Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts page.
Archives: 1, 2
Shortcut:
WT:MMA
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Jeremy Horn

Jeremy Horn's record table is slightly screwed up, as the references and external links sections have been merged up into the table itself. The page also doesn't use the new MMArecordbox; it's just on a generic wikitable. I lack the experience with the tables and record boxes to fix/update the table. Could someone with some time check it out and fix the page? Gromlakh (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done, drop a record box in there if you please. east.718 at 21:38, January 6, 2008

[edit] Jon Hess

Article is under AfD here competitor from early UFCs, comments would be useful. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] World Victory Road

I dont know much about about making articles that are up to standard in wikipedia, but i went ahead and made a page for the new Japanese promotion World Victory Road Kaizenyorii (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming UFC events

We're at that time again when people keep putting up UFC events before any information is confirmed about them. Currently, we have UFC 83 (listed on WP:AFD) and UFC 84, just deleted a couple of days ago, now back again as a candidate for speedy deletion. Part of the problem we're running into with these articles is that certain fighters have confirmed fights for a date (March 8 or April 19, I believe, are the two candidates right now), but nobody in the know has confirmed a name for the events to be held on these dates. Rumor blogs are speculating as to what is what (March 8 being either a Fight Night from Europe or UFC 83, April 19 either being UFC 83 or 84), but the events are not officially named, the fighters aren't certain, and no official announcements have been made.

It's a tedious process to watch each of these future events like a hawk, as they keep popping back up over and over. I think Otto4711 made a good point here: "...suggest salting until there is demonstrably reliable sourcing as these UFC # articles get recreated with distressing regularity with no sourcing. Otto4711 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)" I agree wholeheartedly, and if we were to salt up a list of UFC event pages to about 100 it would limit the amount of time spent tracking them down and constantly deleting them.

My proposal would be to salt UFC 83 - 100 (ish), then also UFC Fight Night 14 - 20 (ish). We could then put up a subpage of WP:MMA, prominently noticed on the project page, for requests for un-salting of various event pages once reliable, confirmed information about the event (e.g. date, location, venue, etc. being solidly confirmed, + a fight or two). I don't think at that point we'd necessarily need to do a "consensus" vote; that wouldn't be any better than what we're doing now. I think it would be more like the current "Requests for Rollback" process. An admin could review the request, review the source listed to see if the event article could potentially survive an AfD, then grant or deny the request in their discretion.

Thoughts? Ideas? Suggestions? Flames? Gromlakh (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How about an Upcoming UFC events article? Have them all redirected there, and each listed as a section, it would allow for content to be added (and removed) and save the AfD cycle, when they are confirmed split them off, also doges the explaining bit every time and salting could be too restrictive. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Good and bad. It'd be good because removing information from that page would not require an AfD. Bad because that still wouldn't stop anyone who wanted to from deleting the redirect and creating the page whenever they wanted to, which would put us right back in the AfD cycle. Also, if the event information isn't confirmed, putting it on an "Upcoming Events" page would be just as much crystalballing as it would be to make an actual page about the article.
The problem isn't so much about the location where the events are talked about (e.g. UFC ## pages vs. "Upcoming Events" page); it's that they're going up at all. There's absolutely no reason why there should be a page up about UFC 83. Previously, it was rumored to be the April 19 event in Canada. That appears to no longer be the case, as several sites are now speculating about fights for that date and saying April 19 is instead going to be UFC 84. Not that either of those has actually been confirmed by anyone in the know, but those are the rumors going around. There's further speculation now that the March 8 event with Bisping/McCarthy will be the "new" UFC 83, but that also hasn't been confirmed so none of the confirmed fights from that date can go up on the page either.
There seems to be a general issue with people massively jumping the gun on posting UFC events. Someone puts up an article confirming/speculating about a fight for a certain date, and then someone else comes here and creates an article saying that date is UFC ##. That generally happens many, many months before any hard and fast information comes out about where the event will be held, what its name will be, etc. I mean, we've had people for weeks now trying to claim that the April 19 event will be held in the Bell Centre. The Bell Centre hasn't even been booked yet, and the UFC has been complaining for years about how notoriously difficult it is to make that happen because of the hockey schedule getting priority. If the venue hasn't been booked, we can't really say it's going to happen on that date. They might decide to hold the event somewhere else on the same date, or they could still hold it at the Bell Centre sometime other than April 19. Who knows?
As for the explaining bit, I don't think it would be too hard. We build a special page for requests that has a template on it. You fill in the template, something like this: {{event|date|location|fights confirmed|source(s) for the info}}. Any admin could review the info you provided, check the source(s) and unlock the page if there's enough information available. Also, as an alternative to salting the pages, they could instead be created with protected redirects to the requests page. That would quickly alert people as to what's going on. Gromlakh (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I was figuring that anyone not familiar with wikipedia would be less likely to know how to delete the redirect, and those more familiar would see the reasoning, Just showing good faith in human nature.... --Nate1481( t/c) 09:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
P.s. Read the rest of your comments, while I agree in this instance (the sources were for the wrong event which I missed) I was thinking of in future terms, a protected redirect could work for either option, more opinions would be useful though --Nate1481( t/c) 09:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
The more I think about it, I think I prefer a protected redirect rather than a straight salting. The pages could be created to redirect to the requests page with an explanation for how to go about requesting unprotection. That would probably create less confusion that simply not being able to create the page at all. Gromlakh (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Any reason we couldn't combine the two ideas? As in have an article that explains that the event dosen't have much info yet then rather than instruction just let members of the project keep an eye on it & break off section when the UFC officially announces it, alternately only break them off, after the event. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

