Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

UFC 244

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Thanks to everyone Someone went nuts all over the UFC 244 page, adding ridiculous sub-sections, photos, and overlong descriptions of every bout. It looks like they did this over a period of time. I reverted it back to the last normal looking version. Anyway, just a heads up to watch that page as I don't keep up with MMA editing as much as a used to.Udar55 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

"Someone went nuts". There is something called Good article in Wikipedia. @Udar55: . It was clear as seen in edit history - its on the way to making UFC 244 a GA as discussed on talk page for people who are very inactive. UFC events that have been promoted to GA, UFC 94 and UFC 148,Regice2020 (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

_

It is pretty obvious you were doing this as you went along, with no discussion or consideration here at WikiProject MMA. I take no offense to a good article and have seen plenty of them grow from MMA projects. However, this is not one of them (hence it failing your GA submission) nor an event that warrants such detail. If you feel it does, make your case here. Udar55 (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Udar55: You just said you were very inactive and stating you not know what going on. UFC 244 had a GA1 review/discussion which pretty obviously posted on UFC 244 talk page before you went on calling "someone nuts". I waited to allow anyone to come up and discuss on UFC 244 page before someone start moving forward making necessary changes to have it possibly become a GA. I also waited after doing minor changes per GA1 advice, and guess what no one came forward. Edits piece by piece solid changes was made. It will stand Regice2020 (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

So you started the talk on a place where no one would see it instead of the proper area? I said that I don't keep up with MMA editing as much as I used to (meaning daily) but still do lots of edits. And yours on UFC 244 stood out as unnecessary and bloated. If you want it to stand, open it up for debate here. Why does this event deserve so much detailed attention? Please tell us. Udar55 (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

UFC 244 is the proper page clearly as it one having the GA1 review. It was the necessary place. It pretty much stands considering no one came forward with discussion before solid changes made per WP:bold. WP:MMA is not article being review by GA1. @Udar55: Regice2020 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I actually think the proper place to discuss major revisions would be on the project sub, but we're going in circles here. I'll ask @CASSIOPEIA: about it on his page. If he thinks it stands, then I will accept it. Udar55 (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally tempted to wp:boldly remove the lot per WP:INDISCRIMINATE as there no discussion from other users come up on that specific page. I went forward and done solid changes. Regice2020 (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What about all the grammatical errors and poorly worded sentences? And the unfinished "Main Card" section? Makes it look super professional. Udar55 (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You are deliberately jumping the gun again, this changes are incomplete. Udar55 Regice2020 (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

To quote Mike Goldberg, "Oh...my...goodness!" You just want an unfinished article to be public while you work on it? I've seen a lot here, but that is a first. Also, if you are going to have stuff up, please make it correct. Example: "Good gave Rencountre bunch of leg kicks to make it harder for him to move. Good was able to capitalized on the weaken legs and ended up winning by finishing him with punches." Udar55 (talk) 23:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Udar55 You are deliberately jumping the gun again, this changes are incomplete. I am pretty sure like always things will be finalized once all the sections has been expanded with information per GA1 advice.

I mean i am not a Trump supporter nor the UFC 244 event is a Trump supporter event. I not sure why you want trump supporters agenda remain on UFC 244. Regice2020 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

What the heck? To quote Jack Burton, "I don't even know what the hell that means." I'm taking this to Dispute Resolution as I have no idea where that last comment even came from. Udar55 (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Udar55: I am going start ANI against myself because i am not a Trump supporter. Regice2020 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kosack: Apparently a individual is not happy that i made solid changes to UFC 244 page the one you reviewed. Should i go ahead i revert i back? I was moving forward with WP:bold as no one else came up with discussion back in Late Jan-Early Feb 2020 1. Regice2020 (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Udar55 and Regice2020: G'day. Sorry for the late reply as I was out the whole day, at a sport bar yesterday, taking a day off from editing Wikipedia, watching NBA All-Star Game and UFC Fight Night: Anderson vs. Błachowicz 2 and having a dinner with some friends. Of seeing your conversation with Regice2020 at WikiProject MMA talk page and was hoped that you have not lunched a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and could settle the issues on Talk:UFC 244; however I just noticed you have already raised the issue there. First of all, we the editors, at this case the MMA editors, should work together in collaborating to improve/add content/create mma related pages and help each other in any any should a editor is new like Regice2020 as they might not know certain Wikipedia/Project MMA guidelines, Wikipedia guidelines or general editing. Secondly, the event talk page Talk:UFC 244 should be the page to discuss the issue and not WT:MMA as the WP:MMA and its related pages are concerned with the MMA project as a whole on any issues/suggestions/collaboration/notability/guidelines and etc. Lastly, a MMA event/or any article do not always has to stay within the normal format and it could be expanded further if it can meet a WP:GA criteria. Regice2020 had requested me to help up to make the UFC 244 a GA class two days ago and I have agreed to assist but yet have the opportunity to do so. A GA article needs to meet as below in a nutshell - see Wikipedia:Good article criteria

1. Well written (content/ce/layout/etc)
2. Accurate and verifiable - content are cited ; no original research, copyright violations, or plagiarism are present;
3. Broad: it covers the main aspects of the topic without going into unnecessary detail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Images: it is illustrated, if possible and relevant, by images with acceptable copyright status and fair use rationales where necessary.

What Regice2020 was trying to do is to expand the article to meet "Broad". Although the article has yet meet GA status and there are some areas of the content need to be rewritten to meet the above 6 criteria, I dont see a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is needed to be raised in MHO. Let me know if anything else need to be clarified or anything else I could help. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and all of the info. I do understand what Regice2020 was trying to do, but think his attempt and ongoing results are lacking. I'm more than willing to help construct an expanded article, but his edit-by-edit changes make it look awfully sloppy and not solid in any way. The event results descriptions offer nothing and are riddled with errors. Can he not do this in his sandbox and ask for tips rather than making changes day by day? Additionally, I think he revealed his true motive in making these changes with his random "I am not a Trump supporter" messages. I am also no fan of the man, but it appears he wants to bury the information about a POTUS attending a UFC event. Oddly enough, that might be the one fact that makes this event more notable than others. Udar55 (talk) 14:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• @CASSIOPEIA: A reminder The UFC 244 Good Article is not complete. I making little changes by little. I pretty much told Udar55 that but the user seems to be always quick about something after coming back inactivty. Again, the Good article changes was not complete . I only worked on the event section. Udar55 said whole UFC 244 page was fill with errors even through the work was mostly made on event section page. I cant work with the user if Udar55 is jumping the gun everywhere. Regice2020 (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• @CASSIOPEIA: I can simply revert the whole thingy back and figure a plan with other active mma editors to make UFC 244 a Good Article. Its that good? The motive is making UFC 244 about UFC 244 not Donald trump which he obviously wants. It just so disruptive Udar reply to you was based on response to the moderator in the dispute noticeboard the one he created quickly. Regice2020 (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Udar55 and Regice2020: Hi Udar55, I saw your message in Dispute resolution noticeboard- UFC 244 and happy to know that you understood my message. As mentioned I am happy to help to get the article to a GA status. Since the discussions of this issue has been mentioned in few different talk pages, so I will respond here instead. First of all, Wikipedia is a work in progress and article can be improved overtime. We could work on the article toward GA in the article itself or we could copy and paste the article in our sandboxes or a sub page so we could invite other editors to improve the article. There are easily a dozen of MMA fighters and UFC events articles would improve to achieve GA status and if any editors willing to collaborate we could do them in a "Work in Progress" sub page. Let me know you guys agree and please read the comment for the GA reviewer at Talk:UFC 244. I here invite NEDOCHAN who a regular MMA editor and a qualified EFL teacher (means he is an expert in English grammar) who could run thought the final version of the articles to correct any ce and making the sentences in more concise manner, and I thank NEDOCHAN in advance if he willing to help. Once again it is good to see editors able to settle the issue in civility and I applaud you, Udar55 and Regice2020, willing to work together and hope to see more MAA editors do the same. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name issue with a UFC event

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There some odd individuals or group that want the name "they" want despite having name based off the primary source. Not the poster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UFC_Fight_Night:_Zabit_vs._Kattar#Requested_move_1_February_2020 Regice2020 (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A notification to Wikipedia MMA editors

So recently a ANI report was for a disruptive user, but for some reason individual Phil Bridger and Phil colleagues joined to inappropriately joke about mma, pro wresting, and video games Wikipedia community not able to resolve issues normally through talk page and WP:Con. Are you fucking kidding me? I want to let you guys know. What you think about the deliberate absurd behavior? I am trying in good faith clean out disruptive users. Regice2020 (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 First of all, I am not following you on your "Fxxxing kidding me" comment - regardless how frustrated you are, pls restrained yourself and communicate with WP:Civility. If I have misunderstand you then I apologies. Secondly, unless it is really needed, solve the issue via user talk page or article talk page before bringing issue to ANI - in short we the editors should try to work together and help each other. If issue needs to be addressed in ANI, then provide hist diff and let the process runs it course. Do note Wikipedia is an open platform, and anyone can editor and make comments in any talk pages. At times, the discussions might not go through the normal process and no has any resolution. If the discussion moves to a different tangent, and no admin is involved in the ANI, then you might want to ping certain admin to look into the case and not respond to editors making negative comments as you stated above. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

CASSIOPEIA The ANI report was only the user for being disruptive. The disruptive user talk page is always being blanked, so mostly not possible. For some reason a group of individuals enlarged other part of that ANI report with off topic discussion joking about other Wikipedia community not able resolve conflicts. I mean was only there report a obvious disruptive user. "I am only here on letting you guys know"Regice2020 (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 Editor is allowed to blank their own talk page. All edits can be viewed on the editor talk history page. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Ordering all future UFC Event affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to add sub section

Per WP:Bold I be moving forward adding sub section COVID-19 pandemic under Background section for affected UFC Events by the COVID-19 pandemic which lead to event cancellation or event move. Due low participation on Wikipedia caused by COVID-19.

Reason: Information about COVID-19 topic will enlarge the section. Regice2020 (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

{{archive top|result = Discussion moved to Talk:List of UFC champions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

‘BMF’ belt

This belt is not a championship belt and therefore should not be listed under List of UFC champions. It has no weight class, there will be no defences and it will not be awarded to anybody else. It is nothing close to a standard championship belt. Regardless of given sources it should not be listed on the same article as real championship belts. In addition, it should not be added to Jorge Masvidal and Nate Diaz fight records and should not be mentioned in Masvidal’s championships section. This reverting back and forth has been going on for many months and the general consensus is that it is not recognised as a real title belt. But a minority of editors feel differently. This is an example of why MMA/UFC is not taken seriously by others. Don’t get me wrong, I like the BMF belt and I have nothing against it personally, but it should not be treated the same as real title belts and thus should not belong in the same area as these. @Cassiopeia: I would like your help to solve this. Gilbert.JW (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: The points @Gilbert.JW: is making is certainly valid and understandable. I totally agree that the "BMF" title is not at all comparable to the championship belts. However, the UFC might decide to do more of these one-off honourary belts in the future so coming to a reasonable compromise on how these are mentioned is necessary. To treat them as if they don't exist or never happened doesn't reflect reality or do the articles in question justice. The entire purpose of the "notes" section on the fighter's record is to mention such things as CASSIOPEIA alluded to in his comments on the Nate Diaz talkpage. Doing so does in no way equate them to real championship belts. If a fighter misses weight, it's mentioned, if something significant related to the bout occurs, it's mentioned. An honourary belt attached to the bout certainly merits mention there. Platonic Love (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Platonic Love: If they did more of these one-off belts, it defeats the point of it being unique and one-off. And including the BMF belt to the career section of relevant fighters is perfectly fine, but not in List of UFC champions and fighter's championships section. The notes should also not be included for the same reason as why the WBC Money Belt was not for Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Conor McGregor. I added a section on Nate Diaz talk page. Do read. Gilbert.JW (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gilbert.JW: I have to admit that I didn't even hear about the "money belt" but in any case I'd argue mentioning it in the "notes" is relevant. I also don't see the objection in mentioning it under the fighter's championship section as an "honorary belt." If someone is awarded an honourary degree by an institution it's mentioned and no one mistakes that for an actual degree in which someone poured sweat and tears into earning. As a gesture of good faith, I'm willing to self-revert until the matter is resolved but my position is that at the very least it should be mentioned in the "notes" section if not listed under "championships" as an honourary award. Platonic Love (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Platonic Love: I can agree to leave it in the notes section only, but other editors disagree with this such as @NEDOCHAN:. Whether it should be included in the List of UFC champions is questionable as it's not a champion belt and is a one-off. The point of honourary degrees is fair, but these are common and are universally accepted. If this or similar type belts were a regular occurrence, I would change my position, but for now it should not be included. The TUF and tournament winners are fine as they are regular events. We'll see what @CASSIOPEIA: thinks. Gilbert.JW (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gilbert.JW and Platonic Love:

1. McGregor/Mayweather is a non-title boxing match. This BMF championship belt is MMA fight. However, to say that, it is not a sanction championship belt but it is a symbolic championship belt for UFC as we knew that UFC filed three trademarks for "'BADDEST MOTHERFUCKER" and one of them is to use to name the "BMF championship belt" - see here
2. Since this is a mma match, in Wikipedia we use the WP:MMABOX as the guidelines. Under the Note section it states "The column Notes is meant to be used for information related to the bout, including but not limited to special rules, awards earned, failure to make weight and similar. Do not use it to put irrelevant text such as "MMA Debut", "UFC debut", "Cut from the UFC" or similar text not directly related to the bout." In that sense, the BMF belt is directly related to the bout and if we would put a fighter missing weight for title belt, or debut in XXXweight, or won TUF fight (which no belt was handed out but a trophy which is a TV series/tournament. created by UFC), as per guidelines, I dont think it create any harm to include the well sourced BMF belt in the note section.
3. If the BMF championship belt is listed under List of current mixed martial arts champions then it should be removed as it is not a official weight class belt.
4. As for the info should be listed on List of UFC champions that is debatable. The BMF belt is not a real belt but a symbolic belt. If we accept TUF "tournament winners" (not a championship and the prize is a trophy and a contract with UFC) in the list yet we reject BMF champion then it is not consistence for the argument sake after all it is "UFC list page" and not a mma champions page, just as some mma organisations do not have interim champion but we would find them in UFC. We either accept both TUF and BMF in List of UFC champions or we remove both from the list for the consistency ground. Please allow the discussion to run at least for a month so other editors would make the comments. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@CASSIOPEIA: Thank you for your input which is exactly the reasoning I've tried to explain to other editors. My question to you now is in the meantime, as others are offered an opportunity to potentially comment, should the sourced material remain in the article? I believe since we've established a logical framework for its inclusion that the onus should be on others to challenge its removal. Platonic Love (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gilbert.JW and Platonic Love:, As Gilbert. JW has the same discussion in two different talk pages and since this is related to List of UFC champions, I have move all the comments to Talk:List of UFC champions. Pls make your comments there here on. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

RFD for UFC Ultimate Fight Night

Please be advised to check this RFD entry for UFC Ultimate Fight Night. (In particular, due to protection of the page to prevent recreation as an separate article, I am unable to add the RFD template there.) FMecha (to talk|to see log) 16:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Discord

Hey all, I hope everyone is safe and healthy. My name is HickoryOughtShirt?4 and I'm a member of WikiProject Ice Hockey. I was wondering if there was any interest in starting a WikiProject Sports channel on Discord? There's quite a few of us who are interested in sports, and I think it would be a good idea to help the WikiProject recruit more members. You guys can join us through here.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Fbdave (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

AfC - expert needed

Would someone take a look at Draft:Magomed Magomedkerimov, assess for notability and if he passes, help with cleanup? Curb Safe Charmer (talk)

If reliable and independent sources could be provided for his pankration world titles, a good case could be made for him meeting WP:MANOTE even if WP:NMMA is not met. Because of the large number of martial arts organizations, it would also be important to state which organization's titles he won. Papaursa (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing the style guidelines and reinvigorating this project

@Bastun, Gilbert.JW, NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, MB, LuK3, PabloLikesToWrestle, Cassiopeia, Lethweimaster, Domdeparis, Deancarmeli, Lukejordan02, Kevlar, Chris troutman, and Regice2020:

Hi all. It's been pointed out by a couple of editors that this project isn't participated in enough to make an argument for following its guidelines, particularly as concerns the infobox. It does seem as if this page has not been meaningfully discussed for a very long time.

Is there an appetite to review and discuss the project? I believe we should, as by working together we can improve MMA articles. Could I ask those of you who can to add participants in this discussion? Perhaps we should begin with a discussion on the infobox guidelines.

