. Just had to explain it instead of link to it in Beneil Dariush's article. Then I realized I missed the Fight Pass prelims. Then I realized both of my picks had been finished. Boo Wikipedia!

Anyway, the Fight Pass is the important thing. But I hope Dariush loses. Davis, too. Mendes is guaranteed to, otherwise McGregor wouldn't have seen himself beating Aldo. Conor McGregor is a reliable source. Let's go now, Arantes! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

01:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Randa Markos

Can Randa Markos have an article? She's in the top 10 of the UFC's Strawweight division with wins over Felice Herrig & Tecia Torres who are also in the top ten with articles of their own. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's not quite enough, per WP:MMABIO. Needs three fights in a top tier promotion. You might be able to argue that she fought for the Strawweight Championship, since it was contested in a tournament she was part of, but I can see that being tricky. She might have enough independent coverage to make a case. Things like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, wins on TUF don't count as official MMA wins. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I was wondering if there would be an exception made for the UFC's Strawweight division because the way it was formed & the fact she's in the top 10 with wins over other popular fighters. She does have a ton of coverage though. Very popular fighter. In the women's category, she won Submission Of The Year, Inspirational Fighter Of The Year, Personality Of The Year, and Strawweight Of The Year. Awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.148.42 (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Frank Mir's "Mir Lock"

Frank Mir's submission over Pete Williams should be listed as "Mir lock." It is indeed a shoulder lock, the same way a kimura or an americana is a shoulder lock, but it has been called the Mir Lock for a very long time. The move has been called this ever since he used it & I've never heard anyone refer to it as anything else. That's the name it has been given. When Jones caught this move standing on Glover Teixeira, everyone Rightly called it by this, including Joe Rogan during the live broadcast. When Sherdog doesn't have or know what to call a submission they just put something generic, which is why many older fight results are simply "choke." They will never go back and change their mistakes but now that we have a name to call it by there's no reason we shouldn't use it. Would love if it could be given the name everyone knows it by. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 00:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(Note: this is copied over from another discussion.)

The sources you supplied before did not appear to be reliable sources (fan-generated content). Even the source you supplied here, which does appear to be a reliable source, states: "The ‘standing Mir lock’ as many on the internet messageboards of the world have rightly dubbed it" is not a clear statement by a reliable source that this is the official name of the method. Unfortunately commentators are always going to be adopting new terminology to describe what's going on in the ring but whether we should ever adopt that terminology in these tables is a completely different matter. What we do want to do is have something resembling an official record of the fight. Just because one or even several commentators use a specific bit of terminology doesn't mean that it's in any way part of the "official" record of the fight (for some vague definition of what is "official").

Also, do other people use this technique? And if they do is it called a "Mir Lock"? I think the answer to that should play into our deliberations. If the same technique is only called a "Mir Lock" when Frank Mir does it I think that's a problem. SQGibbon (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem with finding a "reliable" source is that this is an incredibly rare submission. You're not going to find an ESPN article on the move nor is anyone over there going to be aware of who Frank Mir is. Sites like Bloody Elbow are the best sources for MMA you will find when looking for information on old fights. Frank Mir is the only one to successfully submit someone with it & it has always been called the "Mir Lock" ever since. This is a very niche submission in a fairly niche sport, there's not going to be much information on it. As for other fighters using it, I already said Jon Jones did & everyone called it the "Mir lock" then. That was the point of the link I provided. As for Joe Rogan, he isn't just a normal commentator, he's a very knowledgeable jiujitsu practitioner so it's not the same as just any commentator calling it a random name. He knows his stuff. The fact is, this is the only name for this particular shoulder lock. As of right now, calling it "inside shoulder lock" is the same as calling a rear-naked choke simply a choke or a "can-opener" simply a neck crank (actually that one is still happening which irks me). This is what everyone aware of the submission calls it. The only people who don't refer to this submission as a "Mir lock" are the ones unaware of it. The only sources I can provide are people saying that the move is commonly referred to as the "Mir lock." But, that's how submissions get names. The kimura is just a reverse shoulder lock named after Masahiko Kimura because he made it famous & the D'arce choke is an arm-triangle choke named after Joe D'Arce. It should be the same for the "Mir lock." 24.102.148.42 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If something is obscure enough to not be mentioned in reliable sources, that's a sign to not include it, not to lower the bar. "Inside shoulder lock", while not perfect, is far more informative than "Mir Lock", which to a reader who didn't see it could just as well be describing a leglock or headlock, performed by Mir (which they already know).