How about renaming all the UFC articles to include their taglines? UFC 81 would therefore be renamed UFC 81: Breaking Point This way you couldn't create a future UFC page without knowing the tagline -- RoninBK T C 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That wouldn't really solve the underlying problems. First, for indexing purposes, the events are better know by number, not number & tagline. Per WP:NAME, we should use the most common name. Second, renaming the old events to include taglines wouldn't stop anyone who wanted to from still creating UFC 90, or some such, because there's no way to prevent that unless that actual page name has been salted or created as a protected redirect. Gromlakh (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea presented in the latest AFD for UFC 84. The path of least resistance is to have UFC 84-99 be redirected to List of UFC events. If someone wants to create a page prematurely, the fix is a simple few clicks, instead of going through a 5-day process. I don't support salting because it's akin to page-protecting because vandalism might happen, admins should not be given the editorial power (of deciding what passes WP:NOT) that belongs to the consensus of the community. hateless 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I got bold and created redirects for UFC 85-90 to go to List of UFC events. Redirects are cheap and undoable, so if consensus should sway it won't be hard to change. hateless 08:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this will be for the best. I'd suggest we all watch these pages so they can be reverted if unsourced info it put up. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFC events in danger

Just thought I should warn you guys that I have been dealing with a power tripping mod. I put up a page for EliteXC: Street Certified. It was tagged for deletion as not being noteworthy. I contacted the mod who tagged it and told him that this was a noteworthy event and gave him requested examples of why it was noteworthy. In the talk section for that event, another poster mentioned that if he was going to tag this for deletion, he should contact you guys or look at the entire List of UFC events page as an example of how things are kept orderly. Instead of seeing that logic, he said he is considering nominating the pages for deletion because he feels they aren't noteworthy. See for yourself on this talk page: Talk:EliteXC:_Street_Certified. Thanks for your time. (Udar55 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC))

I don't see that proposal getting too far, at least for completed/officially announced UFC events...*twiddle* Gromlakh (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I also doubt that a proposal like that would get too far; these are major sporting events (getting more and more popular and mainstream very quickly) and for any fan of the sport of Mixed Martial Arts or of any "fight sport" they are a very good reference as to what has happened previously (to help new fans catch up), or for big fans to keep up with everything going on. By using the logic that these events aren't noteworthy, the argument would then continue that the athletes mentioned (and linked to) from the event pages are not noteworthy (how can they be noteworthy if the events they participate in aren't?); anyone who says athletes of that caliber who are employed in a multi-million dollar industry being watched by more and more people everyday are not noteworthy would also then have to say that football players shouldn't have pages, and neither should sports teams, and on and on. I'm sorry if I sound a little rambling or insulting to anyone (I'm really not trying to), but just trying to show where/how I believe the mod in question is mistaken.