At the moment Cassiopeia seems to be doing all the heavy lifting, and a few others and I deal with vandalism and grammar. That's not a true project, and we should sort it. Please can we get a discussion going for those who are interested in contributing to the project? NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It's nice of you to lift this glove, and I'm willing to try and contribute if and as possible. Deancarmeli (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Deancarmeli: that's brilliant, thanks. Please ping any collaborators and we'll get going.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

hrrm... Kevlar (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been actively updating everything related to infobox items, it's a continous process on my behalf. I also have a HUGE list of MMA athlete articles which I systematically go through in order to improve (especially) the infoboxes. Ticelon (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks. The MOS for WP:MMA really must be discussed. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@Gsfelipe94, Udar55, Ticelon, Papaursa, InedibleHulk, PRehse, InedibleHulk, Ppt1973, Psycho-Krillin, Brusinggiant, Evertonfc13, and NEDOCHAN: Hi guys see the comment from NEDOCHAN above and if you are interest, kindly join the disucssion. Hi Nedochan, pls note that there is some MOS guidelines in WP:MMA. If you refer to "infobox', all the info is a per Sherdog.com (source is listed at the end of the infobox). If any info can not be obtained from the Sherdog then source is required to support the claim. Kindly specific what the objective and which sector you are looking to discuss and list them here so we may know (not sure this is related to Conor talk page discussion). Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cass. The issue with the above is that, while I happen to agree, on what basis can I defend that guideline when other editors take issue? If this project doesn't have robust, recent discussion indicating consensus it makes it very challenging. When Batsun began discussing (which can't be avoided - regardless of whose edits are being defended) I was left to defend the guidelines by myself and wasted time. The project needs refreshing.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey guys. I'm not sure how I can help. For a while, each time there's a UFC event, I've been updating ranks, wrestling and sources for the fighters on the card. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I've noticed you have done some really interesting editing. Thanks. Those of us who do edit regularly should have a discussion. Thanks again. NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Same with the boxing project! It's only 2 or 3 blokes writing up these rules then bandying them about, not much of a process. But that's the lay of the land! NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM Hi, MMA guidelines have been written many years ago and I am not sure the discussion was among only a few editor as you have claimed. It is good that we could look at a few of the infobox guidelines which have yet to be part of the current MMA guidelines. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't make head nor tail of what you've just said there Cass! NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM sorry, missed out the "sure" in the sentence. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:28, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Cheers, I understand you now! What I'd say we'd do is to review the guidelines again and approve them as is or modify them, so they have more of a solid foundation when other people not involved in the project discuss them. That's my input! NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: The intent, if I am not mistaken from NEDOCHAN, is about few of the infobox info which are not specified in details in the current guidelines. Will list them in next few days to discuss. Thanks. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

• I think it's worth noting that there were a number of proposals and discussions earlier this year concerning MMA notability. Most of them can be found in archives 10 and 11 at WT:MMANOT. WP:NMMA is still the approved notability criteria for MMA fighters and is still used as the benchmark. Any changes should be discussed first at WT:MMANOT. None of the proposals generated enough support to pass, although making Bellator a top tier organization (for men and/or women) is on hold depending on this year's rankings. Of course, the suspension of most fights due to the coronavirus means that decision may have to be delayed. Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN and Papaursa: Hi Ndeochan, If I am not mistaken, you are looking at the guidelines of the fighter info box which currently are not included in the WP:MMA guidelines. Pls confirm and specify. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@NEDOCHAN: I do not entertain to individual request. Regice2020 (talk) 06:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Muhammad_Mokaev

Can anyone assist me getting this article accepted. Issue has been raised that the fighter is an amateur and doesnt therefore pass the GNG, however i think Mokaev is borderline in that mainstream media has covered him (ITV, Liverpool Echo, RT.com) the main amateur MMA organisation IMMAF has many articles on him and he has a winning streak of 23-0. Would love any assistance on getting Mokaev's article accepted. I have amended the article substantially in that i have added independent news sources, fixed bare links, removed youtube links and removed any superflous information. Rassmallai (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I have had a second rejection.

As amateurs fighter do not qualify with gng. It it’s wrong that amateur association in MMA has only one global organisation call immaf.

Seen as Mokaev has become world champion in that organisation 3 times. We need to add immaf into 3rd level organisations. Rassmallai (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "also known as..." from all UFC Events lead

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Gilbert.JW, NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, MB, LuK3, PabloLikesToWrestle, Cassiopeia, Lethweimaster, Domdeparis, Fbdave, Lukejordan02, Picograms, Kevlar, Chris troutman, Psycho-Krillin, and NEDOCHAN:

I am here to announce a proposal to barr any edits from having "(also known as..) on any UFC Events article lead starting from UFC 249. No more problems. EXAMPLE Regice2020 (talk) 04:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Support or Oppose

• Oppose Let us let the dust settle and see if a consensus numbering system prevails. If one doesn't, than this proposal will have merit. Otherwise, it's simply a loss of information useful and helpful to index events. Deancarmeli (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - It can not be done to remove the also know as ..... Pls note besides UFC PPV event the is numbering by UFC, the rest of the numbering come from the medias besides UFC PPV event the numbering is set by UFC (such as UFC 200), the rest of the numbering come from the medias. The reason is that without knowing who are the headliners for the event, the medias need to set up a systematic numbering identify the event (can't use city name as same cities have held UFC event and dates are hard to remember), for such the named UFC Fight Night XXX or UFC on ESPN xxx or UFC on ESPN+ XXX UFC on FOX xxx. When we create an article we need to support the content with sources and if the sources state UFC Fight Night 166 then we state UFC Fight Night 166 and use UFC Fight Night 166 as the article title until the headliners are confirmed close to the event date then we moved the page to the headliners event name and UFC Fight Night 166 or any other names (also known as XXX) will be redirect to the official headliners name. This is important as an unsourced or source doest not support the content article could not meet the notability guidelines for venerability / WP:PROVEIT is the core policies of Wikipedia and without it we cant even create the articles. In short WP:PROVEIT / verifiability triumphs all reasons for it is the core policy. Without the supporting sources no Wikipedia article exists. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The media use numbers for Fight Nights (the ESPN+ and the ESPN ones) and they seem to agree on what the numbers to use. Suddenly, we, on Wikipedia, are all mixed up? Come on! Let's stick with the numbers. We had UFN 171 on May 13, 2020; we're having UFC on ESPN 8 today (May 16, 2020). Let's keep it going from there. It has worked up until now. Not having a unique number to identify a Fight Night will eventually lead to confusion. Let's imagine some guys called Joe Silva and Marcus Smith head a UFN Silva vs. Smith, in 2020; then, in 2024, Pedro Silva and Daniel Smith fight in the main event of... yes, you got it, UFN Silva vs. Smith!... Guys, it's simpler to say UFN 181 and UFN 233 instead of using dates to sort which Fight Night is which so let's not change what works.Psycho-Krillin (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose (interesting that you did not ping me here, Regice2020) - as mentioned above, it makes it easier to distinguish events from each other and creating articles before main events are announced. As Psycho-Krillin (another guy that has been here for a long time) mentioned, we could have problems with last names in the future (another problem to solve if it happens and obviously having a number for the Fight Night or ESPN card helps that). In the past the media simply jumped cancelled events (I believe that it was mostly because the UFC jumped the numbered events order when they cancelled PPVs before), but since the UFC decided to indeed postpone UFC 249 to a new date reserved for another PPV, they might have decided to continue the order that was stablished in the last event before the pandemic took over. Due to that decision, we can simply remove the "also known" from the cancelled events (leave the articles as they were or rename them "Cancelled UFC event on XXXX") and keep the order for the following events. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a solution looking for a problem. Oppose for the same reasons as the other "oppose" votes before me have already stated. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment @JimKaatFan: this proposal is not for a problem. I think you only saying this because i rightfully challenged your edits on Henry Cejudo page and you clicked through talk page to get here too. Its unusual you got suddenly involved and edited big amount of info into the page too. What are you? Henry Cejudo friend? Regice2020 (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

"this proposal is not for a problem" - you said it even better than I did. JimKaatFan (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020:Jim also stalked my edits and followed me around wikipedia when i called him out too. Weird dude. Picograms (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Emergency move forward per WP:Bold regarding future UFC articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Bastun, Gilbert.JW, NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, MB, LuK3, PabloLikesToWrestle, Lethweimaster, Domdeparis, Deancarmeli, Lukejordan02, Kevlar, and Chris troutman:

All new UFC Events articles should no longer be created after UFC 251. We have to absolutely make "sure" now before creating a new UFC event page. Speedy deletion might be made and no drafts. MMA edit users can create the page 1 week before the event supposed start. We will improve as we go during that 1 week. Regice2020 (talk) 05:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The suggest can not be done. Any articles can be created as long as they meet WP:N and [[Wikipedia:Core content policies ]] guidelines. Pls go to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) if editor wants to propose change of Wikipedia guidelines. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - As above and we can easily move articles and information as anything new is released. Moving titles as well. If a problem that can be easily discussed among editors can be resolved, a simple talk page discussion can be created. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not !vote. @CASSIOPEIA: It not about changing WP:N. This about adding a mma project rule to specific UFC events page. Requiring them to wait 1 week before the UFC event starts to create the page. Reason? because that where most of "accurate" information seem to be posted on reliable sources. That way we can reduce to zero or limit the amount moves/merges or copy/paste content to another page. Regice2020 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 This is about WP:N and Wikipedia:Core content policies guidelines and they are not only guidelines but the core policies of Wikipedia. It is pointless to discuss here as WikiProject has no say on when an article could be created. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, we can write our opinions like that regardless of you saying it is a vote or not. Since this is a discussion, it is easier to point our opinions like that. If we wait 1 week before each event, we'd have to gather a lot of things in just one week and it makes no sense at all since information about those events are being released way before. Imagine if we waited one week before the actual UFC 249 took place? Honestly, that's not on the cards. We add reliable and accurate information everytime and adjust is as new info is released. If an event changes name, location, whatsoever, it's easier to put a timeline as we update it. It has been done for years with no issue and all of the sudden one person comes here and creates a bigger problem out of it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I'm bringing some other people you left out. @Dancter, Psycho-Krillin, Dimspace, Fbdave, Johntp122s, JimKaatFan, and Deancarmeli: Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"It has been done for years with no issue and all of the sudden one person comes here and creates a bigger problem out of it". COVID-19 pandemic and UFC 249/250 suddenly started the problem, the one you went around and changes things around. Regice2020 (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

UFC 249 is something already dealt with (and I'd say well done on that one). We adjusted to that specific situation as we did with any other event cancelled in the past. Your argument around wikipedia about COVID-19 is odd. It's not a reason to change things. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it is best to create new articles, instead of editing the existing articles. Fbdave (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Fbdave: The mmaproject did not have a rule to control the time frame when should a UFC event article should be created. If 1 week thing was active then we will have more editors actively improving during that week of newly created UFC event page. Not needing worry about moves/copy&paste/merges as the information closer to end is most up to date.Regice2020 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The articles are created as they always were: "UFC Fight Night XXX" or UFC on ESPN XXX" or "UFC PPV number". We move the articles (except PPVs obviously) to the new ones (when a main event and broadcast are confirmed) and redirect the numbered one. It works perfectly. One thing I defended is avoiding creating article for events way down the road when there's a chance others could be added. But this proposal is bizarre as everyone else but Regice2020 are saying. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Why are we even discussing this? This was never a problem up until now and I say it's still not a problem. The moment a new date / a new event / a new fight is announced, work starts for us (MMA editors). This proposal would bring no improvements whatsoever to MMA project. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UFC Fight Night articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The veteran editors who have been working on these articles for some time now have been handling these articles quite well until recent disruptions interfered. So as most already know here, the Fight Night and ESPN+ fight "numbers" in relation to consecutive numeral placement equaling sequential establishment is unfortunately off track, by four numerals, within the more recent articles following UFC Fight Night 170. The table below is shown to potentially be somewhat on track, though future fights are obviously pending. I would suggest getting the numerations in sync again, with that of the media and mainstream society. --Discographer (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

List of UFC events
	Date	Event
	January 25, 2020	UFC Fight Night 166 & (UFC on ESPN+ 24) → UFC Fight Night: Blaydes vs. dos Santos
	February 15, 2020	UFC Fight Night 167 & (UFC on ESPN+ 25) → UFC Fight Night: Anderson vs. Błachowicz 2
	February 22, 2020	UFC Fight Night 168 & (UFC on ESPN+ 26) → UFC Fight Night: Felder vs. Hooker
	February 29, 2020	UFC Fight Night 169 & (UFC on ESPN+ 27) → UFC Fight Night: Benavidez vs. Figueiredo
	March 14, 2020	UFC Fight Night 170 & (UFC on ESPN+ 28) → UFC Fight Night: Lee vs. Oliveira
	May 13, 2020	UFC Fight Night 171 & (UFC on ESPN+ 29) → UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira
	June 13, 2020	UFC Fight Night 172 & (UFC on ESPN+ 30) → UFC Fight Night: Eye vs. Calvillo
	June 20, 2020	UFC Fight Night 173 & (UFC on ESPN+ 31) → UFC Fight Night: Blaydes vs. Volkov
	June 27, 2020	UFC Fight Night 174 & (UFC on ESPN+ 32) → UFC Fight Night: Poirier vs. Hooker
	July 18, 2020	UFC Fight Night 175 & (UFC on ESPN+ 33) → UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2
Sherdog

• Support - Since main media has openly shared that the new events booked will follow the number after the last event to take place before the cancellations, we should use it to make it easier for people to relate the numbers in other websites and Wikipedia. The events that were cancelled should be left alone, with no "also known as" inserted in the text as they did not take place and media this time opted to jump the numbers. People will still have access to different articles as they are not the same events that are now taking place. Solving this issue will also stop with the non-sense merging of articles and move requests. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment @Discographer: The source that usually use for event number is very inconsistent ever since the COVID-19 pandemic affected first UFC after UFC Fight Night: Lee vs. Oliveira. This not the same case as older events were it was cancelled. The only way to stop this non sense fighting over numbers of a ufc event name is to go by "by event start date". The UFC event on June 13, 2020 its better stable option whatever people like or not. Once we have confirmed headliners then we change title to match headliners names. This is simple issue that would been resolved easily without question. All order are "sort by date" from now. Problem solved. Regice2020 (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Regice2020: These editors, including myself, aren't going to play any child-like games with you. So, either you accept this, or you don't. --Discographer (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Speedy Close Just like this, nothing but community divided over naming issues and event orders. Not cause of "some users or a user". Remove all numbers and titles set to UFC event on [month] [day], [year] That way there wont be any problems with future "health crisis".

List of UFC events
	Date	Event
	June 20, 2020	UFC event on June 20, 2020 → UFC Fight Night : Blaydes vs. Volkov
	June 27, 2020	UFC event on June 27, 2020 → UFC Fight Night : Poirier vs. Hooker
	July 18, 2020	UFC event on July 18, 2020 → UFC Fight Night : Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2
	Sherdog

Regice2020 (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Suport - As per media naming. As of merging to other article is another topic of its own. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support - There are good examples of the media using this numbering (at least starting at Smith vs. Texeira) here, here, and here, so it seems like it is the right way to go. If the mainstream is following this numbering, then Wikipedia should too. Cepiolot (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - We need more insight on this so we can reach a consensus, also making way for less worries when it comes to editing those pages. Calling some other editors here: @Bastun, Gilbert.JW, NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, MB, LuK3, PabloLikesToWrestle, Lethweimaster, Domdeparis, Deancarmeli, Lukejordan02, Kevlar, Chris troutman, Dancter, Psycho-Krillin, Dimspace, Fbdave, Johntp122s, and JimKaatFan: If I missed someone, please call them as well. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - This is the only obvious and logical solution. Let's get this settled once and for all.Psycho-Krillin (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Please leave me out of this and don't ping me again. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - @Discographer:'s suggestion seems perfectly reasonable to me. Deancarmeli (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe WP:COMMONNAME covers this issue. Call the articles by their most commonly used name in reliable sources. Personally, as the fights are shown on many other channels around the world, I'd be dropping the emphasis "UFC on ESPN xx" titles, which seems a bit US=centric. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bastun: Yup, the UFC fight commentary commonly says" UFC Fight Night <fighter name>, <fighter name> on ESPN or ESPN+...they never said UFC on ESPN <fighter name> <number> (..these idea more likely sneaked into the project), during the broadcast. Even their primary event details on UFC says UFC Fight Night... https://www.ufc.com/event/ufc-fight-night-phoenix-2019 Ordering names should be based on UFC event dates..nothing else. Honestly these ordering issues, and naming issues would of been resolved easliy if someone did not repeatedly page move without discussion or merge without discussion to force other editors to heavily monitor name order issue. Regice2020 (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bastun: The most common name is related to broadcast (when it's ESPN or used to be FOX) and main event attached to it (UFC Fight Night: X vs. Y if it's on ESPN+ or UFC on ESPN: X vs. Y if the broadcast is on the latter). Media uses not only that, but a number to keep it easier to mention articles (specially before a main event is announced). It has been done with no issue until now, due to some cancellations and new events not programmed amid the pandemic. Usually cancelled events did not have their number skipped in the order, but this time they did. We addressed that, but someone had a problem with it and we're stuck in a situation that could have been dealt in a better manner. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Plip!

Gsfelipe94 Regice2020 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Another helpful contribution. Congrats. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Just letting everybody know that User:Regice2020 is a sock puppet account and has been blocked indefinitely. Should we finally move on? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
• Gsfelipe94 See - Regice2020 was SP of 4 accounts - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BusriderSF2015 . I will get an uninvolved editor to close this early next week. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

UFC on ESPN 10 → UFC on ESPN: Eye vs. Calvillo

Per updates from multiple media sources, UFC Fight Night: Eye vs. Calvillo is now UFC on ESPN: Eye vs. Calvillo, which changes the numerations for both UFC Fight Night: Blaydes vs. Volkov (to UFC Fight Night 172) and UFC Fight Night: Poirier vs. Hooker (to UFC Fight Night 173). These three articles should be updated to reflect those recent changes.