ESPN knows who Frank Mir is. They call it an "Other-lock". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes no sense. MMA at one time, not too long ago, didn't have any big name media outlets covering it other than to equate it to dog fighting & prostitution. Does that mean it shouldn't be talked about here at all? The information is out there just because the big name media doesn't know it doesn't mean it isn't true. My point was a site like BloodyElbow will know better than ESPN. That's their niche. You saying that ESPN calls it an "other lock" while BloodyElbow correctly calls it a Mir lock proves my point. CNN thought 4chan was a person, while a much smaller site correctly knows what's up, does that mean we should go with CNN's information because it is more "reliable." I feel you completely ignored everything else I said. It seems nothing is ever seriously discussed on here... A Google search for Mir Lock will give you many images of Mir pulling off said move & a Submissions 101 breakdown of it. A search for "inside shoulder lock" will give you many different submissions including a "how to do the Mir lock" article. As for the uninformed not knowing what a Mir lock is, a simple sentence or two on what the Mir lock is on Frank Mir's page, or a link to the above article, & problem solved. As you said, why "lower the bar" to the people who don't know something? 24.102.148.42 (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sherdog has been around since hounds fought prostitutes in one-night tournaments, and they call it what Wikipedia does. "Inside shoulder lock". Since we use them for every fighter's results table, it makes some sense to not make an exception for one guy's one fight. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Sherdog is great, for the most part. They have a ton of results but also a ton of errors, I believe Daniel Cormier is still undefeated over there, & if they don't know what a submission is called they won't go back & correct it when they do. There's MANY results listed as just "choke" or even as just "submission" when video of the fight can easily be found & the move can be identified. When Frank Mir pulled off the move, it had no name, so at that time calling it a shoulder lock is correct. Today, it has a name! It's the same as if a caveman said "hey, there's a glowy rock thing up there!" when referring to the moon. Technically, it is a rock so he would be right & at the time, it had no name, so calling it that would be a perfectly valid option. That is, until it was given a name. Everyone calls this submission the Mir lock now, that's its name, it is no longer just a random shoulder lock it has a name. It's the same way the keylock & reverse keylock are now the americana & the kimura respectively. They adopted names. Jon Jones uses the move now, if he uses it again in a fight, it will be called the Mir lock again - though it will kill me if the new fans start calling it a Bones lock which is another reason showing that it already has a name is a good thing. I feel there's a strong case to make an exception here since the move now has a name & Sherdog isn't going to go back & change it but we can. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really have a name. It's affectionately known as a Mir Lock, to some. But this is the Internet, where outside observers do that. The Showtime Kick, Smolka Kick, Bronx Necktie, Aldo Knees, Rampage Slam, etc. These aren't things like "Brabo choke" or "Superman punch", which are called that when anyone does them. If Rogan (or Sherdog or someone major) calls the Bones Lock a Mir Lock in a Bones fight, there may be something to it. Hasn't gotten there yet.

Very untrue. The only reason you could say it doesn't have a name is because of Sherdog. Every fan or practitioner will call it the Mir lock. You can't drill this move without knowing its name. This is different from those you mentioned being that everyone calls it the Mir lock. The Showtime kick is the same though. That's the only name for it. If someone wins by throwing a Showtime Kick it will definitely go down as a Showtime Kick. There's just no other way. Bronx Necktie is only for those unaware of how a D'arce or an Anaconda works. I think I saw 2 people want to call it that. The move he uses wasn't a new move, he just pulled guard on it. Pretty simple & there's no real reason to have it listed as "modified" to be honest. Brabo choke is an "archaic" form of the D'arce & Anaconda choke, no one calls it that anymore, the same way the keylock is an archaic form of the Kimura & the Americana. Sherdog is the only one still calling it these names. But alright, I guess I'll wait on this one. Seems you guys aren't going to agree with me. I tried. Are there more than just you three guys discussing these things? 24.102.148.42 (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There are a few more in this Wikiproject. But when things get too long, sometimes people don't read. Or they're doing real life stuff. Or don't care. Or care, but leave it to whoever's saying what they're thinking. Hard to tell who discusses something, or how it ends, until it's discussed. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't really care and amazed what people get worked up on.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the kind of mentality that gets nothing done. There literally is nothing positive about having that kind of stance on a subject you are suppose to be supporting. I have an obsession for the little details which can be frustrating to some... but I am not wrong. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A wide variety of mentalities get nothing done. If there was just one type, evolution would have weeded it out by now. All obsessions frustrate the obsessed more than anyone. While you've been devoting your time to this little tree, the forest is falling around it. There are many flaws in Frank Mir (at least seven in the just the middle sentence of "Rise back to title contention"). Wikipedia isn't all about being right or wrong, it's about persuasion. If you stepped back from the Mir Lock and got this unwieldy bush Manual of Style compliant, I'd view you as someone with a vested interest in the article, and more easily support suggestions than if they'd come from a single-minded outsider. Pretty standard among communities in general, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