Dhart1983 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFC 24: Conflicting Information

I was just taking a look at the UFC 24 page before watching the event, and there is conflicting information regarding its release on home video/DVD. The beginning of the article says that, "as of 2006," it was never released for the home audience; it was only shown on PPV in 2000 when it originally was held. The last section of the article however says that it was released on home video in 2000, and combined with UFC 23 on a DVD release. Since this was during the "Dark Ages" of the Ultimate Fighting Championship I tend to believe that it may not have been released on home video, but I'm not sure so I don't want to change it. I was curious if anyone knew for sure. Just wanted to bring it up.

Dhart1983 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out http://www.silvervision.co.uk/product.asp?pf_id=UFCDVD012&sfile=1&jump=0&cid=LYRWA3K165SSHCQ2UBE9LTCO74UTNZEI, It is possible that the dark ages shows are now being released afterall. These are SEG shows, and it looks like SEG still holds the rights to this show, which could be why the official (Zufffa) UFC site doesn't have anything about it. hateless 22:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that seems to settle the issue of whether or not it has been released on DVD recently. The issue now is whether is was originally released on home video in 2000, as the section at the end of the article (that makes reference to the DVD) states. I'll search around a bit, but I really don't think it was. I have of course been wrong before though. *EDIT* After a quick search of the interweb, I found absolutely no reference to a VHS originally released by Semaphore, which is what I expected. I'll update the UFC 24 page to reflect this information. */EDIT* Dhart1983 (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to put it out here that I made the changes to the page. Now it is not only accurate, but looks a little nicer :) The added sentence about the VHS/DVD at the end looked awkward, so i moved it to the description of the event (where the OTHER VHS mention was) where I believe it belonged. If anyone else has any information/comments, please feel free to leave them here or on my talk page. Dhart1983 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFC 23-29 ("dark ages") Releases

I was going to put this in my previous topic, as that was what made me realize this (with a little tip of course, and the help of another editor), but I felt it deserved its own topic. As most longtime UFC fans know, the period preceding the transition of UFC ownership from SEG to Zuffa is often referred to as the "dark ages" of the UFC, as it was under assault from all angles for being too violent, and SEG was having financial difficulties. This led to UFC 23-29 not originally getting home video releases, like the previous events had. This is noted throughout many of the pages for these events; the problem is, the phrase "NEVER released" is often used, which is no longer true. In 2007, FightDVD (www.fightdvd.co.uk) released these events in double DVD sets, so they are now available for home viewing. Therefore, I've decided to make an attempt to amend all the pages that make references to them "never" being released. I plan to keep the information regarding their original non-release (if it is in the article), while mentioning that they are now available (again, only if this is already mentioned on the page). Honestly I'm not even sure if this type of information is good (or necessary) for these event pages, but the fact that they were not originally released stayed on the pages, so it seems this information is relevant. I wanted to put this out there for a few reasons. The first is that we obviously want these pages to be as accurate as possible, but I was curious if anyone had an opinion if the release information was important at all (I personally find it interesting history). The second reason is that I wanted to request that any editors familiar with the pages/events check them out to see if there was any references I missed, or to fix ones I don't get a chance to do. For an example of how I thought it would be best done, you can look at UFC 24 and UFC 27, the ones I already fixed. Anyway, I think that's it. Any comments, questions, thoughts, or insults can be posted here (preferably) or on my talk page (if you have a question more specifically for me). As a big UFC and MMA fan, I would just like to do what I can to help the community on here, which is obviously dedicated to maintaining good, accurate pages for anyone seeking information on Mixed Martial Arts. Dhart1983 (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Hey, good work man, I originally wrote those articles and at the time they had not been released. I do think it is an important fact to include, to show just how far the SEG ownd UFC fell at that time. UFC 23-29 never saw a US release in any form, and 9-38 have still never been released on DVD in the US. I dont know why the UK gets everything MMA, but it kinda sucks... :( Anyway, thanks for updating them, I might go thru and mention that some of those have had international releases - I know Japan has a few available from the Dark Ages, too. Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of male mixed martial artists on AFD

Speaking of AFD's, check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of male mixed martial artists. hateless 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UFC 83/84