Here is an updated table below with the current changes in place for those three June fights:

List of UFC events
	Date	Event
	May 9, 2020	UFC 249: Ferguson vs. Gaethje
	May 13, 2020	UFC Fight Night 171 — (UFC on ESPN+ 29) → UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira
	May 16, 2020	UFC on ESPN 08 → UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Harris
	May 30, 2020	UFC on ESPN 09 → UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns
	June 6, 2020	UFC 250: Nunes vs. Spencer
	June 13, 2020	UFC on ESPN 10 → UFC on ESPN: Eye vs. Calvillo
	June 20, 2020	UFC Fight Night 172 — (UFC on ESPN+ 30) → UFC Fight Night: Blaydes vs. Volkov
	June 27, 2020	UFC Fight Night 173 — (UFC on ESPN+ 31) → UFC Fight Night: Poirier vs. Hooker
	July 11, 2020	UFC 251: Usman vs. Burns
Sherdog

Thanks to those editors for your continuing contributions to these articles. --Discographer (talk) 10:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - we have consensus agreement on the numbering which you have proposed. We can go back and forth as we see fit. In addition, UFC/ESPN has keeping changing last minute from ESPN to ESPN+ or ESPN+ to ESPN, we can keep on doing the round robin event name change. UFC Fight Nigh XXX from here on starting from UFC on ESPN 10. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:34, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Comment: This isn't going against consensus, it's a correctional update to Eye vs. Calvillo. These two fights only ››

May 16, 2020 — UFC on ESPN 08 → UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Harris

May 30, 2020 — UFC on ESPN 09 → UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns

›› are also UFC on ESPN fights. The proposal on consensus was for UFC Fight Night — (UFC on ESPN+) fights.

Eye vs. Calvillo was originally changed from that to a UFC on ESPN fight. The numerations for that fight's following two fights on June 20 and June 27 require a downward numerical re-adjustment due to updating.

--Discographer (talk) 11:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Discographer as per the consensus agreement which you have listed out the event names that should be we go with. I noticed it when I saw the first time and know even I prefer the the historical name that set up, we can NOT go against what is agreed especially it is a consensus agreement that will not only defeat the purpose reason of a proposal but it betrays the editor who voted the proposal and against the Wikipedia proposing/closing guidelines. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

In the above proposal, you did see where I wrote "The table below is shown to potentially be somewhat on track, though future fights are obviously pending." This means any fights before May 30 can not be touched, there isn't any reason to go back, but future fights can be, and can be re-adjusted accordingly in updating corrections. If errors are never corrected, or any fights that may be pending are not updated, then this project will become a real mess. All pending and future fights are not in concrete, and can even change, as they haven't happened yet, and changes do and can occur. Let's keep it real, and eliminate errors, and update accordingly when we need so. Yes, we are still even following consensus. --Discographer (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - Per above. The consensus was not related to naming everything that is not PPV a Fight Night. It was related to correcting the order of events based on the previous cancellations. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

That's correct. Thanks. --Discographer (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Okay Cassiopeia, since we're not really getting anywhere with this, let's do the numbering then, including numerals as part of the fight articles themselves. If you haven't seen this yet, please read Felipe's talk page on an improved proposal we have that we should vote on, maybe you'll like this one as we'd be including all the fight numbers as part of the actual fight articles themselves, like what Sherdog has, and if you agree to it as we do, then we can put it up for vote on this page, and if passed, it would supersede the current one we have. Besides that, in the long-term, it really would be better than what we currently have anyway. --Discographer (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Adding the numbers to the title would not make much sense as the events are announced only by their main event (or the numbers only when they want to make it smaller or there's no main event confirmed). I believe just keeping the main fight for non-PPV events would be the best. The smaller networks/Fight Pass get a Fight Night title and a major one (like Fox or ESPN) get their "UFC on XXX". Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on all this. --Discographer (talk) 00:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer, Gsfelipe94, and 29cwcst: Support - I saw your reasoning in few of the talk page. Let do this then. 29cwcst - see the above and welcome to edit as per the above. Thanks in advance. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Discographer, OK. Saw some discussion on several talk page. Let's do this then. As per your table (view in source editing mode) the numbers (examplea UFC Fight Night 173: Poirier vs. Hooker and UFC on ESPN 8: Overeem vs. Harris will be removed on the title page. If so, you might want to create another column to state the page name as many editors might not notice. Thank you.

Proposal have Tachi Palace Fights and BAMMA listed as defunct organizations

The proposal is pretty straight forward. Both these organizations are officially defunct and don't put on shows anymore

• I agree. Neither organization has held an event since 2018. I went ahead and made those changes at WP:MMANOT. If there are objections we can continue this discussion and I will revert the changes I made. I just didn't see any reason to prolong what seems obvious. Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Rankings in the event pages

I noticed there was an anonymous edit that had inserted ^{ranking like this} in the fight card section of Smith vs Teixeira page. I personally like the idea, as it gives a grasp what was at stake as its rarely visible anywhere in any other page. Also, given that the athletes' careers span even across decades, it would give significant information of his/her prevailing status when reading retrospectively. It would also kind of indicate the significance of the event.

Sure enough, this would affect only UFC at this point as other organizations don't have a ranking system, but I don't see it necessarily as a problem when speaking of the market leader. The ranking of course clutters the table a bit, but as I viewed it from the page version it didn't look too distracting to me.

If there is no favorable consensus on this matter, is there some other mechanism to do it? I guess marking them down in the fighters' pages every bout is not an option and not even very feasible. As a statistics enthusiast I just would like to visualize the progress of a fighter's career somehow. Consider this just as a half-hearted discussion opener about the topic. Ticelon (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it can be a nice addition to the fight cards, but it has to be sourced. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

This was an issue years ago when the UFC started adding rankings. Some people added, but the majority at the time decided against it. I'm not sure there was an specific topic in a page like this (I believe it was in an event's talk page). What most agreed was that rankings were pretty subjective and changed constantly (also having no impact in fights made as we've seen plenty of times). Based on that, I still believe it's not really helpful. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Gsfelipe94. As far as boxing, kickboxing, and MMA are concerned it's generally been the consensus that any promotion's rankings do not provide independent information and can be highly misleading. For example, I've seen many boxers unranked by every organization but one and yet one organization ranked him in the world top 10 (or a less significant organization gave him a title shot). Flagging title fights are a different matter, that's a verifiable fact. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, UFC rankings are created by media, not UFC itself. UFC just presents the data on their website. It seems to be mentioned on the rankings page, under "How are rankings determined?" section, and the voting media outlets are transparently disclosed. Ticelon (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You're correct about the UFC rankings but the same can't be said for other organizations. All of these rankings are very transitory and I don't think they add much value to individual MMA fighter articles, but that's just my opinion. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you about the other organizations' rankings. Additionally, I would prefer to mark those rankings up in the event articles instead of the fighter articles. If marking the rankings in the results table is frowned upon, one possibility could be to write them up in verbose to the text. It would be eloquent to add them up in the lead-ups of information-rich event articles, like UFC 244. Ticelon (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Speedy Close Simply No Regice2020 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Surely these guys are notable?

Terrion Ware has fought 3 times in the UFC and Hiromasa Okgikubo was a runner up on the Ultimate Fighter. Surely these guys deserve a Wikipedia article.Dwanyewest (talk) 06:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I believe Ware has 4 UFC fights. Even though he lost them all, Ware meets WP:NMMA. However, Okgikubo's fights were all on the Ultimate Fighter, which are classified by both the UFC and the Nevada Commission as exhibitions. Previous consensus has said that fights on the Ultimate Fighter finale do count, but that means he has only 1 fight that counts towards the requirement of 3. Papaursa (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Add Bellator to Top Tier Organization

So this conversation has been going on for years and as this previous proposal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability/Archive_10#Proposal:_promote_Bellator_MMA_as_the_top_tier_promoter_for_male_and_female_categories

has shown is that Bellator has reached the necessary 3 or more fighters in the top 10 rankings for both female and males for almost 3 years now. The fact that they still are not added to the top tier is somewhat crazy to me as they have long reached the one year with 3 or more fighters in the top ten that was necessary.

Any editor is welcome to vote and discuss on these proposal, pinging those regular MMA editors here which I can remember on top of my head if they wish to make any comments. The proposal will be opened for one month as per to-date and I will invite a non-involved admin to close the proposal.@Papaursa, Ppt1973, Imhungry4444, InedibleHulk, Psycho-Krillin, PRehse, Tbb 911, Pokerplayer513, Gsfelipe94, Udar55, A.lanzetta, BEDofRAZORS666, Brusinggiant, Cdneh95, Sdpdude9, Ticelon, Simonm223, Dwanyewest, and Cassiopeia:

2020 Sherdog rankings for male fighters

Rank	Date	Date	Date	Date	Date
(2020)	January 20	February 24	March 16	May 11	June 8
HW	(10) Ryan Bader	(10) Ryan Bader	(10) Ryan Bader	(10) Ryan Bader	(10) Ryan Bader
LHW	N/A	N/A	(10) Vadim Nemkov	(10) Vadim Nemkov	N/A
MW	(10) Rafael Lovato Jr.	(10) Rafael Lovato Jr.	(10) Rafael Lovato Jr.	(10) Rafael Lovato Jr.	(10) Rafael Lovato Jr.
WW	(7) Douglas Lima	(6) Douglas Lima	(6) Douglas Lima	(6) Douglas Lima	(7) Douglas Lima
LW	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
FW	(8) Patrício Freire	(8) Patrício Freire	(8) Patrício Freire	(8) Patrício Freire	(8) Patrício Freire
BW	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
FLW	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Total fighter in 10	4	4	5	5	4

2020 Sherdog rankings for female fighters

Rank	Date	Date	Date	Date	Date
(2020)	January 20	February 24	March 16	May 11	June 8
WFW	(2) Cristiane Justino (3) Julia Budd (4) Arlene Blencowe (7) Jessy Miele (8) Talita Nogueira	(2) Cristiane Justino (3) Julia Budd (4) Arlene Blencowe (7) Jessy Miele (8) Talita Nogueira	(2) Cristiane Justino (3) Julia Budd (5) Arlene Blencowe (7) Jessy Miele (8) Talita Nogueira	(2) Cristiane Justino (3) Julia Budd (5) Arlene Blencowe (7) Jessy Miele (8) Talita Nogueira	(2) Cristiane Justino (3) Julia Budd (5) Arlene Blencowe (7) Jessy Miele (8) Talita Nogueira
WBW	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
WFLW	(2) Ilima-Lei Macfarlane (3) Liz Carmouche	(2) Ilima-Lei Macfarlane (3) Liz Carmouche	(2) Ilima-Lei Macfarlane (3) Liz Carmouche	(2) Ilima-Lei Macfarlane (3) Liz Carmouche	(2) Ilima-Lei Macfarlane (3) Liz Carmouche
WSW	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Total fighter in 10	7	7	7	7	7

• Support - Bellator has been the second biggest organization worldwide for years. Specially after Strikeforce was merged into the UFC. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support: I support this proposal. Even though there can be some natural fluctuations in the rankings, there is an established collection of ranking staples thus making the organization eligible for a top tier status. Of course, this makes a case for possible influx of new mixed martial artist articles as per notability requirements. Ticelon (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Not that this proposal is without merit, but because it was just discussed for two months earlier this year. At the time it seemed like consensus was to revisit the topic at the end of 2020 and see if both the Bellator men's and women's divisions had six ranked fighters and to move them to top tier if that was so. It has been a long standing consensus that organizations should show top tier status by meeting the requirements for some period of time (a year seemed to be acceptable). By the way, that number was six the last time consensus was reached (see [1]).

I would also point out the numbers calculated by Sandals1 at the discussion earlier this year. (see facts and info)

"I just did a count of the current Sherdog rankings. That's the top 10 for men in 8 divisions and top 10 for women in 5 divisions. For men I found that it still seems to be the UFC and everyone else. Of the 80 ranked male fighters, 73 are from the UFC. For women the counts were UFC 31, Invicta 8, Bellator 7, and Rizen 4. Five of the Invicta fighters and all of the Rizen fighters were in the atomweight division. I mention that because at previous discussions there appeared to be a feeling that a top tier organization should have ranked fighters in most, if not all, divisions. I'm not sure that's relevant but it was brought up previously."

I would prefer to table this discussion and check the rankings in December. COVID-19 has made this anything but a typical year and sports is certainly no exception. Papaursa (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean fights are still going on right now and it is the one sport not affected that much by COVID. Likewise, the absurdity of using Sherdog rankings to determine anything is another topic that I would like to talk about eventually. Their rankings are to be honest, even less meaningful then UFC rankings and are to be seems based on just whims of just editors on that website, who to be frank, who are they and why are they noteworthy. There are far more better ranking systems, which actually take into account stuff like ELO, which rank these fighters. I get it tho, there seems to be some pro-UFC bias in any discussions of this topic and the criteria and goalposts keeps getting moved. Not to add that this absurdly high bar to get a wiki page compared to other sports, like soccer or hockey were people playing in minor leagues get pages, is somewhat absurd. It basically comes down to, fight in the UFC or you are not noteworthy, which begs the question of some ulterior motive. HeinzMaster (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe there's an ulterior motive, it's just a question of numbers. If there are 73 ranked fighters in the UFC and 4 or 5 in Bellator, it's hard to make a good case that the organizations are equal. None of the Bellator men's weight classes have more than 1 ranked fighter while almost every weight class has at least 9 ranked UFC fighters. WT:NSPORT says that notability is based on "competing at the highest level" and at this time it seems to be just the UFC, at least for men. With so many Bellator men's weight classes having zero ranked fighters, how can that be the highest level? I think a better case can be made for Bellator women's notability but since the consensus earlier this year was to wait until the end of 2020, I don't know why we need this discussion every few months. As far as notability is concerned, Sandals1 made a proposal earlier this year that would make every fighter ranked in the world top 10 (yes, by Sherdog) notable--but I was the only one who supported that proposal. That was in addition to the existing notability criteria. In that case the organization would have been rendered less significant and notability would have been more in line with boxing and kickboxing which both used to use top 10 rankings as sufficient to show notability. Of course that proposal would have to be approved at WT:NSPORT, but if MMA editors wouldn't support it why even present it there? Papaursa (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Using top 10 rankings, especially from a place like Sherdog, would be even more restrictive and mean even less fighters get pages. HeinzMaster (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Please read what was actually written--"That was in addition to the existing notability criteria." That means no fighters who meet the existing WP:NMMA would have been removed, but some would have been added. For example, any Bellator fighter ranked in the top 10 would automatically qualify. Also, minor league players in other sports are not deemed WP notable, although some have articles because they meet WP:GNG. Any MMA fighter who meets WP:GNG is also WP notable. SNGs are in addition to, not in place of, the GNG (which trumps any SNG). Papaursa (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought you were suggesting just having fighters who are top 10 to qualify for a page. I would approve adding top 10 fighters from any organization as being qualified. Maybe using something like mmamatrix or keyzma as well. HeinzMaster (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, the proposal was by Sandals1 and not by me, though I did support it (and still do). I just looked and Sandals1 hasn't posted anything since February. I am not familiar with keyzma and I know mmamatrix has at least 5 ranking systems. That seems like they don't really know which system is best and makes it hard for me to say we should use them. I would prefer to stick with the conclusion reached in the February discussions that no changes be made until December. My inclination is that the next addition to top tier should be the Bellator women, but I'd prefer to let 2020's results guide our decision. Papaursa (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

UFC 251 date

Just a heads up be we have another "date warrior" running around changing the date of UFC 251 from July 12 to July 11 on various Wikipedia pages for the fighters on this event. I've had to change it back on several pages and user Powderkegg just goes back and changes it. So keep an eye out because apparently time zones mean nothing to him. Udar55 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't talk about me in that tone. I made a mistake and I apologize for it. I didn't realize the time zone difference. I forgot that the last time they ran an event in Abu Dhabi it was day time in the U.S. and that's why the time zones matched here and in Abu Dhabi. Powderkegg (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Bellator 242

In order to hopefully avoid the confusion and mess with the cancelled/rescheduled events in the UFC, how are we going to handle future Bellator events? They just announced a new lineup and date for Bellator 242. Shall we use the same events here Bellator MMA in 2020#Bellator 242 and leave the cancelled fight cards intact, write new fight cards below (inside the same subsection) and fix the dates with information in the background section? Ticelon (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Dan Henderson height

After a report at RFPP surrounding this article, I have now blocked two editors from editing the page as there has been a long edit war going back to April about his height. A quick google shows a disparity in the height between Sherdog (and the infobox) and ESPN/UFC amongst others. Please can I invite any interested editors to go to the discussion on Talk:Dan Henderson to help resolve this issue. Thanks in advance. Woody (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

UFC event redirects

Hey folks, please try and maintain consistency when redirecting to UFC event articles. Check what the current naming convention is first, because you could potentially create more work for other editors like myself. They're unlikely to be deleted, so it's important that you do so. For example:

UFC Vegas
Date	Event
May 30, 2020	UFC Vegas 1 — UFC Vegas: Woodley vs. Burns — UFC Vegas 1: Woodley vs. Burns → UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns
June 13, 2020	UFC Vegas 2 — UFC Vegas: Eye vs. Calvillo — UFC Vegas 2: Eye vs. Calvillo → UFC on ESPN: Eye vs. Calvillo
June 20, 2020	UFC Vegas 3 — UFC Vegas: Blaydes vs. Volkov — UFC Vegas 3: Blaydes vs. Volkov → UFC on ESPN: Blaydes vs. Volkov
June 27, 2020	UFC Vegas 4 — UFC Vegas: Poirier vs. Hooker — UFC Vegas 4: Poirier vs. Hooker → UFC on ESPN: Poirier vs. Hooker
August 1, 2020	UFC Vegas 5 — UFC Vegas: Brunson vs. Shahbazyan — UFC Vegas 5: Brunson vs. Shahbazyan → UFC Fight Night: Brunson vs. Shahbazyan
August 8, 2020	UFC Vegas 6 — UFC Vegas: Lewis vs. Oleinik — UFC Vegas 6: Lewis vs. Oleinik → UFC Fight Night: Lewis vs. Oleinik
·

The same applies with UFC Fight Island event redirects:

UFC Fight Island
Date	Event
July 16, 2020	UFC Fight Island 1 — UFC Fight Island: Kattar vs. Ige — UFC Fight Island 1: Kattar vs. Ige → UFC on ESPN: Kattar vs. Ige
July 18, 2020	UFC Fight Island 2 — UFC Fight Island: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2 — UFC Fight Island 2: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2 → UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2
July 25, 2020	UFC Fight Island 3 — UFC Fight Island: Whittaker vs. Till — UFC Fight Island 3: Whittaker vs. Till → UFC on ESPN: Whittaker vs. Till
·

Unfortunately, there are other redirects where this isn't the case:

UFC Fight Night
Date	Event
May 13, 2020	UFN 171 — UFC Fight Night 171 — UFC on ESPN+ 29 → UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira
July 19, 2020	UFN 172 — UFC Fight Night 172 — UFC on ESPN+ 30 → UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2
August 1, 2020	UFN 173 — UFC Fight Night 173 — UFC on ESPN+ 31 → UFC Fight Night: Brunson vs. Shahbazyan
August 8, 2020	UFN 174 — UFC Fight Night 174 — UFC on ESPN+ 32 → UFC Fight Night: Lewis vs. Oleinik
August 29, 2020	UFN 175 — UFC Fight Night 175 — UFC on ESPN+ 33 → UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Rakić
September 5, 2020	UFN 176 — UFC Fight Night 176 — UFC on ESPN+ 34 → UFC Fight Night: Overeem vs. Sakai
·

@Discographer: Along with certain UFC on ESPN redirects, some of these pages don't have all of the same redirects. Albeit a minor issue, I still think that this should be addressed collectively. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@29cwcst: I have created the center column of redirects for UFC on ESPN past fights as shown in the table below, as wll as the remainder of the UFN ### redirects (UFN 1 through UFN 170), which was began by you with UFN 171 and going through the most recent fight, which I take you will continue creating for future events.