My obsession is with martial arts, not trees. But I see your point. I just care about the technical aspects of the sport & would like others to be able to read these articles & know the difference between submissions. A kimura is both a shoulder lock & a keylock but a hammerlock is not a keylock but is a shoulder lock - same goes for the Americana & the Mir lock respectively. Just some little details I think get overlooked, by Sherdog as well. As for the Mir article, I changed some things around that I hope helps. Not sure if there was something in particular you wanted but that paragraph you pointed me to really had no redeemable qualities & just seemed out of place since it referred to an event that took place much further on. Couldn't find a source for the quote either. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Not literal trees. I looked at your revision. You've fixed quite a few things, but introduced some new mistakes. Mostly minor. Still a not up to MOS snuff, but I appreciate the effort. For that, I'll Not Oppose your proposal. It's not quite as good as supporting it, but still turns the tide in your favour. Consider my prior objections void. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Ha. Great, thanks. I'll have to read up on MOS sometime & fix whatever I messed up. So are we putting this to a vote? Is there anyone completely against this change? 24.102.148.42 (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Um, if no one has any objections, can I change it? 24.102.148.42 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Mir Lock? If so then I still object. There are always going to be different sources referring to these things differently. Settling on one source as definitive prevents these types of never-ending discussions. If the UFC or other governing bodies kept this kind of official record then that would be ideal but without that I think using Sherdog works well. Also, something you might not like, but Wikipedia is less interested in the Truth than in verifiability. Related, I don't believe you answered my initial objections about how reliable your sources are. Some of them were not reliable at all and some were reliable but the context did not make it clear that they were making an official statement or that they felt their proclamation should be part of an official record of the fight. SQGibbon (talk) 20:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of not getting there yet, everyone from UFC 182 is waiting for a Sherdog record update, for some reason. Jury and Cannonier are also still undefeated. They have the tables right, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It makes plenty of sense. MMA is a niche interest and you should be thankful this content gets included in Wikipedia, at all. We have to go by reliable sources even if the sources aren't "in the know" because the people that do know MMA don't enjoy the credentials of real news outlets like The New York Times. I regularly look at MMAFighting.com, BloodyElbow, and the Underground but each of those sources aren't widely considered reliable and have been debated about at the reliable sources noticeboard. Read up about it. If we trusted non-reliable sources, even if they've been right in the past, we leave ourselves open to publishing material we should have suspected of being faulty. Look, if CNN says that the sky is green, it's green. That's how this works. I understand how crazy that sounds but that's how things work here. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, you even admit it is ridiculous... how can you continue to follow that format? MMA should have it's own set of reliable sources. I find an MMA specific site much more reliable about MMA related information than these big name media sites. They don't care about MMA & will often get things wrong or not include details that a legitimate MMA site would, i.e., the Mir lock. Just because the site isn't as popular doesn't mean its information is incorrect. I'm actually dumbfounded. I don't know how to argue my case if it seems everyone admits I'm right, elects to continue to follow an incorrect format, & doesn't seem to care to fix what is clearly broken. How is anything suppose to be discussed when the answer is always "I know that legitimate MMA site says that, but the site that doesn't follow MMA makes no mention of it so we have to collectively stick our heads back up our asses now. Have a good day." 24.102.148.42 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Weight class column in record table?

I think it'd be a good idea. Many fighters move up and down throughout a career. A column would let readers follow the progression and note missed weight catchweights at a glance. With abbreviations, it wouldn't be a wide column. This sort of thing (according to Nikita Krylov's edit history) is frowned upon in the Notes column.

Thoughts? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be hard to get such information from obscure fights — they're barely sourced and some of those small organizations don't even use the official weight classes (or have legit weigh-ins). A lot of them would stay blank (or with N/A), not to mention the hard work of filling those new columns for hundreds of records.