UFC on ESPN
Date	Event
February 16, 2019	UFC on ESPN 1 — UFC on ESPN 1: Ngannou vs. Velasquez → UFC on ESPN: Ngannou vs. Velasquez
March 30, 2019	UFC on ESPN 2 — UFC on ESPN 2: Barboza vs. Gaethje → UFC on ESPN: Barboza vs. Gaethje
June 29, 2019	UFC on ESPN 3 — UFC on ESPN 3: Ngannou vs. dos Santos → UFC on ESPN: Ngannou vs. dos Santos
July 20, 2019	UFC on ESPN 4 — UFC on ESPN 4: dos Anjos vs. Edwards → UFC on ESPN: dos Anjos vs. Edwards
August 3, 2019	UFC on ESPN 5 — UFC on ESPN 5: Covington vs. Lawler → UFC on ESPN: Covington vs. Lawler
October 19, 2019	UFC on ESPN 6 — UFC on ESPN 6: Reyes vs. Weidman → UFC on ESPN: Reyes vs. Weidman
December 7, 2019	UFC on ESPN 7 — UFC on ESPN 7: Overeem vs. Rozenstruik → UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Rozenstruik
May 16, 2020	UFC on ESPN 8 — UFC on ESPN 8: Overeem vs. Harris → UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Harris
May 30, 2020	UFC on ESPN 9 — UFC on ESPN 9: Woodley vs. Burns → UFC on ESPN: Woodley vs. Burns
June 13, 2020	UFC on ESPN 10 — UFC on ESPN 10: Eye vs. Calvillo → UFC on ESPN: Eye vs. Calvillo
June 20, 2020	UFC on ESPN 11 — UFC on ESPN 11: Blaydes vs. Volkov → UFC on ESPN: Blaydes vs. Volkov
June 27, 2020	UFC on ESPN 12 — UFC on ESPN 12: Poirier vs. Hooker → UFC on ESPN: Poirier vs. Hooker
July 15, 2020	UFC on ESPN 13 — UFC on ESPN 13: Kattar vs. Ige → UFC on ESPN: Kattar vs. Ige
July 25, 2020	UFC on ESPN 14 — UFC on ESPN 14: Whittaker vs. Till → UFC on ESPN: Whittaker vs. Till
August 22, 2020	UFC on ESPN 15 — UFC on ESPN 15: Munhoz vs. Edgar → UFC on ESPN: Munhoz vs. Edgar
·

--Discographer (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: Please know that your work is greatly appreciated, but also know that Regice2020 was responsible for beginning the UFN ### redirects. I tried to get those redirects deleted, but failed there as well. This subsequently resulted in me filling the gaps, but I just couldn't be bothered creating so many additional redirects for the other UFC Fight Night events. It turned out that Regice was actually a sock, so I'm obviously not surprised by what transpired. Once again though, your outstanding work is greatly appreciated nevertheless. — 29cwcst (talk) 03:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@29cwcst: Thanks for the appreciation above. My apologies to you for insinuating (on my talk page) that you and Regice2020 may be one and the same, but now see that you clearly are not. So of course you had every right to be mad at me. Moving on from all that, thanks for creating [beginning with] UFN 171 through the present, and future ones also that I'm sure you're going to create as redirects. Establishing that precedent encouraged me to create redirects for UFN 1 through UFN 170, solely to follow on what you had already created earlier, for the sake of completeness. Your work is also greatly appreciated. --Discographer (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: No worries, I sensed you were painting the wrong portrait of me to begin with. It never actually bothered me though, because I knew how things should've been done the entire time. I tried to remain transparent throughout and am glad that you now see where I'm coming from. Keep well, take care and all the best. — 29cwcst (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer and 29cwcst: - Good day. pls note that there should not be any "UFC Vegas: aaa vs. bbb" and "UFC Fight Island: xxx vs. yyy" as they are not been well mentioned by the media. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:47, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I see you have not came across this, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 10#UFC Vegas 6: Lewis vs. Oleinik. Please read it, if you will. Thanks. --Discographer (talk) 10:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: To me this is just a little too much as an event has so many redirect and hardy any sources using the name. But since it is a keep, then the outcom is what it is then. Stay safe Discographer and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: It may be a little too much, but I say ... bring on those redirects-to-be (past , present, future), and we'll get them aimed at their respective primary UFC targets, no matter how many. It's a goal of mine to get all the different configurations of UFC redirects aimed at their respective primary targets so as to prevent any possible UFC redirects from becoming used elsewhere on Wikipedia in the form of non-UFC articles / non-UFC redirects. Thanks, and stay safe yourself. --Discographer (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: I see. Thanks for the explanation and intention in mind. Stay safe and happy watching UFC on ESPN 15 this weekend. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 12:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I was left with no other choice really. This place hasn't enabled me to simply delete things myself yet, so an excessive and unnecessary amount of redirects have been/will be created instead. I'm hoping that other editors will think twice from now on. — 29cwcst (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Event salaries/payouts

Something that came up that I was talking with 29cwcst about that i think is possibly worth future discussion and that is the inclusion on event pages of fighter payouts for the event. At the moment we appear to be recording payouts from two sources, one of which is official commission released payouts, but in their absence we are including media reported payouts which are not official and are basically estimated. For me I really think we should only be including fighter salary information where it is the official information released by the athletic commission. With the media estimated payouts we really cannot vouch for their accuracy, i feel as an encyclopedia only actual released payouts should be included.

This is going to become more of an issue going forward as one of the few commissions that actually disclose salary information (Nevada Athletic Commission) have announced that they are going to stop releasing fighter salaries. . With virtually no official release of fighter salaries the estimated purses on the mma media sites are going to be nothing better than guesswork.

Would propose going forward that fight purses are ONLY including in articles where they are officially released by the athletic commission (and possible argument that for previous articles "estimated" should be added to purse data but that might be too much of a job Dimspace (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

References

@Dimspace: If information regarding event salaries has been officially disclosed by whoever's sanctioning the event, then I see no reason to discontinue adding them. I actually thought that we'd begun recording payouts for all UFC events going forward, so I went ahead and added those estimated figures. Reported payout figures shouldn't be abolished, at least not in my opinion. I'm at fault for what's happened, but I hope that other editors can also learn from it. — 29cwcst (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree when they are reported by the athletic commission. But I dont think we should be including them when they are simply estimated by a media outlet which has happened on some cards. The media outlets currently loosely estimate them based on previous commission reported numbers, but as more commissions stop reporting these media estimates are going to be more and more unreliable. Thats all im proposing, that we only report official commission ones, not media estimated ones. Dimspace (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dimspace: Well then, please know that your proposal has my support. I think if we're able to explain this and alert other editors here, they should only add figures disclosed by whoever's sanctioning the event. However, if these figures can't be found or simply aren't available, perhaps leaving an "invisible" message is something we could look at facilitating. I'm thinking within the reported payout section somewhere. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

UFC Fight Night redirects

@Discographer: I need your help with the following redirects:

UFC Fight Night
Date	Event
May 13, 2020	UFC Fight Night 171 — UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira → UFC Fight Night 171: Smith vs. Teixeira
July 19, 2020	UFC Fight Night 172 — UFC Fight Night: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2 → UFC Fight Night 172: Figueiredo vs. Benavidez 2
August 1, 2020	UFC Fight Night 173 — UFC Fight Night: Brunson vs. Shahbazyan → UFC Fight Night 173: Brunson vs. Shahbazyan
August 8, 2020	UFC Fight Night 174 — UFC Fight Night: Lewis vs. Oleinik → UFC Fight Night 174: Lewis vs. Oleinik
August 29, 2020	UFC Fight Night 175 — UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Rakić → UFC Fight Night 175: Smith vs. Rakić
September 5, 2020	UFC Fight Night 176 — UFC Fight Night: Overeem vs. Sakai → UFC Fight Night 176: Overeem vs. Sakai
·

Not all of these redirects have been created yet, regarding the redirects that feature both the event headliner and number. After our discussion here last month, I now wonder if we could work on solving this problem together. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@29cwcst: I have no problems. What problems do you seem to be having? --Discographer (talk) 10:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: Creating all the additional/remaining redirects for UFC Fight Night events 1–142 (prior to UFC on ESPN+ 1 in January 2019). — 29cwcst (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@29cwcst: Okay, here is a wikitable of UFN redirects created and not yet created. Create what you like, if you want, I can begin at a later date, just not now. --Discographer (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

--Discographer (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: If you personally want to create these redirects for all previous UFC Fight Night events, be my guest. This what I actually meant:

UFC Fight Night redirects (1–142)

As always though, your work is much obliged nevertheless. — 29cwcst (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@29cwcst: Oh, and that too, allot of redirecting work ahead I have then. At least there's no rush in getting it done. --Discographer (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: I've finished creating the remaining redirects that previously existed, but would actually prefer it if the additional redirects you listed weren't created. They only came about because of a troublemaking sock, so they really shouldn't exist at all. This is why I tried (and failed) to get the existing UFN redirects deleted. Also, please don't create any other redirects for UFC Fight Night: McGregor vs. Brandao yet because I'm currently appealing for its move. — 29cwcst (talk) 05:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@29cwcst: So no UFN redirects, sure. Just so you know, the existing UFN redirects involved no sockpuppetry on my part, so you better be extremely careful in any name pointing because it will be used against you. Now, since you completed what I would have started, that then finishes the retro-activity process of creating redirects for past fights. I'll continue creating redirects for upcoming fights as I have been, unless you create them yourself first. I take it you'll continue to do the same likewise. Also, you do know that UFC Fight Night: McGregor vs. Brandao → UFC Fight Night: McGregor vs. Brandão is a technicality issue, and requires no approved consensus, because it's merely being corrected in name only (to match that of the fighter's article name, Diego Brandão). Just have an admin move it, and they will for that very reason. --Discographer (talk) 10:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: I was referring to Regice2020, who is responsible for starting the whole UFN redirects thing. Regice actually created UFN 176 as an article and not a redirect, but it eventually became the latter. As a result, a whole new type of redirect for UFC Fight Night events was ultimately created. Regice was a sock for four different accounts, according to Cassiopeia at least. Go and check it out here if you don't believe me. — 29cwcst (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@29cwcst: Okay, got it. // Now for UFC Fight Night: McGregor vs. Brandão, let an admin know about the technicality, and they will move it. --Discographer (talk) 11:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: I'll see what happens with my requested move first. — 29cwcst (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@29cwcst: UFC Fight Night: McGregor vs. Brandão has now been moved. --Discographer (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: Never mind then xD! — 29cwcst (talk) 12:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Manual of Style/formatting

@Cassiopeia: You never answered my question, so I'll ask it again here:

What is the Manual of Style for all UFC event articles? There are obviously things that you simply want done in a certain way, given your "reasons" for reverting my edits. Please let me know what they are because I'm finished tolerating this now. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst Did you ping me on your talk page?. Pls read WP:MMA there are "some" MOS but not all is included. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: I replied to your message on my talk page. Also, could you provide me with a list of brief, concise dot points that outline how you want UFC event articles formatted? I removed the Nevada State Athletic Commission (NSAC) links because they were/are already mentioned in the background section. — 29cwcst (talk) 11:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst Ok, I will reply at your talk page and if I didnt reply for I must have missed it then ping me again at your talk page or pop to my talk page remind me. For Manual of Style (MOS) pls read WP:MOS and the links in the page and there few MOS in [WP:MMA]] section. Cassiopeia^(talk) 23:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What about Taneisha Tennant?

Should Taneisha Tennant have a Wikipedia article she has fought 2 times in Invicta and 2 times in Invicta as part of a pro exhibition fights. Is that notable enough tof create an article? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: Once again, I personally have no problem with you doing so. Have a read of this article and then decide for yourself:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability

If you elect to create an article about Taneisha Tennant, submit it for review and see what others think because that should ultimately answer your question. — 29cwcst (talk) 07:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Dwanyewest Good day. Not yet notable as she needs one more tier one promotion fight. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What about Erica Montoya?

Should Erica Montoya have her own article she is a pioneer of Women's MMA. What are other people's thoughts?Dwanyewest (talk) 07:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: I personally have no problem with you creating any article for any MMA fighter. Unfortunately, others will probably beg to differ with me on this. Considering that Montoya is a pioneer of Women's MMA like you mentioned, I imagine she's obviously notable enough to have her own article. You've got my support either way though. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Dwanyewest She is not notable as she has only one tier one promotion fight. I see an article stating she was a BJJ world champ, but I cant find BJJF site stating that. If you can fight and she is a black belt medalist then she is notable. Sources would be hard to find as it is above 20 years ago. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliability of Sherdog

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Responses (Sherdog.com) regarding the reliability of Sherdog. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 07:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest, Discographer, Udar55, Gsfelipe94, Udar55, Ticelon, Papaursa, InedibleHulk, PRehse, InedibleHulk, Ppt1973, Psycho-Krillin, Brusinggiant, Evertonfc13, Psycho-Krillin, A.lanzetta, BEDofRAZORS666, Sdpdude9, Ticelon, 29cwcst, and IMAHua: Ping the regular MMA editors - see Conor McGregor's Height Should be 5'11" and Certainly Not 5'8" lead up to the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Responses (Sherdog.com). Do join the discussion if you wish. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Woah. What did I do? IMAHua (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Time to break up DWCS by year?

With Dana White's Contender Series apparently no longer contained to just eight summer events per year, that article is in danger of becoming unwieldy very soon. It seems that starting separate articles for each year (2017 in Dana White's Contender Series, etc.) could be the way to go. 71.167.26.132 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

ESPN

Please visit at [2] to join the discussion on the addition of ESPN in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and it's reliability. Thank You.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency among UFC fight event numbering

Since November 7, UFC event fight numbering has been inconsistent and is effecting the numbering of future events. A comparable table is shown below.

List of UFC events
Date	Wikipedia article Needs moved (From → To)			Sherdog	mmajunkie
November 7, 2020	UFC on ESPN: Santos vs. Teixeira	→	— (no change necessary) —	UFC on ESPN 17: Santos vs. Teixeira	UFC on ESPN 17: Santos vs. Teixeira
November 14, 2020	UFC Fight Night: Felder vs. dos Anjos	→	— (no change necessary) —	UFC Fight Night 182: Felder vs. dos Anjos	UFC Fight Night 182: Felder vs. dos Anjos
November 21, 2020	UFC 255	→	— (no change necessary) —	UFC 255: Figueiredo vs. Perez	UFC 255: Figueiredo vs. Perez
November 28, 2020	UFC on ESPN: Smith vs. Clark	→	— (no change necessary) —	UFC on ESPN 18: Smith vs. Clark	UFC on ESPN 18: Smith vs. Clark
December 5, 2020	UFC on ESPN: Hermansson vs. Vettori	→	— (no change necessary) —	UFC on ESPN 19: Hermansson vs. Vettori	UFC on ESPN 19: Hermansson vs. Vettori
December 12, 2020	UFC 256	→	— (no change necessary) —	UFC 256: Figueiredo vs. Moreno	UFC 256: Figueiredo vs. Moreno
December 19, 2020	UFC Fight Night: Thompson vs. Neal	→	— (no change necessary) —	UFC Fight Night 183: Thompson vs. Neal	UFC Fight Night 183: Thompson vs. Neal
December 26, 2020	— (none) —	→	— (none) —	— (none) —	— (none) —

The event numbering since November 7 needs to be updated to reflect these changes. Please change accordingly. Thanks. --Discographer (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Discographer: See here: Talk:UFC_on_ESPN:_Hermansson_vs._Holland#ESPN2_events. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Y @Gsfelipe94: Thanks for the notice. --Discographer (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@Gsfelipe94: Thank you for taking care of this. Good work! --Discographer (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

UFC on ABC

@Gsfelipe94 and Cassiopeia: – Heads up, if you have not already seen this yet -- according to mmajunkie (click here for that link), UFC Fight Night: Holloway vs. Kattar is being planned to be televised on ABC rather than ESPN+
... (UFC on ESPN+ 42 → UFC on ABC 1). --Discographer (talk) 01:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw those news and honestly the best thing right now is to wait before the UFC confirms it. That's big news and it would be wise to wait for the confirmation. That being said, I believe the best way to name it would be "on ABC" as well as that would not fill into the same shoes of a regular Fight Night. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, good. Thanks! --Discographer (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Discographer, Good day. If it is confirmed, then "UFC on ABC XXX" should be named for the event page/article page and later change to "UFC on ABC: YYY vs. ZZZ" when the headliners are confirmed. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cassiopeia, yes, like the UFC's last previously network televised UFC on Fox event UFC on Fox: Lee vs. Iaquinta 2 back in December 2018. So, from FOX to ABC, like this:

• UFC on Fox: Lee vs. Iaquinta 2 (also known as UFC on Fox 31)
• UFC on ABC: Holloway vs. Kattar (also known as UFC on ABC 1)
  

We three are in agreement then. Thanks again, to both of you, and have a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year too! --Discographer (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The same for you, Discographer! Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

New Notability Proposal

A new proposal for MMA fighter notability has been posted at WT:MMANOT#Change in Notability Criteria Proposal. The proposal is the same as the existing criteria except that it also says that any world top 10 fighter (ranked by sherdog or fightmatrix) is also considered notable. This puts more emphasis on the individuals and less on the organizations. Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent UFC Fighters are being suddenly moved

@Ppt1973, Psycho-Krillin, Gsfelipe94, A.lanzetta, BEDofRAZORS666, Sdpdude9, Ticelon, Dwanyewest, Cassiopeia, Eerie Holiday, UFC Cub Beavis, Antumdeluge, Mehrdaad.wiki, Mr.adamgreen, GameRCrom, Bkissin, Powderkegg, Kosbit4, Ikamborden, KINGFEDORQc, GameRCrom, MadjarMMA, Ptkday, Leighton94, NEDOCHAN, HeinzMaster, Imhungry4444, InedibleHulk, Psycho-Krillin, A.lanzetta, BEDofRAZORS666, Brusinggiant, Ticelon, and Dwanyewest:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gilbert_Burns#Requested_move_11_January_2021
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alexander_Volkov_(fighter)#Requested_move_7_February_2021
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kevin_Holland#Requested_move_11_January_2021
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aleksandar_Raki%C4%87_(fighter)#Requested_move_10_February_2021
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brad_Riddell_(fighter)#Requested_move_8_February_2021
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Derrick_Lewis_(fighter)#Requested_move_7_February_2021

I do not believe these moves have input from regular MMA editors. Do you MMA editors wants to keep page like that or reverted back? Kent Bargo (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Kent Bargo, article naming conventions are at WP:QUALIFIER. When multiple people share the same name, but one of them is the obvious primary topic, the article should not have a qualifier. That's what appears to be happening in all of those page moves. It's normal "housekeeping" to see a page being moved to the correct title. Ravensfire (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

Hello,

Bellator meets the current criteria of 6 top 10 fighters in their respective weight class but are still not considered a top tier organization. It's more then 6 depending on what rankings you look at. This should be amended. - Patricio Pitbull - Douglas Lima - Gegard Mousasi - Ryan Bader - Vadim Nemkov - Juliana Velasquez - Cris Cyborg - Yoel Romero - Rumble Johnson - AJ Mckee - Illima-Lei MacFarlane - Liz Carmouche - Lorenz Larkin - Juan Archuleta

I'd also argue that the immense market share of the UFC relative to the other organizations leads to a bit of unintentional bias when these rankings are created. The UFC ate up their competitors over time so for years the rankings consist mostly of UFC fighters that can only fight other UFC fighters. It's very hard to consider names outside of the UFC for top 10 status because they don't have the opportunity to break into the top 10 by beating someone that's in there right now because they're not in the UFC. This is just food for thought in terms of considering changing the criteria. There's no pipeline that leads back to the UFC and the UFC only for top fighters in the same way there is in say the ball and stick sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.95.178 (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

New notability criteria for MMA fighters

The proposal mentioned above has been agreed to by consensus and is now posted at WT:NSPORT#New notability criteria for MMA fighters. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC) '

Note to all, the New notability criteria for MMA fighters has near unanimous support and the additional new MMA notability guideline " Been ranked in the world top 10 in their division by either Sherdog (sherdog.com) or Fight Matrix (fightmatrix.com). was updated in at Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Mixed martial arts section. Stay safe everyone and best. Cassiopeia^(talk) 07:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

A new proposal to remove height and reach from MMA fighters

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Ppt1973, Psycho-Krillin, Gsfelipe94, Udar55, A.lanzetta, BEDofRAZORS666, Brusinggiant, Sdpdude9, Ticelon, Dwanyewest, Cassiopeia, Eerie Holiday, UFC Cub Beavis, Antumdeluge, Mehrdaad.wiki, Mr.adamgreen, GameRCrom, Bkissin, Powderkegg, Kosbit4, Ikamborden, KINGFEDORQc, GameRCrom, MadjarMMA, Ptkday, Picograms, HeinzMaster, Leighton94, NEDOCHAN, Imhungry4444, InedibleHulk, Psycho-Krillin, A.lanzetta, BEDofRAZORS666, Brusinggiant, Ticelon, Dwanyewest, and PRehse:

A new proposal for all MMA fighters to no longer include height and reach in any MMA fighter infobox due to a "accuracy" issue. Weight can remain due to its weight class..etc.Kent Bargo (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Disagree. Though there are inaccuracies with height and reach, it's still pertinent information. Powderkegg (talk) 03:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Makes no sense whatsoever. Please make helpful contributions. How can we remove those informations related to an athlete? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure why you said it does not make sense and "please say make helpful contributions" on this proposal, but there obviously never ending accuracy issue with the height and reach. No suggested solution was presented who opposed. Kent Bargo (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kent Bargo: See 'Burden of proof' (onus probandi). Thank you. Kosbit4 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

*Comment - This is Wikipedia and one of the Wikipedia core policies is content need to be verified by independent, reliable sources and not about the true - see Wikipedia:But it's true!, thus, if (example) XXX have three children in real life, but the source we could find is 2 children, then we put 2 instead of 3, same as how Alexander the Great die is based on which sources you read, from poising, to malaria and typhoid fever to infectious (meningitis) to acute pancreatitis. Secondly, the height, reach and weight is measured by different ppl in different situations/settings/events/, no one can tell who measured them correctly and some info might be converted from metric to imperial and vice versa and also, how do we know the info is filled in by the fighters themselves, by someone who did it on behalf of the fighters, or by the person who keys in the info from the source/website? So the key and policy here is verifiability and not the true. (site note: the weight on the infobox rightfully is the last fight weightclass the fighter fought and the division is all the weight divisions the fighters have fought). Cassiopeia^(talk) 06:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Oppose - Height is the measurement, and measurement is the numerical quantification. It is empirically verifiable. Kosbit4 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Kosbit4 I think you have misunderstand me and it is nothing for you to oppose as this is the Wikipedia core policy and here we are discussing whether to remove height and reach of fighters and not Wikipedia policy. If the XXX is 5'10" in real life, and the source indicate XXX he is 5'9", then in Wikipedia, we would put 5'9", this mean the info (5'9") is verified by the source in regardless the "info (5'9")" was the error made by the person who measures XXX or a typo. It is the same thing, if XXX weighted 155 Ib during weight in, but XXX is actually 155.2 ib, and if the source indicated XXX is 155 ib, then XXX is 155 Ib in Wikipedia.

• Oppose: Same with Powderkegg - the data is mostly consistent (excluding the pioneers of the sport) and needed information. From time to time there are disputes regarding some individuals but it doesn't make the need for the height and reach obsolete. Ticelon (talk) 06:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agree with the above users. It there are disagreements regarding height, reliable sources can be found and cited. GameRCrom (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: Data is usually consistent. If it's not, there's always reliable sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptkday (talk • contribs) 01:05, February 12, 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - Good for gamblers to know which fighter has the advantages in a matchup. Certainly not immune to the odd bad info, but no field is. Neither is any standard section of the body. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think we all agree height and reach are important data about a fighter, right? And both numbers are usually given by the promotion the fighter is signed to hence we have a reliable source. Furthermore, height and reach can change slightly (depending on if the measurement is taken in the morning or in the evening, for instance). From my experience, maybe these numbers are corrected once or (seldomly) twice when a fighter comes to a new promotion but they tend to stabilize after that. It's not like height and/or reach will be changing every time there's a fight. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed change in sports notability policy

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Having seperate pages for each Bellator event

@Papaursa, Ppt1973, Psycho-Krillin, PRehse, Gsfelipe94, Udar55, A.lanzetta, BEDofRAZORS666, Brusinggiant, Sdpdude9, Ticelon, Dwanyewest, Cassiopeia, Kent Bargo, Eerie Holiday, UFC Cub Beavis, Antumdeluge, Mehrdaad.wiki, Mr.adamgreen, GameRCrom, Bkissin, Powderkegg, Kosbit4, PabloLikesToWrestle, Ikamborden, KINGFEDORQc, GameRCrom, MadjarMMA, Ptkday, and Picograms:

Hey, was wondering what everyone thinks about how each Bellator event have their own page, ala what the UFC has, ex. UFC 261. Right now Bellator only has it based on the year ala Bellator MMA in 2021. Included a draft of what it would look like. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bellator_255 . Would be a welcome change or is the current system good enough? HeinzMaster (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a lot of history with this subject. I used to create individual Bellator pages for events until a Wikipedia user slapped them all as non-notable. After a long process, it was decided the best move forward would be to do yearly pages. So if you plan to go that route (it looks like you already have), expect to encounter the same resistance (by regular Wikipedia editors, not MMA editors) that popped up a few years ago. Udar55 (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Agshin Babaev

Would folks here know whether this fighter is notable? The article has been tagged for speedy deletion but one editor wants it to go to AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

New stub: Cannabis and sports. Any project members care to help expand? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

New "UFC ID" WikiData property

Hey friends,
A new Wikidata property, UFC athlete ID (P9722), was created to hold UFC website ID of current and former UFC fighters.
I've linked the property to Template:Sports links, so that when a value exists, will show a link in the fighter's page.
This template does the same for showing Sherdog links (Sherdog fighter ID (P2818)), so that it replaces Template:Sherdog. Some other relevant links might be added as well.

Usage

==External links==
* {{sports links}}

Usage examples

• Jan Błachowicz
• Kamaru Usman

Enjoy. Deancarmeli (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

@Deancarmeli: Thanks, I'll try it out for the new pages this week. HeinzMaster (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

New "FightMatrix ID" WikiData property

Hey friends,
A new Wikidata property, FightMatrix fighter ID (P9724), was created to hold Fight Matrix IDs of fighters.
I've linked the property to Template:Sports links, so that when a value exists, a link will be shown in the fighter's page. This comes on top of the previous addition of UFC athlete ID (P9722).

Usage

==External links==
* {{sports links}}

Usage examples

• Max Holloway
• Gegard Mousasi

@HeinzMaster: Enjoy. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

New "Bellator ID" WikiData property

Hey friends,
A new Wikidata property, Bellator fighter ID (P9726), was created to hold Bellator MMA IDs of fighters.
I've linked the property to Template:Sports links, so that when a value exists, a link will be shown in the fighter's page. This comes on top of the previous additions of UFC athlete ID (P9722), FightMatrix fighter ID (P9724) and the old Sherdog fighter ID (P2818).

Usage

==External links==
* {{sports links}}

Usage examples

• Sergio Pettis (Sergio Pettis (Q14191086))
• Cris Cyborg (Cris Cyborg (Q264979))
• Gegard Mousasi (Gegard Mousasi (Q1188997))

Enjoy. Deancarmeli (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

New "Tapology ID" WikiData property

Hey friends,
A new Wikidata property, Tapology fighter ID (P9728), was created to hold Tapology.com IDs of fighters.
I've linked the property to Template:Sports links, so that when a value exists, a link will be shown in the fighter's page.
This comes on top of the previous additions of UFC athlete ID (P9722), FightMatrix fighter ID (P9724), Bellator fighter ID (P9726) and the old Sherdog fighter ID (P2818).

Usage

==External links==
* {{sports links}}

Usage examples

• Valentina Shevchenko (Valentina Shevchenko (Q4522047))
• Gegard Mousasi (Gegard Mousasi (Q1188997))

Enjoy. Deancarmeli (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: One official link per fighter policy

• WP:INSTAGRAM, WP:FACEBOOK states that:
  "Generally no. Regular websites are strongly preferred, but exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence.".

• WP:ELOFFICIAL states that:
  "Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are normally exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking.".

• WP:ELMIN states that:
  "Normally, only one official link is included.". Only one, not "One or less" nor "a maximum of one".
  Moreover, WP:ELMIN states that "Links that provide consistent information are strongly preferred to social networking...". Preferred, Not "accepted, as opposed to social networking...".

My suggestion: One social media link should be included in "External Links", provided that there is no official website link.
An exeptional example would be Derrick Lewis and his 2.3M Instagram followers, but the principle stands for all fighters.

I believe that @Cassiopeia: opposes, but I'd like to see what other editors, such as @Rcpilot9: @Jhonnytaoako: @Gaurish.kohli: @João Fernandes Santos: @RomaanFaisal: @Ppt1973: @CR85747: @Zimbabweed: @A.lanzetta: @Papaursa: @Powderkegg: @Gsfelipe94: @GameRCrom: @Ptkday: @InedibleHulk: @Kosbit4: @Psycho-Krillin: @Kent Bargo: @Ravensfire: @Ticelon: @Cbl62: @Udar55: @Liz: @Another Believer: @HeinzMaster: think. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC). Edited structure. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Use Agree if you support replacing a missing Official website link with one social media link,  Disagree if you oppose that and want to show either an official website or nothing at all, or  Comment: if you just want to add something to the discussion without a clear opinion one way or the other.

Discussion:

 Comment: Maybe Wikipedia should have some sort of social media link database like for book ISBNs, but that would be overly expansive and isn't an immediate fix to this situation. CR85747 (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@CR85747: It has.
In Wikidata, every item (in our case, a fighter) can have Properties such as Facebook username (P2013), Instagram username (P2003), X username (P2002) and more that can be assigned values – which are the the Id's of that fighter in that social network. See, for example, Stipe Miocic (in Wikidata).
Moreover: If a value for one of them, say Facebook, is assigned, placing * {{Facebook}} in that fighter Wikipedia page External links section will provide a working link without additional information. Deancarmeli (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion: Using Template:Sports links instead of Template:Sherdog & Template:UFC

My rationals:

1. Template:Sports links provides links to figther pages on UFC (UFC athlete ID (P9722)), Bellator MMA (Bellator fighter ID (P9726)), Sherdog (Sherdog fighter ID (P2818)), Tapology.com (Tapology fighter ID (P9728)) and Fight Matrix (FightMatrix fighter ID (P9724)).
2. Usage of Template:Sports links is more compact.
   1. * {{sports links}} as opposed to:
   2. * {{Sherdog}}

   * {{UFC|FIGHTER_UFC_ID}}

3. It is widely used in other sports:
   1. Alpine skiing → Hanni Wenzel
   2. Figure skating → Sonja Henie
   3. Swimming → Pieter van den Hoogenband
   4. Curling → Sandra Schmirler
   5. Association football → Miroslav Klose
   6. Short track speed skating → Apolo Ohno
   7. Cycle sport → Joaquim Agostinho
   8. Rallying → Juha Kankkunen
   9. Running → Livio Berruti
   10. Windsurfing → Gal Fridman
   11. Water polo → Whynter Lamarre
   12. Tennis → Andy Ram
   13. Judo → Nihel Bouchoucha
   14. Taekwondo → Zhao Shuai
   15. Karate → Ryo Kiyuna

   And many many more.

4. In many cases, Template:Sports links provides links to information otherwise less known and referenced by the MMA community, such as Olympic record, boxing, wrestling & judo careers and more.
5. Using Template:Sports links, and by doing so filling fighters wikidata pages, helps wiki-editors of other language wikipedias access the information with their templates, and spreads the information wider.
6. Consistensy. When using Template:Sports links, links are allways presented in the same way and in the same order, giving pages a more consistent look.

@Rcpilot9: @Jhonnytaoako: @Gaurish.kohli: @João Fernandes Santos: @RomaanFaisal: @Ppt1973: @CR85747: @Zimbabweed: @A.lanzetta: @Papaursa: @Powderkegg: @Gsfelipe94: @GameRCrom: @Ptkday: @InedibleHulk: @Kosbit4: @Psycho-Krillin: @Kent Bargo: @Ravensfire: @Ticelon: @Cbl62: @Udar55: @Liz: @Another Believer: @HeinzMaster: — Your opinion?

@Cassiopeia: has allready stated to undo the insertion of Template:Sports links to fighter pages.[3][4][5][6][7] In doing so, he sited WP:ELMIN, which is WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, and relevant to Official links, and that is not the case for this template.

Examples:

• Dustin Poirier: With Template:Sherdog & Template:UFC, With Template:Sports links

Waiting for your comments. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC). Edited structure. Deancarmeli (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Use Agree if you support using Template:Sports links,  Disagree if you oppose that and want to continue using Template:Sherdog & Template:UFC exclusively, or  Comment: if you just want to add something to the discussion without a clear opinion one way or the other.