IMO, the notes are okay. Poison Whiskey 01:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's true. I also thought the notes were fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Just seems like a lot of extra redundant information best left in the text rather than table. Its an unusual fighter that shifts his weight more than a couple of times.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

A lot of what's in the table's doubled in the text. It's a quick guide. As it stands, the Notes column is mainly filled with redundant blankness. I don't see the harm in noting the transitory matches there, especially since it'd be a lot less work. A little sketchy as to whether "Light heavyweight debut/return" is similar to "UFC debut", per WP:MMA.

I agree - and yes using the notes to indicate transitory matches makes the most sense to me rather than a dedicated column.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, new welterweight/lightweight Zhang Lipeng/Lipeng Zhang could use a table at all, if anyone's interested. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I just took care of that. Apologies if I made any errors. I'm not sure how to move the side box above the record box though. If you could fix that, that would be great. Looks a little off as it is. Unless that's how it is suppose to be? 24.102.148.42 (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but it looks normal to me. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Are there any other fighter's missing a record table? I added Travis Fulton's a LONG time ago & that guy had a million fights. 24.102.148.42 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Not off the top of my head. The Ironman must've been a chore. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you win or reach the final of TUF are you notable?

Ning Guangyou [40] winning the Ultimate fighter is that enough to make him notable?

Appearing on the TUF final counts towards WP:MMANOT - not enough on its own right.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It can count, but only if a few secondary sources treat it like something special, and give us something to write, other than "He just about won the most obscure version of TUF". InedibleHulk (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability for the males 115lbs class?

I just added something for the WT:MMANOT page to talk about this topic, so could all available be able to join the discussion? 81.129.198.164 (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Fatal error: Does not compute.

I don't want to alarm anyone, but every single Sherdog infobox link is broken! New URLs or some such witchcraft.

Someone handy with code want to fix that? InedibleHulk (talk) 08:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like something has changed. I've edited the infobox template (Template:Infobox martial artist), but now you need to put everything after "fighter/" in the sherdog field (see Anderson Silva).

I think its better wait a few days... if nothing happens, we'll see what we should do (maybe stick with my solution or someone else's solution). Poison Whiskey 16:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I noticed it with Overeem. For a second, I thought he'd failed a test so hard, he was stricken from history. Glad that's not the case.

Is there some function that retrieves an article name? That might work, for those who don't have the "(fighter)" qualifier. Probably a few that don't quite match up, anyway. Sherdog tends to use fuller names for Brazilians. This guy may give us some naming problems soon enough, regardless. Even his nickname is ambiguous. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, i had a hunch that things changed on the Sherdog.com side of things. Turns out this was correct. I sent a message in through sherdog.com/contact asking if they had an alternative to the old link format we were using. They responded and said that they had disabled the link format we were using but have now re-enabled it. I also reverted the template back to the previous working version and now everything works again. Big thanks to Sherdog.com for making that change for us. Kevlar (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That's the way to do things - great job.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kevlar. Poison Whiskey 00:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Godofredo Pepey's flying triangle choke

Can someone help me out with this. There's this guy named WWE Batman who keeps undoing my edits. Godofredo Pepey landed a pretty slick flying triangle choke but this guy is continuing to undo my edits claiming I'm edit warring when he went over the 3 edit rule before me. Can we agree that it was clearly a flying triangle and put a stop to this? Bloody Freak (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I do understand I also was edit warring but the guy was being incredibly arrogant, rude, and douchey so I had a reason. Bloody Freak (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I reliably sourced my edits. You did not. How simple could it be? You haven't been able to back up anything you've said. If you can create consensus, which I highly doubt, maybe you'll get what you want so desperately. As of now, I can support my claims through UFC's official news Twitter account, Sherdog, and really any other MMA news site. I keep telling Mr. Bloody Freak to create a discussion and to gather enough editors to create the impossible consensus he craves. He's just being stubborn and wants his way so badly like this is some grudge or something. WWE Batman131 (talk) 04:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