Discussion:

Agree I don't think those two particular commercial websites need credence above other MMA sources, so Sports links makes sense. CR85747 (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose As per WP:ELMIN we dont need to put all the External links but one or two and stretch to three. Sherdog is used for the record of MMA fighter as per Wikipedia guidelines and which banner they are currently or most recently fighting for such as UFC or Bellator and the infobox has a parameter for official website to fill. Remember, in regardless of all the ELMIN, ELOFFICIAL, NOSOCIAL - Wikipedia is an online "Encyclopedia". We record the info in the content with independence, reliable sources. External links serve a very small part and as min as possible in the page. If you look around, most article would not have any social media links and external links is no the min and not to the maximum or since it didnt state what it is the max, then we can add it all in. Remember, we edit and create Wikipedia pages for the enclypedic purposes and not to promote the subject by adding all the social media or external links. More than 1.5 thousands of MMA fighters pages been using Sherdog and UFC Template and it should be kept this way. (I am one of the counter vandalism trainers in EN Wikipedia - Pls note - Wiki Data is not under protection where by no eyes (editors and system in place) are looking at the vandalism edits not like English Wikipedia, for such that is the reasons why WP:Short Description is created and all over 6 billions of En Wikipedia needed to add short description in the page which will take some years to complete them all. So we should not rely on WikiDate for info is not secure due to not vandalism protection is in place). Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:22, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

First, WP:ELMIN is irrelevant here. ELMIN is relevant only to Official links, that are defined as:
An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
  1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
  2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
As the content of the links in Template:Sports links isn't controlled by the fighters, your citation of it is in no way material for this discussion.

Second, I've provided 15 link to athletes from as many sports, including martial arts, using Template:Sports links.
In fact, more than 10 thousands of pages are using it, dwarfing the amount using the Sherdog & UFC templates.

Third, the protection part isn't relevant as well.
That's becuse of many fighter already using Wikidata with the Sherdog template, and also because once in general use in this WikiProject, the fighters Wikidata entries could be watched like their Wikipedia pages. Deancarmeli (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Deancarmeli As stated, This is Wikipedia and not a promotion site, to keep EL to min should be the way to go and Wikidata site is not secured as not system in place to counter vandalism. To let the template to Wikidata is not a good solution. English Wikipedia is trying to add info into Wikipedia and not using Wikidata link to the articles and now you are suggesting the other way around, that would just undone what is already secure and proven system in place. I dont see why are we doing this. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia: Please, stop talking about "the need to keep EL to min". There is no such a need. What you are referring to is only applicable to Official links, and that is not the case here as I've clearly stated earlier. On official links we are talkin here.
Wikidata Is a shared resource for all Wiki projects, and its use helps other editors access it easly. It prevents duplications of information and enables updating it on multiple platforms with a single action.
As I've hown, many more pages in projects — including sports related, including martial arts related — that are using Template:Sports links specifically and Wikidata in general than there are pages using Template:Sherdog & Template:UFC. And your argument is further invalidated by the fact that Template:Sherdog also, like Template:Sports links, draws information from Wikidata. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Deancarmeli I know info are draw from Wikidata and PLEASE do not ignore Wikidata is not secure and not counter vandalism system is in place and precisely why WP:Short description is created and over 6.3 million articles need to add short disc in EN Wikipedia and it takes some years to do that. I am repeating something you should look at for the all the extra editing (millions) need to do for the sake of discussing this short term want. It doesnt not make sense. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia: Wikipedia:Short descriptions first boxed paragraph:

This is an information page.
It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but rather intends to describe some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting.

So, can we please stick to the issue, without these irrelevant side quests you keep sending me to?
You want to add something to Wikipedia, like Short description? Fine, have fun. But please, don't prevent other from using existing Wikipedia tools to do so, especially not without cause and against overwhelming precedent. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Deancarmeli I have all along stick to the issues from my first message in this discussion. I have informed the Wikidata site is not secured. The current page using the template in Wikipedia without linking to Wikidata work just fine and subsitute the sports template which link to Wikidata serve no purpose but would harm the page when vandalism happen in Wikidata site which it happen all the time, to me knowing this info and not acknowledge it and still wanting to change something is not broken but would harm the pages is just not that responsible. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia: As I wrote: my suggestion provides more relevant links (that shouldn't be minimized, by any source that you've provided), is more consistent, in much wider use and more and more arguments that I've provided above. Your concerns of vandalism, even if we take them as serious and weight bearing, could be solved by monitoring Wikidata. Our project, as you yourself noted, is much smaller the amount of all other pages using Template:Sports links specifically and Wikidata in general. Deancarmeli (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Deancarmeli As mentioned Deancarmeli, I am one of the counter vandalism trainers in EN Wikipedia, there is a counter vandalism system in place in English Wikipedia and but not in Wikidata, we just cant monitor them as there is no system in place and that is was I am trying to say. The current templates used are written in EN Wikipedia and not link to anywhere, for such we can monitor the pages. When short description disconnected from Wikidata, we lost millions of info and we have to add it in one by one. Easily 20K of my edits are adding short disc in the pages and I am only one of the editors who help up the SD project so I know the impact of linking Wikidata to EN Wiki. Cassiopeia^(talk) 11:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia:You are either mistaken or misleading.
Template:Sherdog is connected to Wikidata.
Template:UFC couldn't have been connected, until now, to Wikidata, because the property UFC athlete ID (P9722) was just created 5 days ago.
Templates are written in a single Wikipedia, that is obviously true, but when the data is stored in Wikidata, a templateluke Template:Sports links simply copied to another Wikipedia, like Template:Sports links itself was copied to the English one, will provide a list of links to every page that the simple line * {{sports links}} will be added to. Its a basic programming consept: Don't duplicate information and make it as accessible as you can, so that when you update it in one place it will update in all.
Your point is clear. You fear vandalism, which is fair, but that's it. You have provided nothing else. If there realy is nothing else, lets leave it here and let us wait for other to join in this discussion.
Donco, MWKeat10, Picograms, BEDofRAZORS666, Ashleyyoursmile, Luukmlgn, Chuachenchie, Felipe Scama: You are welcome to join too. Deancarmeli (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Deancarmeli, I have voice my concern in 2 fronts. My vote is still the same. I believe you are the creator of the template and might want to have your project move forward. I am here to protect Wikipedia and keep Wikipedia as on line encyclopedia and not a promotion article to have all the external links. Others can voice their opinons. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, I'm not the creator of the template, just a contributer. Not that this ad hominem comment has any relevance to this discussion, but still. Deancarmeli (talk) 07:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Deancarmeli, It is not an ad hominem comment. read it again. I have said before it it is not broken, dont change it. Keep it simple. Cassiopeia^(talk)

 Comment: Does anyone else want to join the discussion? Deancarmeli (talk) 10:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Should it be redirected

Should EFC Africa be redirected into Extreme Fighting Championship since it used to be the official name of the organisation. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Dwanyewest. I believe so. Cassiopeia^(talk) 21:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Cassiopeia, :HeinzMaster, I have created a discussion at Talk:Extreme Fighting Championship if anyone wants to debate the issue any further.Dwanyewest (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

tal Good day. See comment on Talk:Extreme Fighting Championship. Stay safe. Cassiopeia talk 23:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Saul Soliz

I just created Saul Soliz. I don't write many sports-related biographies, so I thought I'd pop over here to ask a couple questions:

1. What is the best type of infobox to use in this article? As the subject is a trainer/coach but not a professional competitor, Template:Infobox martial artist didn't seem quite right. Is there something more specific than Template:Infobox person that would be fitting?
2. Are there any additional/different categories I should add to the article? Is Category:American mixed martial artists acceptable for a non-competitor?

Thanks! Armadillopteryx 01:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Armadillopteryx Good day and thank you for creating the page. I have reviewed the page and it is in Wikipedia main space now. You can use Template:Infobox martial artist in the infobox and I have added American Muay Thai practitioners catogory since he was not a mixed martial arts fighter. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thank you for the feedback and for the review! I will switch the infobox now. Armadillopteryx 01:44, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

What kind of Mixed Martial Arts fighters should be included in the List of Muay Thai practitioners?

List of Muay Thai practitioners

Yes I get this list is about Muay Thai. But since this is about MMA fighters, I felt its better to ask here since we are more familiar with the styles they fight with.

There are fighters in this list like Anderson Silva and José Aldo who use Muay Thai heavily in their MMA fights. However I'm not sure if they can be still considered "Muay Thai based fighters" because they also trained a lot in other areas.

This is in contrast to fighters like Valentina Shevchenko and Joanna Jędrzejczyk where we can see have spent a lot of time in Muay Thai itself and gained huge accomplishments before switching to Mixed Martial Arts. Someone like Ciryl Gane I'm not sure about since he hasn't really reached the top in either sports yet.

Should we allow fighters in the former to appear in this list or keep it strictly to only fighters from the latter?

-Imcdc (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Omar Morales (fighter)#Requested move 25 September 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Omar Morales (fighter)#Requested move 25 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 01:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

UFC Events

It is well know that the results of UFC events are often subject to vandalism. Wouldn't it be better to semi-protect the articles right away to allow only registered users to edit. Most of these fake edits come IP accounts. Registered users would get banned if they do anything spooky.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

RM: Mike Polchlopek → Bart Gunn

An editor has requested for Mike Polchlopek to be moved to Bart Gunn. Since you had some involvement with Mike Polchlopek, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). Havelock Jones (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The D'Arce choke.

For some reason Sherdog lists fight results that end in a submission by way of D'Arce choke as Brabo choke. This is inaccurate, the Brabo choke is used in gi BJJ, where you're required to grip or use your opponents gi against them to perform the choke. The D'Arce choke is essentially the same thing, but without the use of a gi. Considering that fighters can't wear gis, and that pretty much every news source that posts fight/event I've come across lists it as D'Arce choke, I feel like it should be a standard to list it as such. Feel free to discuss xoxo. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 07:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Common misconception. Nothing to do with gi or no gi. Brabo is the original name for the choke, D'arce came along later as D'arce had a great Brabo.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources say otherwise. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 06:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RINGS 1995-1999 legitimacy - consensus needed

OLD TOPIC (moved to ANI)

User:Jacee215 (not sure if this person is "for real" or just trolling) and I have been engaged in a draining, over year long (starting September 6th, 2020) back and forth regarding Fighting Network RINGS and Volk Han. It began when Jacee deleted large chunks of information from Volk Han's page that I had to revert manually, with a message at talk page claiming him to be a fake fighter with numbers-based name. I humoured him till he went away. Only for him to return some year later to do it again, this time with Dave Meltzer quote (used out of context) to justify it - and that's when the vicious cycle began. I've taken this topic here now, since no clear consensus about the matter has been formed. It's been just him and me with one comment from User:RafaelHP - comparing the situation to one like with Nobuhiko Takada.

There seems to be no end to this argument - and I think a general consensus on the topic is needed.

I generally agree with consensus that "Volk Han is a shoot-style pro wrestler who did some MMA fights" - which he disagrees with. Jacee appears to think that Han is a complete gimmick-based pro wrestler, comparable to the likes of John Cena and Triple H. That Han has not done *a single real fight* described in his MMA record (which presently excludes 91-94 era fights from early RINGS, proven to be worked/kayfabe) and saying that "treating Han's RINGS fights real is like treating Cena's WWE matches real." He often appeals to common knowledge to avoid providing citations to back his claims. He remains adamant on his view, unable to tell apart WWE style pro wrestling and Rings' "first shoot wrestling-then-mma" to realize what the gray area with Volk Han is really about.

To me, there are two points of legit concern regarding the topic:

• If RINGS claims to have made a transition to being a MMA company in 1995, does it mean it actually is a MMA company - even though there could be is potential pro wrestling style work during the period?
• Can it be proven that Han has not fought a single legit MMA fight in RINGS? That even the fights circa 2000-2001 under KOK rules are phony too?
  • And If inconclusive; is it fair to still require evidence for it?

I'd like your take on this. That and matter regarding Jacee - if he is onto something or is he outright trying to game the system to get his take through? That or did I get japed? --TrickShotFinn (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Jacee's edits are explained by their original research and opinions as to the veracity of RINGS. The source is clear and their edits are absurd. If I were you I'd go to ANI.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Done - Jacee has been notified of this as well. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

PRESENT

OK, seems like atleast ESPN considers KOK-era RINGS (i.e 1999-2002) real. Guys like Andrei Kopylov and Kiyoshi Tamura have MMA records with KOK-era RINGS at ESPN. This I think supports that (atleast) KOK era RINGS is real MMA company for time being. Though it seems lot of the RINGS alumni records appear to be incomplete. Volk Han's like only has the Nog fight - despite listing other fighters fights from KOK era RINGS. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we can keep Han's KOK-era fights safe with authority. Though this brings the 1995-1999 stuff the RINGS guys had into scrutiny, no? TrickShotFinn (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Aleksandar Rakic

Rakic is an Austrian/Serbian UFC fighter. He represented Austria in his first 5 UFC bouts. Since then he switched to representing Serbia. This should be reflected on pages such as UFC rankings. The situation is pretty black and white but a fellow editor @Cassiopeia: opposes this. SerVasi (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Rakic was born and raised in Austria and for such he is an Austrian. His parents are from Serbia but not him. He has Serbian heritage/ethnicity from his parents that does not make him a nationality of a Serbia. He can and many fighters represent other countries as besides their own birth country and does not make the the nationality of the countries they represent. Same as Stipe, he is an American but at times do represent his parent home country of Coatia but still he is not a Coatian but American. Pls do not mix up nationality vs ethnicity, there are tow different things. If independent, reliable sources indicate he has a Serbia "citizenship" (dont confuse with the source call him a Serb as it doesnt not make him a Serbian citizen but referring him of his ethnicity), then we can put that in the info in the article. see discussion here at SErVasi talk page. Cassiopeia talk 02:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

We already discussed this but ok we can go at it again. Lets lay out some facts: Austria doesn't grant citizenship on birth (unless atleast 1 parent is an Austrian national which isn't the case here) on the other hand Serbia grants citizenship to people (of Serbian descent) born abroad. So he either has Serbian citizenship or was stateless in his early life, which is a rare case even for people that were born at sea. With both sides providing some sources at my talk page we can safely conclude that he is a dual citizen of both Austria and Serbia. Now we have to make a distinction between fighting under the flag (also know as the country you are officialy listed as representing) and just plain old waving different flags around. Stipe can wave around the Croatian flag all he wants but it doesn't change the fact that he is oficially fighting under the American flag. Both Usman and Adesanya are dual nationals but they are fighting under thr Nigerian flag. In his first 5 UFC Rakic fought under the Austrian flag. Now he is fighting under the Serbian flag. As such the Serbian flag should replace the Austrian flag on pages such as UFC rankings. SerVasi (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have mentioned to you before, the articled indicated he is an Austria and even Rakic says that himself and with such as support from the Serbs, he didnt even mentioned he has the Serbian citizenship, but indicated he has the Serb blood/heritage/ethnicity. Secondly, fight/wave under other country flag does not mean that have the citizenship of the country - just like Nasrat Haqparast - he was born and raised in Germany and his parents are from Afghanistan. Haqparast stated he represent Afghanistan and waved the flag but he is till not a Afghanistan citizen (he has not even step foot in Afghanistan - Haqparast said that not me). Again, Fight/wave under certain country flag does not mean the subject is the citizen of that country. Adesanya is a Nigerian born New Zealander. The flag in ranking page page are as per the fighter original country (birth country). Even if Serbia grants citizenship to Serbian descent, the subject still need to go through the application/paper work to get the citizenship - just like in Australia, if the subject's parents are original from England, their immediate children can apply for England citizenship but not automatically have dual citizenships for England would not even know you have existed - or like Jews - Jews are welcome to relocated to Israel and acquire the citizenship - same here paperwork/application is needed. Many Jews supports Israel passionately but most of them do not apply for Israel citizenship or relocate to Israel. The "POINT" here is the THIS IS WIKIPEIDIA, Wikipedia is not about the true - see Wikipedia:But it's true! but all about verification and info added/changed need to be verify by independent, reliable source and as mentioned if you can find an independent, reliable source to state that then you can add it in. NOTE: Even Rackic shows you his Serbian citizenship certificate, we still can NOT put the info in as you nor I are considered reliable source for we are just an anonymous editors. Cassiopeia talk 04:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Normally i would elaborate further but there seems to be a lack of comprehension skills to warrant that. Hopefully someone else joins in because this is getting ridiculous. I don't know if i should laugh or cry when i see that Haqparast comment. SerVasi (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to understand, again, this is Wikipedia and we go by verification and sources said he is an Austrain. Wikipedia do not care about how the subjects feel or the true and Haqparast or any subject does not have the right even to change the info in his page or request the page to be deleted. It is not ridiculous but you dont understand the Wikipedia guidelines. I am not against you or Rackic or Haparast, we the Wikipedians simply follow the guidelines. If you cant do that then you might want to venture to other venues such as the social media as anyone can say most things as they see fit. Cassiopeia talk 05:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Duuude i am for Haqparast as a German. The fact that you can't comprehend that from multiple explanations makes me wonder how can u follow any guidelines at all. SerVasi (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not a Dude and my user name is :Cassiopeia. It is not your explanation that we based on but Wikipedia guidelines. Cassiopeia talk 08:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The Sherdog requirement

Current revision of WP:MMA:

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. Do not use your interpretation of a fight result in the record, as the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Any result that is not referenced or that is not the same as in Sherdog, must be returned to how it is described in Sherdog.

This is incorrect for multiple reasons.

• There is no requirement to use any specific source; any reliable source satisfies the verifiability requirements.
• There is no consensus about Sherdog being a reliable source. The latest central discussion about this topic was at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#RfC:_Sherdog.com, closed by Buidhe with the words "the source should be used with caution, on a case-by-case basis".
• The wording "verifiability, not truth" was removed from the verifiability policy. It was confusing, as the purpose of requiring verifiability is to stay as close to the truth as possible without conducting original research.
• The "threshold for inclusion" is not only verifiability, as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (WP:ONUS, part of the verifiability policy).

In a nutshell, this text misrepresents Wikipedia's content policies. It needs to be updated.

I propose to replace the quoted text by:

In the column Method, do not use your personal interpretation of a fight result in the record. Using a reliable source is important. The official website or Sherdog may be useful.

Specifically,

• The new version is shorter and simpler.
• The new version contains a link to WP:No original research for those interested about the policy behind the sentence.
• The new version mentions "the official website" as a possible information source, as the official website of a sports event is usually a reliable primary source about the result(s) of the event.
• The new version describes Sherdog as a source that "may be useful", which matches the current consensus.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this, it seems like Sherdog has essentially turned into the baseline for fight results, when it never should have been. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 02:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The RSN discussion was a sham caused by one editor talking to himself. There is no better source. I would suggest doing another RSN post.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• The RSN discussion was primarily one, now blocked, editor taking on almost everyone else. As far as this topic goes, I come down squarely on the fence. I like the consistency that using one source brings, however WP only requires info be verifiable and I see that as allowing information from any independent and reliable source. Perhaps Sherdog can be used as the default, but other sources can also be mentioned? Papaursa (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: No change is needed  : (1) Sherdog has always been considered independent and reliable until the last RSN was raise by an editor who was so disruptive in the discussion and mainly self talk that made it impossible to discuss or understand which deter other editors participation and the editor was also a sock and was blocked and another RSN should be raised wihtout all the disruptive as of the last one. (2) Sherdog is the biggest and the most established independent mma fight record database in the world holds international mma fighter records. (3) (Limit Edit warring) - Fight method would be subject to which media report it and it different/various and editor would change the source as what they see fit of the source agree with their thought and cause many edit warring and Sherdog as the default would stop most edit warring where by Sherdog has been used as the default since the Project MMA established and there all mma fighters articles (about 1.2K to 1.4K articles) in English Wikipedia use this guidelines. (4) I have involved in some of the discussions of dispute over fight method and if the overwhelming independent reliable sources (IRS) (say KO) indicate a different fight method that of Sherdog (say TKO) we would always change the fight method to (KO) and make an inline citation next to the method in the fight method on the fight record - see table below. (Note: UFC and all promotions web sites are not consisted independent so is ESPN for UFC events as ESPN has a intimate contract relationship with UFc which make ESPN not independent for UFC events)

Fight method will be TKO

independent, reliable sources (IRS)	Fight Method
Sherdog + 7 other IRS	KO
10 other IRS	TKO

Fight method will be KO

independent, reliable sources (IRS)	Fight Method
Sherdog + 12 other IRS	KO
8 other IRS	TKO

Cassiopeia talk 02:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: No change needed. Using one source keeps things consistent across pages and cuts down significantly on unending arguments and edit warring. Sdpdude9 (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Cass and Sdpdude9. We probably should do another RSN. Lordpermaximum not only went back and edited other comments, he also used socks to vote in it.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The unreasonable insistence in using one specific (not even cited!) source led to an edit war ([8], "Unsourced" is incorrect, the citation is at the bottom of the table) and the warnings at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniboy0202&oldid=1050630669 . This is why we're here: An edit war was caused by a good-faith attempt to enforce the current (factually incorrect) alleged requirements described at WP:MMA. Regarding a new RSN discussion: Do feel free to start one, but unless it concludes with "Sherdog is the only reliable source about MMA result methods" or similar, the current wording is incorrect. It conflicts with the verifiability policy as described above, and per WP:LOCALCON, local WikiProject consensus can't override the global policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I have now linked to this discussion at WP:RSN#WikiProject overturning RSN result. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• The ad hominems about the OP of the RSN thread seem flatly unconvincing; and in any case the closer of that discussion was clearly aware of that information, which does not seem to have affected the result (and the fact the OP was blocked after the fact, and was not a block-evading user, confirms that their contributions there were acceptable). I have reverted again, per ToBeFree's arguments, and to enforce an existing consensus [the one at the RSN] which is being stonewalled against by people who should know better (I remember there being something somewhere about reverting to enforce consensus, although I can't find it at the moment, looks like it isn't at the place I expected it to be). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:53, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  (3RR is per-user and there has been a week of talk page discussion since the last revert, so the action does seem safe; the exception you remember did exist between January 2021^[9][10] and June 2021^[11][12], although I personally guess that having such an exception can lead to exactly the type of discussions that the 3RR is meant to prevent) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  The ad hominems about the OP are flatly unconvincing??? What about the multiple socks, some of whom he used to comment and to vote? You can't have taken anything other than a cursory glance to draw such a conclusion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  The following discussion participants are not sockpuppets: Squared.Circle.Boxing, Nil Einne, Bastun, MarkH21, You, ImTheIP, Woody, Gsfelipe94, Walwal20, Cassiopeia, Hunterb212, Redfiona99, Papaursa, Girth Summit, SeoR.

  The following discussion participant was a sockpuppet: Magnus Dominus. To date, it is Lordpermaximum's only confirmed tagged sock. 78.190.167.218 joined the discussion after it was archived; it is fine to ignore their comment.

  Hence, yes, that's a pretty unconvincing argument. Many discussion participants have explicitly voiced concern about the policy-incompatible practice of requiring the use of one specific source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Mandating the use of a specific source seems inconsistent with WP:V. Arguments derived from the prevention of edit-warring and talk page discussions seem inconsistent with WP:NOTBURO. I also note that Cassiopeia has notified at least 10 users about this discussion [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. JBchrch talk 21:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  Comment: (1) I didnt cavass anyone but mainly invite editor to join the discussion if they choose to do so for I didnt tell them to do anything either for or against, or let them know what was my discussion on this discussion, nor I sent any editor private messages to direct them to vote either way. If I have canvass the editors. To sent invitation for discussion is a normal practice in English Wikipedia provided no message to lead/direct/encourage editors to for or against the discussion. It is the choice of the editors if they want to join the discussion. I have been invited by To Be Free to join the discussion - see here. (1) In addition, it is not only KO/TKO but many submission methods can be interpreted by sources and editors, editing warring on methods/results and vandalism in terms of any sports pages in English Wikipedia, MMA is the highest for I have the visibility for I have done counter vandalism edits for about 50K-70K in English Wikipedia. The vandalism in mma pages is so high is because MMA has the highest trolling culture among any other sports especially in the social media and the editors would do the same in Wikipedia and might not know the different between social sites and Wikipedia as the online Enclyopedia since anyone can edit Wikipedia. When edit warring happens which is so common, we the mma editors ended up fixing all the mess time and time again and I was invited to involve in many of them as to settled the issues among the editors, and it was messy and testing all the patient one has to say the least. Boxing and other sport do take the results from the specific database of the sport (sources) and I dont see no reason for MMA do to the same and which it has been done the this way since MMA project and pages have been created by in English Wikipedia. Cassiopeia talk 01:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  (We had been reverting each other, so I invited you to the discussion instead of reverting again. I didn't specifically invite anyone else. If there had been more reverting editors, I'd have invited them all. I avoid inviting only specific editors who may support my cause – there's usually a relevant noticeboard that is better suited for requesting a large number of opinions.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  The point here is that I didnt canvassing anyone. Cassiopeia talk 01:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Please take another read on WP:CANVASSING. Non-neutral notification is one possible way an editor may engage in canvassing. You used the standard notification so avoided that, great. It doesn't mean you weren't canvassing. There's still the question of editor selection.

  Notifying appropriate Wikiproject or noticeboard is the normal means to inform interested editors. Individual notifications is generally only done for editors who've participated in previous discussions or similar, and if it is done, must be done for all with the only reasonable exceptions editors who can't participate (banned etc), have indicated they don't wish to receive notifications of that sort and of course anyone who is already participating.

  What was you criteria for selecting who to notify? If it was editors who frequently edit MMA articles well as said by me and ToBeFree, that's very unusual since the norm is to simply use a noticeboard or Wikiproject which this already is. But okay since they are relevant articles to this discusison I wouldn't say it's inherently canvassing provided the selection criteria was neutral and exhaustive but was it? Did you come up with a list of articles combine the edits counts and notify the the top 10 editors who weren't already participating or weren't active on this Wikiproject? Or did you just go by your "memory" and or a quick look at a bunch of articles and choose a bunch of names who you remembered?

  Going by your memory or own personal view of frequent editors is completely inappropriate and reeks of canvassing. Please don't do it again. Even if you weren't intentionally biased in which editor's you selected, there's a strong risk of unconscious bias. Plus there's also no way for anyone to check the fairness of your notifications. If you're thinking that it would take too much work to properly work out who to notify, well that's probably one of the reasons no one does it. It doesn't make your adhoc and unverifiable selection criteria appropriate.

  Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, although I would remove any mention of Sherdog at all. WikiProjects can’t override community consensus and they don’t get to self regulate. I also second JBchrch’s concerns about Cassiopeia canvassing sympathetic editors to this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment : @JBchrch and Horse Eye's Back: In regards to "Cassiopeia canvassing sympathetic editors". All the editors, including me, who he notified, are the ones who do most of the editing on the MMA wiki pages on here. Not really any agenda, but if you don't notify, lots of us would just miss it. In regards to the proposal, I am on the fence since I don't want it to turn into edit warring, for example the infamous brabo or d'arce argument that always happens. Using one source made it simple as sherdog (and tapology) are the main mma record websites and pretty much industry standards.HeinzMaster (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  Agreed. Not canvassing but asking people who edit MMA pages to contribute. It's not a coincidence that most editors who attempt regularly to edit MMA pages prefer Sherdog, because we're the ones who sort out the mess from editors making changes to fight records based on their own interpretation of fights. TKO/KO a good example. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

The page can certainly inform people that they must cite a reliable source, and that they absolutely cannot add their own personal interpretation of fights (that is already Wikipedia policy per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR.) But it can't tell them that only one source in particular is allowed; any reliable source works. Is it your assertion that Sherdog is literally the only reliable source on MMA outcomes in the entire world? --Aquillion (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: Link here the communication of ToBeFree indicate above on my talk page. All Wikipedia language site operate independence from each other, I am not sure there is a global policies and I am not sure that is a Wikipedia Globla policies rule over any Wikipedia language site (pls send a link if so I may read/understand/know of the policy) and Sherdog has always been realizable and independent and until the last RfD was raised by a disruptive and a SOCK editor which make the discussion impossible to discuss at all. I have seen many times, closing editors might not make the right calls in many discussion and also they do not know the nature/details of the project/field to understand the issues at hand. Since Wikipedia can be edited by anyone and sock, meat puppets, editor who know or not know the guidelines or issues at hand can always voice/vote (we can see in any discussions especially in RfA, RSD and AfD), I have seen many editors would agree/follow other editors especially admins who can write eloquently and good command in English languages. (Note: ToBeFree - I am not taking about you here as the admin, but other admins/editors). I am here editing Wikipedia it is because I would like to give back to society and Wikipedia as Wikipedia have given a lot of the knowledge with just a click away for the last 20 years. Cassiopeia talk 01:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, I think I see the misunderstanding. WP:CONLEVEL does not refer to cross-wiki issues. There are some policies on the English Wikipedia, like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, that have been created in huge community discussions. There are central noticeboards like WP:RSN that are watched by thousands of editors, and edited 1000 times per month. When such a large part of the community agrees, a few WikiProject editors can't decide that the community decision doesn't apply to them. That's all; it is unrelated to multi-wiki issues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  I was referring to your comment of global policies over En Wiki which I dont think there is one as I have yet to received a link from you on that. Cassiopeia talk 01:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  When I wrote "global", I meant "English-Wikipedia-wide". I didn't have anything cross-wiki in mind. I could have written "project-wide", but I needed a contrast to "WikiProject". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Remove all mention of Sherdog as a low-quality source (if it is going to be mentioned at all, it has to be to caution people against using it rather than recommending it.) Aside from that, support the changes as generally bringing the guidelines in line with Wikipedia's larger policies. Note that regardless of what is reached here Sherdog cannot be recommended (let alone mandated per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, since an RFC on a wider scale found it to be low-quality and only usable when higher-quality sources do not exist. If people take issue with that RFC (I notice the editor who has been trying to restore this incorrect guidance to the page does seem to object to it) then another RFC needs to be run at WP:RSN, not here; an RFC held here doesn't have the breadth to overturn one held at RSN. In that regard neither version is acceptable - even the official website or Sherdog may be useful in my opinion goes against the consensus reached in the 2020 RFC, which specifically instructs editors to not use that site if a better source exists. A source with a "use with caution" RFC outcome on RSN cannot reasonably be recommended by a wikiproject, certainly not as the primary recommendation and without qualification; at a bare minimum any mention of it needs to specifically state that it should be disregarded when it contradicts eg. ESPN, since that was specifically part of the RFC's closure. --Aquillion (talk) 05:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  The first thing ESPN did when it got into MMA was buy data from Sherdog. It's quite frustrating to have editors with no apparent interest or experience of MMA editing wading in. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Frustrating? There's policies at the site level that can't be contradicted by what a WikiProject states. If you think outside opinion isn't valid, there's going to be an issue with this WP from here on out. – The Grid (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  It is frustrating, yes. Just as it would be to have the primary source of data for an entire sport described as 'lower quality'. Boxrec, for example. I didn't say their opinion was invalid, either, and there's no need for threatsNEDOCHAN (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  So challenge it at WP:RSN if you think you can make your case; there's an appropriate way to challenge that and this isn't it. Even if you managed to get the wikiproject to recommend it it would result in constant edit-wars and disputes when people look at WP:RSP and see that Sherdog shouldn't be used when better sources are available; you need to challenge that RSP entry at RSN in order to get everything lined up and saying the same thing before you can recommend it here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Remove all mention of Sherdog. Agree with everything per Aquillion. Complaints about lack of expertise in editing a subsection of wikipedia is unfounded. A project can still advocate for internal consistency as as done at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links Koncorde (talk) 13:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I lean towards supporting ToBeFree's point, but with some hesitation. I do think that ToBeFree has shown that the current phrasing should be changed, and we are left to discuss what change should be made. In his comment from 02:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC), Cassiopeia showed that Sherdog doesn't in fact hold precedent over other IRS, citing KO\TKO debates as an example. In the 01:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC) comment, Cassiopeia differentiated the case of submission methods from the KO\TKO debate, which is a valid concern. My suggestion: Use ToBeFree's suggested phrasing, but establish Sherdog as Primus inter pares — First among equals. In cases such as KO\TKO debates, with 2 or so major groups of contradicting IRS — The majority will rule, with Sherdog used as a tie breaker if needed. In cases, like Cassiopeia's mentioned ambiguous submission method, where no one method has cleared some threshold of IRS, say 40%, Sherdog will be the deciding source. I think that this compromise, or one in its spirit, will formulate things as they are, prevent edit wars and provide clear rules for editing and citing. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:14, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  You may like to add instructions about a "primus inter pares" procedure or raw-numbers reference counting to WP:NPOV (specifically WP:BALANCE) and see how long it takes until they are reverted with reasonable concern. Or start a discussion at WP:VPP about doing so, and see how long it takes until it is closed as "not having a snowball's chance in hell" of being implemented. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Unless we're talking specifically about MMA and more specifically about how to record fight results we're not as addressing the issue. The issue is with consistency. Commissions sanction fights and promotions often tweak. NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am surprise this is the first time editors who are not editing mma pages somehow know about this discussion and wading in wihtout understand the sports and the issues at hand in EN Wiki or contribute in mma pages. Sherdog is the hold all international fighters and events of mma not ESPN and ESPN use to buy the content from Sherdog and note we are not talking about US events/promoters here we are talking about the whole who mma events and fighters whichhave a page in EN Wiki and ESPN doesnt holds all the info like Sherdog. For most ppl who into sport, such as soccer might not know Soccerway is the one of the biggest soccer players database in the world or Boxrec hold all the boxer and boxing events same as Sherdog in MMA. All those who does not know about Soccerway or Boxrec would think the source is not that reliable just because they dont know and voice they opinion. It is not only TKO/KO, the submissions methods are in hundreds and not to mentioned all the kicks and elbow methods. Without a consistency sources to avoiding edit warring, the whole mma fighter records and events would be in jeopardy and I would not want to be the one always have to involved in all the invitation discussions to settle the issues, all counter vandalism work in mma pages. What we, the mma editors, trying to do is to keep the regular to working together and improve the article and deter vandalism and editing warring and editors who doesnt involve in mma pages have no idea how bad and messy edit warring and vandalism it is in En Wiki and it just take a destructive editor or a sock to turn the who project upside down and other non involve editors to wading where they have no idea the real issues. All of us know Wiki Project is not perfect and so much junk is in millions of pages because everyone can edit and discussions is endless and many times can solve issues because everyone can have a say. If anyone want to raise another RSN, let me know. I have provide my suggest as Sherdog as the default and if more IRS source stating differently, we use the the method of IRS. It is sad to know it just take a disruptive editor to turn the mma project upside down yet again and I would like to invite all those editors who support ToBeFree suggest to edit mma pages and attend to all the vandalism, editing warring and suggest how to avoid all. Cassiopeia talk 01:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

There are similar, and I'd say more widespread, issues regarding "genre warring" in music-related articles. Still, people manage to deal with it without attempting to enforce the use of one single specific source. I acknowledge the problem, but the alleged solution is none. On the contrary, it led to you edit warring in a situation "KO/TKO" could have been written as a compromise that would have matched the cited source's wording exactly. When multiple reliable sources contradict each other, there is no standardized number-counting solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

ToBeFree, with respect, I don't think it's at all like genre edits, as we're not dealing with an opinion (or at least we shouldn't be). What we're talking about is the official way results are recorded by the COMMISSION (not promotion) that sanctions the fight. This is the official result of the fight. Let's stay with the TKO/KO issue. You can't write 'he was knocked unconscious for two seconds, then came round, then the ref let it go before finally stopping it' because that's like saying the score of a football match was '1 goal scored by a header and the other team scored a tap in and it was a draw'. That's fine in the body but the score is 1-1. We're not saying that Sherdog is the only source for info in the article, we're saying that it's the most accurate for fight methods.