All those sites call it a "flying triangle choke" and then list "triangle choke" as the method of victory. They put both down. It was obviously a flying triangle choke. A really slick flying triangle choke. There's no reason not to list it as such. BloodyElbow says in the play by play it was a flying triangle. Sherdog says in the play by play it was a flying triangle. Everyone watching saw a beautiful flying triangle. That's what it was. Just because those sites decided not to list it as a flying triangle, which is what it clearly was, doesn't mean that it somehow wasn't that. You are wrong. Bloody Freak (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Who cares? That's what the source says. Nobody cares if you think it was slick and beautiful and obvious. NOBODY CARES. WIKIPEDIA USES RELIABLE SOURCES, NOT BLOODY FREAKS. Goodness. WWE Batman131 (talk) 05:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm, you seem to completely miss the point. What I am saying is, all the sites you list call it a "flying triangle choke." They state it very clearly that is what it was. Sherdog even provides a picture showing you the man flying into the submission with the caption "flying triangle choke." However, all these sites also happen to call it simply a "triangle choke." They call it both. Everyone watching knows that it was a flying triangle choke though so the people on Wiki here can discuss this and decide which to call it by. Both are correct, in the same way that calling it simply a "choke" is correct but you are omitting important details that way. Calling it a flying triangle choke is the perfect thing to call it for that is what it was. Not because I want it to be called that but because that's reality. Something someone called "WWE Batman" wouldn't know about. Bloody Freak (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Carina Damm

Carina Damm being the first WMMA fighter to test positve for PED is that enough to make her notable? [41] Dwanyewest (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexis Dufresne redux?

Alexis Dufresne is a 2013 – IBJJF World No Gi Championships, Brown Belt Medium-Heavy champion.[42] Is this enough to make her noteworthy? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Considering her Mundials world championship was in the Brown Belt division, and thus not actually at the highest level, I don't see how it possibly does. However, she's signed to Bellator now, so as soon as she has a fight with them, she should meet the the technical notability standards since that would mark three MMA fights in top-tier promotions, and her page can be recreated. Beansy (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

EFC AFRICA DEBATE

Anyone interested in a contested debate for or against EFC Africa being deleted please do it at the article talk page. Dwanyewest (talk) 09:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring in Combat Sports Articles

Given the nature of the content of MMA, Boxing, and Martial Arts articles, perhaps we should look at discontinuing the ban on edit warring. We have a lot of experience with making such contests safe. Perhaps we could create a separate governing body to regulate edit wars. Is a Unified Rules of Edit Warring appropriate? Each war could be given rounds, and rules, a referee and can be overseen by elected commissioners. Just my 2 cents. Kevlar (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Notability Standards Badly Need Updating

The fact that people like Justin Gaethje and Smealinho Rama are getting their pages deleted, and a consensus Top 10 fighter like Marlon Moraes doesn't even have one, is kind of ridiculous to anyone who legitimately follows the sport. Someone made a rather long-winded but reasonable proposal to divide MMA promotions into three tiers, with the active top tier promotions being the UFC, Bellator, and Invicta, with the next five or six as second-tier promotions. If you're one of the most major fighters in OneFC, KSW, M-1, or particularly World Series of Fighting, I don't think many MMA fans would argue against your notability. I'm not sure how people want to do this, but maybe make it so six fights in second-tier promotions, or headlining three events, or holding a world championship, would all make you notable? This would at least protect a low double-digit number of people who should be in there for practical reasons, but don't fit the direct criteria, without opening things up to a free for all. Anyone care for some thoughts on this? I think the last thing we need is another MMA Edit War, and I think updating the rules to make things a tad more flexible could head off issues down the road. Beansy (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A few things to keep in mind. When we are discussing notability we mean it in the way that Wikipedia defines notability which is not necessarily the way that MMA fans would define it for MMA fighters. This difference quite often causes conflict all over Wikipedia in every subject. A project cannot create a consensus that contradicts larger Wikipedia guidelines and policies. This means that whatever we come up with has to be in line with current Wikipedia standards.

WP:MMANOT serves as a decent rule of thumb for editing within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. The fundamental idea is that for any fighter to be considered Wikipedia notable there must be at least two reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in detail. Brief bios and mentioning that someone is fighting do not generally go toward establishing notability. What this means is that it is entirely possible for someone not to meet WP:MMANOT while still being notable by Wikipedia standards. It also means that someone who meets WP:MMANOT might not actually be notable by WP standards if the the criteria above are not met.

Finally, there will always be conflict. No matter where you draw the line there will always be people who think that a case on the other side of that line deserves to have an article. This doesn't mean that we can't change the guidelines or that doing so never helps but that there is no perfect solution and changing guidelines to avoid potential conflict rarely works out. SQGibbon (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Which is accurate Tapology or Sherdog

Aleksandra Albu has two different records how did the UFC get the 6-0 record because at some point her bio is gonna be made.

http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Aleksandra-Albu-144949

http://www.tapology.com/fightcenter/fighters/55154-alexandra-albu-stitch

I also originally had this problem with Valentina Shevchenko (fighter). Dwanyewest (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

About every second fighter seems to have an extra win or loss on UFC's version of their record, compared to Sherdog. Not sure about Tapology, but probably near the same. I tend to trust Sherdog over UFC, since they provide details, but again, not sure about Tapology.

In the meantime, every Wikipedia article uses Sherdog. So when Albu's ready, she will, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Why GBR and not ENG?

Why are British fighters not held to the same standard? When they are listed on List of current UFC fighters. English fighters are listed as GBR but Joanne Calderwood is listed as SCO I assume Americans are unaware the Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish are British too? Why the inconsistency? Dwanyewest (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe because the three non-Englands seem "exotic" to some people, compared to plain old England. But it's all the same state (called the United Kingdom, by the way, not Great Britain), and has been for centuries. Wikipedia should get with the times. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The article also sticks to the baffling idea that weight divisions should be capitalized. That bullshit is rampant, and it's starting to annoy me. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Should I comment about this on the List of current UFC fighters talk page? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt. When I fixed these, I mentioned this discussion in the edit summary, but many don't read those. Many don't read the talk page, either, but more do. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone interested can now talk about this subject at List of current UFC fighters's talkpage. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Lineal Championship

An IP has been adding information to MMA articles about lineal championships with references to Fight Matrix. I thought this had been discussed before here but I couldn't find mention of it in the archives. To start with, I know almost nothing about MMA but the arguments I've read in the past about including "lineal championship" information is that it all starts with fan original research as there is no one canonical method of determining lineal championships in boxing or the MMA. The one being used as a source in these edits would also be just one possible method of reckoning. Since no particular method has been endorsed by the UFC (I'm guessing?) then it's not the sort of thing we should be adding to articles and certainly not to the main MMA article and most certainly not to the lead paragraphs of fighter bios (in other words, maybe it would be worthwhile mentioning later on in a fighter's article). Thoughts? SQGibbon (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I was glad you removed it - I hesitated because I was looking for a good reason to avoid an edit war. I also remember the discussion but can not find it but in the mean time the list was just set down with little or no context. It did not fit where it was and if anyplace it could go in the lineal championship article which is a bit lean on MMA and heavy on boxing. I feel that the current MMA article is way too long and detailed so extra information should be added carefully.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The closest I can find to the discussion I remember was the talk page of lineal championship.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the UFC is a promotion, not an independent league like the NBA or NHL, so its opinion will always be prejudice. BUT lineal championship discussions would have been controversial 10 years ago, when there were other competing promotions to the UFC in Japan and the US. However, now, all the lineal champ titles, have been unified with the different division UFC titles. No matter what lineal list is endorsed. So no problem there. The last lineal title, the lightweight is also in the ufc as of last year, and in 2,3 fights will unify with the ufc title as well.

The only controvercy arises in the heavyweight lineal as to its begining, though the different streams unified with the same fighter in japan around the the begining of the 2000.

The subject itself is notable in mma and has been published in numerous mainstream mma publicashions, see the references in the lineal championship article.

i see no controversy in adding these facts, and they shouldn't have raised alarm in the first place. And Fight Matrix is the most non subjective statistical database. (The original ip)202.144.186.24 (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your first claim about the UFC, who cares if its opinions are prejudiced? It's their fighters and their promotion.

Also, I still don't see how these claims to lineal championships aren't just examples of fan speculation (even if it's from a reliable source). When we're talking about the lead paragraph of a fighter's article or the MMA article itself, we really need to stick to a limited set of facts that speak directly to the subject. Since lineal championships are not recognized by the UFC (if I'm reading all of this correctly) then it should not be in the lead. Whether it's worth mentioning elsewhere in a fighter's article can be discussed but unless there is only one possible listing of lineal championships then there's always going to be edit warring over which ones to include and in the end none of it will actually help the general reader (Wikipedia is not a fan-encyclopedia but one to help people gain a general understanding of a subject) understand the subject any better. I don't see the benefit to making something that appears to be unofficial look official by including it in these articles. SQGibbon (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the article on Lineal championship describes one of the issues with it's opening paragraph "There is no single canonical list of lineal champions at any weight class, because there is no agreed method of what to do when the current champion retires or moves to a different weight class." Another issue i have is currently described with the FightMatrix - MMA Light Heavyweight Lineal Championship History where they state "If Jones resumes activity in the division within a reasonable amount of time, we will re-continue w/ his lineage." How they define "a reasonable amount of time" may be different that other sources. All problems have their solutions, if we really want to list lineal champions i'm sure we can find a way to do it, but these are a few of the issues i have at this moment. Kevlar (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletions Pride Events