The issue is that these pages get vandalised all the time. A fan of a fighter, for instance, might want to change a TKO to a KO, as they watched the fight and think they saw a fighter go out. A promotion might think that it'd help sell the next fight if it were KO (punch), rather than TKO (punches). The UFC listed McGregor as 6 ft 1 in his first fight. Vandals also change heights as they have compared two people on TV and have drawn their own conclusion. I really do think you should listen to Cass. They are one of the most active Wikipedians in history. We're not hung up on Sherdog, we just know from experience that it solves problems when it comes to correcting subtle vandalism. The MMA infobox has a link at the bottom to fight records. By clicking it, we can easily see whether an editor who's changing a result is doing so because that's what a source says or because that's the way they want the result to be. Is it KO (punch) or KO (punches and kicks)? The answer is that it depends on how the commission recorded it (not what articles say or what you saw when you watched the fight). The only third party independent site consistently to have recorded methods of victory is Sherdog. On the rare occasions when Sherdog is obviously an outlier, then no probs, we change it with an inline citation. The idea that ESPN is more accurate really doesn't stack up. First, they are far closer to the UFC (a promotion) that they are to commissions. Secondly, the first thing they did when getting into MMA was buy data off Sherdog.

Recording of official results is nothing at all like genre edits as there isn't an official sanctioning body that concludes what a genre is in a specific style of notation. 'I saw that fight and he knocked him out' is a good enough reason for a lot of MMA fans to change the official result. I do think Cass should be listened to a but more and it's a great shame that a hugely disruptive vandal who was banned by the arb committee permanently has caused this. The dispute started, by the way, because they'd seen a video on YT with a guy holding a tape measure and changed a fighter's height accordingly. When they were reverted for changing sourced info, they went to war.

To conclude, we're talking about the official method of victory as recorded by the commission that sanctions a fight. You can't paraphrase a source and it's not prose. Sherdog is not the sole source, but it's the best one to stop people changing fight records according to the point they're trying to make.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is a case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1052045095&oldid=1048006993&title=Maur%C3%ADcio_Rua NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Clearly an editor deciding someone's height from seeing them on TV is inappropriate. But you long comment hints at but doesn't actually mention a key point. Despite the RfC, most members this Wikiproject seem to be trying to keep Sherdog as the arbitrator of heights even when there was dispute, as a sock pointed out here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1058#A few editors have been reverting all edits which replaced a questionable source with other reliable sources such as espn.com.

In other words, this isn't the case of an editor deciding someone's height from what they saw on TV. This is a bunch of editors deciding one source is the correct one for the heights of various people even when other sources disagree.

I'm reminded of this discussion Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive328#Template:Infobox professional wrestler which while about a case where the heights aren't claimed to be actual heights, one thing I learnt from the sources there-in was even for many sports where height is supposed to be actual height, there still tends to be only a somewhat loose connection to actual height. IIRC there's even one case I think it was either the US NFL or US NBA where there's an official and so semi standardised recording of height during their draft which is passed to teams but the publicly reported height tends to stay as what it's always been reported.

Ultimate point being, yes the accuracy of heights tends to be questionable but there doesn't seem to be any reason to think Sherdog should be the final arbitrator. While ESPN's connection to UFC raises some concerns their are also a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and it's not clear to me they'd be willing to ruin this by agreeing to parrot UFC when there is dispute instead of following their usual processes. Perhaps when it comes to height ESPN has decided that since it doesn't matter much they so they just follow official sources in general which perhaps isn't what we want. But even if this were true, we still have no particular reason to think Sherdog is better.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

For clarity I'm not saying what the sock did was appropriate, it wasn't they aren't welcome on Wikipedia and need to bugger off until and unless they successfully appeal which frankly seems unlikely. However despite the mess with caused by that dumb sock, it seems we did end up with a clear consensus from non sock editors and that consensus should be respected so it's definitely questionable for editors to be ignoring it and continue to treat Sherdog as the ultimate arbitrator of heights even when other RS disagree. It's extremely unfortunate that the sock was also the one who was pointing this out, actually I think another reason I had no desire to deal with it was because of their involvement. Still we shouldn't cut off our noses to spite our faces i.e. we should continue to do what we are supposed to do according to our policies and guidelines even if in some cases it's what the sock wants. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support, also support removing mention of Sherdog completely after some dumb dispute I think involving socks came up somewhere I think ANI I became aware that this Wikiproject and many of it's members were basically ignoring the RSN consensus. But I find MMA and especially the continual disputes that come up boring enough I didn't bother to pursue it further. I thank ToBeFree for finally doing the needful. As I'm sure I've told them before, if they feel there were problems with the RSN discussion, they're free to try and achieve a new consensus and/or the close was invalid because of the socks. But until they do so, that's the consensus that exists. Frankly as I think I've also said before, I don't see much chance of a different consensus. While it may be true the initiator also used a sock to comment, there were a fair few participants and these were and are established Wikipedians without much involvement in the MMA arena. Most MMA regulars in the discussion seemed to be against the consensus anyway. Finally IMO the consensus is sort of moot to this change. It's completely inappropriate to recommend only one source as the ultimate decider if there's dispute, and it's especially inappropriate for a Wikiproject to do so without widespread community wide discussion supporting such a decision. Nil Einne (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• Suggestion Any result that is not referenced and is not the same as in Sherdog, must be returned to how it is described in Sherdog. By changing to 'and', all we do is ask for an inline citation when the result differs from Sherdog. Bear in mind that normally the changes are not cited at all. The fight table uses Sherdog as its source, as does the MMA infobox. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  If you see incorrect information, you can replace it by correct information combined with an inline citation. There is no "must". You can use any reliable source to do so, you don't have to do so at all (it's a volunteer project), and if you do use Sherdog, you should cite your source. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Again, any suggestion that Sherdog is a high-quality source is trying to override the consensus at WP:RSN and therefore cannot be implemented using a consensus here per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. If you think the RSN conclusion about Sherdog was wrong you need to challenge it at WP:RSN, where the discussions will have a wider audience; you can bring your expertise and sources and everything there to make your argument, but having RSP and the wikiproject saying different things is going to cause a mess. Otherwise, what happens when a bunch of MMA articles hit WP:GAN and people there say "wait, you're citing Sherdog all over the place and it's yellow at RSP, should you really be doing that?" Even if you're right, you have to fix the problem at its source, which requires another discussion at WP:RSN. EDIT: Also, I don't think what you're asking (for Sherdog to be mandated and to be given priority over all other sources) is viable. At best we could consider it WP:PRIMARY in certain circumstances and use it with an in-line citation or for uncontroversial details, but that imposes even more restrictions on it - most of all in places where it is contradicted by other sources, at which point it can't really be called uncontroversial. In a situation where other high-quality sources disagree with it, it will never be acceptable to just say "always go with Sherdog automatically" - even the very best sources are not given that level of diffidence. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  @NEDOCHAN: I see the point you're making, but there is substance in Aquillion's reply. First, Sherdog does need to be officially stated as a RS to be treated as such in this WikiProject. Second, even after such a proclamation of reliability, the current wording cannot stand. Even if given precedence, Sherdog or any other source can not and must not be treated as the only legitimate source — And the policy should indicate it. What that policy should be is to be discussed, but we need first decide what to do before Sherdog's status is upgraded. Deancarmeli (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

We are not saying IRS can not overide Sherdog but Sherdog as the default and if IRS indicated the method different, then we would change it for the point of reduce edit warring as different IRS could states different methods in a fight which has been this way for the last 10 years and it works just fine until editors who do not edit or contribute to the MMA articles started all the fuss and dont know the history of MMA editing and problems and give no solutions on how to tackle edit warring but and also would not involved to solve the issues but just stand a side or dont event know edit warring happening and how bad it is in mma pages. Cassiopeia talk 10:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NMMA) an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS or NMMA] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

What about the EFC Worldwide

Does anybody think EFC Worldwide should be redirected into Extreme Fighting Championship what are other people's opinions? Dwanyewest (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Country Flags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

I would like to propose the addition of country flags in MMA records. Here are my three reasons.

1. Mixed martial arts is the only combat sport that doesn't include country flags. Boxing, kickboxing, wrestling, submission grappling all include the country flag of the opponents in the record. To specifically leave out MMA is puzzling.

2. Flags help users more quickly identify fighters. For example if I'm looking at an American fighter's record and trying to find the name of a Swiss opponent they fought years ago I have to scroll through the names until I find the right person. Even if they were the only opponent they fought from that nation. If the record had flags the Swiss flag would have immediately stood out as a visual cue.

3. Flags tell a story. A lot of fighters begin fighting local competition before fighting abroad and the flags allow you to more easily follow their journey. Darren Till is an English fighter who began his MMA career fighting Brazilians then fellow Europeans in his early UFC career. He didn't fight an American until Cowboy Cerrone in 2017. These details would go unnoticed by most MMA fans because all the names just blend together.

Boxingfan27 (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Boxingfan27

This issue has been discussed many, many times in the past, like here and the consensus has remained to not use flags in record tables.

The main argument against the use of flags is taken from the Wikipedia guidelines concerning flags which you can read about at MOS:FLAG. Basically, when MMA fighters fight, they are not representing their countries. They are not chosen by some sporting body within that country to fight as a representative of that country, instead, they represent themselves. This is really the only criterion to consider. I notice that you didn't include an argument based on the guidelines of Wikipedia which is what it will take to achieve a new consensus.

Also, it doesn't matter that other projects include flags especially if they are going against Wikipedia guidelines. And looking at boxing, it's a bit more nuanced, "per this RfC, opponent flag icons should be retained in articles which contained them originally. However, flag icons should not be inserted into articles created without them, or where they have been absent for a long time.". Which you can read about here: MOS:BOXING/RECORD. SQGibbon (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that there's an RFC regarding flags in boxing record tables at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing#RfC on flagicons in boxing record tables. – ².O.^Boxing 19:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I understand the issue has been discussed in the past but from what I've read there doesn’t seem to be a consensus, the result of these discussions have been inconclusive and should be subject to further review.

[It doesn't matter that other projects include flags especially if they are going against Wikipedia guidelines.]

Here is why the comparison is relevant -- by saying MMA fighters represent themselves and not their country you are implying that boxers, kickboxers and submission grapplers ARE representing their countries given the use of the flag icons. In amateur competition, such as the Olympics, they represent their nation but as professionals they represent themselves. By that logic we should remove all flags from records that are not associated with international competition.

[And looking at boxing, it's a bit more nuanced, "per this RfC, opponent flag icons should be retained in articles which contained them originally. However, flag icons should not be inserted into articles created without them, or where they have been absent for a long time."]

Flag icons should only be used if the athlete is representing their country and not themselves, however, countless articles can be grandfathered in if the article already had flag icons? That seems inconsistent with the initial guidelines regarding how a non-consensus dispute should be handed.

One opinion is that they provide easy identification of the nationality of boxers. The other is that flags are a magnet to disagreement and that words are better than flags. Being a no consensus close WP:NOCONSENSUS should apply and appropriate guidelines should be followed."

The appropriate guidelines following the result of a no consensus under the ‘add, modify, or remove’ section of living individuals states – "a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter". Given that the flag icon is the contentious matter in question, the result of this RfC should have been the removal of the flag icon from ALL professional records.

Boxingfan27 (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Boxingfan27

WP:Consensus is not a vote. The discussions are centered around how best to interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It doesn't matter if 100% of the participants want to do something one way, if it is against Wikipedia policies and guidelines then it won't happen.

"you are implying that boxers, kickboxers and submission grapplers ARE representing their countries given the use of the flag icons."

No, I'm not. I'm saying that if those other projects are using flag icons in such a way as to violate Wikipedia guidelines and policies then they shouldn't be doing so. I'm also saying that just because other projects violate the policies and guidelines doesn't mean we should.

"By that logic we should remove all flags from records that are not associated with international competition."

Exactly, the relevant guidelines and policies seem very clear on this point.

"however, countless articles can be grandfathered in if the article already had flag icons? That seems inconsistent with the initial guidelines regarding how a non-consensus dispute should be handed. "

I agree. I have never seen a solution like that in my decade of time on Wikipedia. It was a poor decision by the closing admin. But to be fair, this has always been such a contentious issue with so much bad blood spilled continuously over the years, maybe an exception was made in order to bring about peace.

The MMA project was once put under sanctions for extremely poor behavior that in part included the flag issue. We managed to get past it.

And I still don't see how the use of flags in these articles isn't against the guidelines I linked to before. SQGibbon (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification.

To summarize, it would seem that the guidelines are pretty clear regarding the use of flag icons. And just because sports such as boxing and kickboxing are using flag icons improperly doesn’t justify breaking the rules for MMA as well.

In that case, why are these other combat sports pages allowed to clearly break the rules? If these admins can’t make an exception to the rules, how are they continuously getting away with doing so? This ‘grandfathered in’ clause isn’t even enforced, new boxers receive flag icons on their records all the time.

If it was a contentious issue for MMA records I would assume it received mixed support on the boxing, kickboxing, submission grappling, and wrestling pages as well. Somehow they all arrived at the decision to keep the flags despite the rules. To be clear, I agree with you that this doesn’t justify it, I’m genuinely just interested to know how that exception has been made for every combat sport aside from MMA?

Boxingfan27 (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC) Boxingfan27

Of course the answer is that we're dealing with real humans and volunteers and there is no license (like for lawyers) required for participation. People, even admins, make mistakes.

I don't actually care about any of these projects, I only got sucked in because of some recurring violations and then was asked to participate because I was, at the time, an experienced and very active editor. I say all that to explain why I don't really know how those other projects arrived at the conclusions they did. I had an awareness that things were being discussed but I don't believe I ever participated or followed any of it closely enough. MMA is really the only one of these sports that I pay closer attention to. My main job on Wikipedia is to patrol new changes looking for vandalism; I don't generally get involved in Talk page discussions like this.

Also, just because a project has adopted a certain style doesn't mean that all the editors agree and will follow it. It takes a lot of work to patrol all the new articles and changes to all of these articles and enforce these guidelines. And there are always more new editors coming along than there are those who know the guidelines and attempt to enforce them. It can be really difficult to keep up with it all.

And then oftentimes new editors will see some articles with flag icons and think that that's the way it's supposed to be so with that enthusiasm that comes with being new, will make a lot of changes that aren't noticed.

So we all do our best and try to remain civil. It's not easy. I do appreciate your willingness to consider the issue from both sides and remain civil. It's so easy for these things to go badly. SQGibbon (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s understandable. You mentioned "new editors will see some articles with flag icons and think that that's the way it's supposed to be" and I think a big part of the issue is simply the inconsistency. A lot of MMA fighters have boxed, kickboxed, wrestled and those records are presented on the same page with flags.

Given your experience with Wikipedia, do you have any advice for me to pursue this inquiry further? Can I contact a mod team?

Boxingfan27 (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Boxingfan27

There is no "mod team." Elected administrators do not involve themselves in content disputes. Questions like yours are answered by the consensus of editors in WikiProjects like these. As for flags MOS:FLAG says no, as fighters are representing themselves and not their countries. That we have stubborn editors who do not abide our community consensus should not be seen as excuse for anyone else to do the same. If you're actually trying to help write an encyclopedia just leave all images out and find reliable sources to support text. That's what we're here to do. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

"As for flags MOS:FLAG says no, as fighters are representing themselves and not their countries. That we have stubborn editors who do not abide our community consensus should not be seen as excuse for anyone else to do the same."

"To summarize, it would seem that the guidelines are pretty clear regarding the use of flag icons. And just because sports such as boxing and kickboxing are using flag icons improperly doesn’t justify breaking the rules for MMA as well."

I literally wrote that a few days ago.

Anyway, it seems like editors have acknowledged the inconsistency with the combat sports records but nobody will do anything about it. As Nate Diaz would say, "I'm not surprised".

Boxingfan27 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC) Boxingfan27

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bellator events

Just a quick note to let people know the pages for upcoming Bellator events need a lot of work. Whoever is doing the background on them is literally just copying whatever is said in the MMA Junkie source article and that is against Wikipedia's rules. I'm fixing what I can, but please keep an eye out for this. Udar55 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@HeinzMaster and Udar55: Udar 55, Thanks for informing and thank you for your help as Hein has a lot of work in hand on new articles and Bellator event pages. Hein, pls take note of the above and also other reviewers have mentioned to your before. Info that violate the WP:COPYVIO will be moved immediately and the new page will be immediately removed as well. So pls reword for violation of Copyvio is a very serious matter for it entails legal implications. Cassiopeia talk 23:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia and Udar55: Should be good now. HeinzMaster (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

@HeinzMaster: Thank you and thank you for your contribution and time spent. Appreciate it. Stay safe and best. Cassiopeia talk 01:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks guys! I know the Bellator events recently went back to full page efforts (after Wikipedia denied it back in the day) so I don't want there to be any issues. Udar55 (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

What about Edmond Tarverdyan?

Does anyone think Edmond Tarverdyan is notable enough to have a MMA article? Dwanyewest (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Dwanyewest Good day. Edmond Tarverdyan fails NMMA and NKICK unless we could find source indicated he was once ranked top 10 in kickboxing. He could pass GNG as coach if we could find 5-7 independent, reliable sources that the sources talk about him directly in length and in depth and not merely passing mention (not just one or two sentences stating he was Rousey's coach in the source article) - He is one that talk about him in length and in-depth - see -here. Cassiopeia talk 04:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia:@Dwanyewest: I found some good coverage on Tarverdyan: The Athletic ESPN USA Today Los Angeles Times Fox Sports The Washington Post and some other sources: ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 04:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sources: What about Edmond Tarverdyan?