Pride 7, Pride 8, Pride 9, Pride 10, Pride 11, Pride 12, Pride 13 and Pride 14 have all been proposed for deltion. I will more than likely have time this weekend to find a number of sources for some or all of the articles, but moving those links into inline citations is not my strong suit. I'm just not the best creative writer. If anyone has time please assist, please let me know. Worst case, i will move all the content currently in those articles into the relevant omnibus articles: 1999 in Pride FC, 2000 in Pride FC and 2001 in Pride FC and update the {{Pride Events}} template so everything still flows correctly.

The omnibus solution seems to me the best.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I not personally opposed to that. I guess i was just thinking that the last time this came up people were really focused on individual articles. Perhaps this will be a good test to see if that mood has changed. I honestly don't really see the difference, if the content is in an omnibus or a stand alone article it's still there to be read. Kevlar (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll help with the writing if you can dig up some sources. --SubSeven (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Common nouns. Why do so many articles make this specific mistake?

That title's actually a recent edit summary, which Wikipedia autofilled.

It's "light heavyweight", "welterweight" and so on, not "Light Heavyweight", "Welterweight" and whatnot. This seems obvious enough, given the articles about the divisions. But it seems I can pick a fighter article at random, and find the same damn mistake, over and over, for years now.

First, what the hell? Second, let's all try to fix these where we see them. I've seen a fair few done right, so I know I'm not fighting this scourge alone, but it feels that way, sometimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I know that I for one am very guilty of this. Thank you for pointing it out. I will make sure to put that on my check list when editing or creating articles. Kevlar (talk) 06:20, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for coming clean and trying to change. Do you remember why you started doing it the old way? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

For me personally? I would say poor writing skills and or just not thinking about it. There are some highly visible articles that add to the confusion Fabrício Werdum for example almost exclusively capitalizes heavyweight. Like i said though, thanks for pointing this out, when i edit articles i have a little checklist i run through, i'll add this to my list. Kevlar (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an editor who uses IP addresses and changes up their name every so often who, among other things, does this. This editor has their own ideas about style and wilfully ignores community consensus by inserting flag icons into infoboxes (against MOS:ICON, wikilinking common geographic terms (against WP:OVERLINK, and, most recently, making the changes you've mentioned here (along with other changes). This editor has been blocked on a couple of occasions but keeps coming back with new user accounts and IP addresses. In the years I've been following them they have not once responded to any attempt to communicate with them. This person does not engage with the community but is strictly changing Wikipedia into how they think it should be. Fortunately they appear to have become more interested in editing baseball articles of late so maybe they are someone else's problem now. SQGibbon (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

I wanted to make sure that all the links previously to Pride 10 - 14 now linked to the correct omnibus articles, so i was double checking all of the Special:WhatLinksHere/Pride_10 pages. While there i found the above listed clean up listing page. This is a great list for fixing articles and thereby removing those ugly banner templates. I'm not sure it's updating, there do seem to be articles listed that no longer have the issues it says it does. If there is a better source for this information please list it here. Just wanted to share it so other people could reference it. There currently are no links to that article. Kevlar (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I use it but yes there seems to be a 2 week lag in update.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears that that page has not been updating since March 2010, I guess that should have been obvious to me if I had looked at the most recent month in the "Listing by maintenance category" section, lol. Anyway a list can be found here wmflabs.org. They can be viewed alphabetically or by catagory but there does not appear to be a "wikified" version. If i find anything else i'll update. Kevlar (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That can't be right - are we looking at the one found on the Project Page. I will look a bit closer.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The history says that the last update was today. https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/cwb/history/Mixed_martial_arts.html Peter Rehse (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Rafael Cordeiro is notable?

Rafael Cordeiro is this MMA coach notable as he trained MMA champions. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/sports/pioneers-of-asian-womens-mma-step-into-the-cage.html?hpw&rref=sports&_r=0

[2] ttp://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-24494236

[1]

[2]