Okay, now we're running into a problem. Rumor is the UFC has cancelled the March 8 event that was previously speculated as possibly being UFC 83. For those of you keeping track, the (rough) timeline is as follows:

  1. April 19 rumored as being UFC 83, no word on March 8 event.
  2. April 19 still rumored as UFC 83, March 8 event then started being rumored as a UFC Fight Night.
  3. Out of nowhere, people started rumoring March 8 as UFC 84 and reporting April 19 as UFC 84.
  4. Rumors circulating that the UFC is having trouble booking a location in England for UFC 83 and it might get moved to Las Vegas.
  5. Rumors circulating that March 8 may no longer be the event date because of the change of venue.
  6. Rumors the other day that March 8 may have been canceled, no word on what that means for April 19.
  7. Rumors change today, now saying that April 19 is UFC 83, not 84 as previously rumored.

Everyone got that? Clear as mud? Excellent!

This leaves us in an interesting position, because we still have all of the April 19 info up as UFC 84. Those paying attention may also recall this, where all of that stuff was previously indexed as UFC 83, deleted as being speculative, but while it was active the event location (and "confirmed" fights for that date) were changed back and forth between March 8 and April 19 a couple of times. Now we've had people today changing the UFC 84 article to say UFC 83, but not actually moving the page. Obviously, that's not the solution we're looking for, but this is compounded by the fact that nobody has ever officially announced anything about where UFC 83/84 will take place. There's only been confirmation of certain fights on certain dates, but nothing beyond speculation about the name of the event happening on that date.

I see three options on how to proceed from here with UFC 84:

  1. Leave the page in place exactly how it is now, no changes until there's an official UFC announcement.
  2. Move the page to UFC 83, with the understanding that it's not really confirmed as UFC 83 and might have to be moved back if the rumors about the March 8 event being canceled change.
  3. Delete the whole thing as being pure speculation, seeing as how there's no real verifiable information as to the name of the event happening on April 19.

I'm highly in favor of #3 myself. We can verify at this point that fights have been signed for a certain date. We cannot verify that the event happening on that date is UFC 83 or UFC 84. It could be either, but we don't know (and apparently nobody else does either).

Seeking consensus from the WP:MMA community before proceeding. Also, please take note of my proposal above (under "Upcoming UFC Events"), which would have alleviated some of this from the beginning. Gromlakh (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a fourth option, that is to rename the page April 2007 UFC event or something similar (placeholder names are not unprecedented on WP, see Bond 22). Of course, this option and option 3 are not mutually exclusive, and since there's going to be at least a 5 day discussiion on AFD before it can be deleted, I'd recommend the page be renamed if it is taken to AFD. Otherwise, there might be enough published speculation that it would pass WP:NOT, and if the issue is mostly because of naming, then we can just use a temporary name for now. hateless 18:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with this until the actual title/dates are cleared up by an official announcement. VegaDark (talk) 21:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a huge fan of the temporary page thingy, but it's far better than what we've got right now. That sounds like a better short-term solution. At least we could verify that part of it...*twiddle* Gromlakh (talk) 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I beliEVE that we should leave the page as is but move it to UFC 83. I previously created the 83 page but it was deleted. My page had almost the exact info as the 84 page. I dont want to delete it because it may be correct and then we'd have to do it all over again. If it turns out the event is 84 we can almost move it back to accomodate any changes.--Chode747 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The temporary name seems to have support, and I can see the point to it in this instance. I still like the solution Gromlakh and I discussed above, as this is potentially more widely applicable but in this instance it would be a bit late. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Based on this source, it looks like it's now official that the April event be UFC 83. I'm presuming the article is refering to the email that another user tried to cite as a source for changing the text (but not the article name), but either way a reliable source is now saying the Bell Centre is officially booked for UFC 83. While the consensus here was a temporary page until we know more, I think this officially moots the need for that and qualified as "we know more." I'm going to go ahead and move the page to UFC 83 based on this new source. Gromlakh (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
i'm not a supporter of creating a page of future events 3 months before. there needs to be some kinda time frame or references taken only from the official announcements. (Marty Rockatansky (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 23:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why create a page for an event which is based mostly on speculation while fighter bios and event pages are still vary lacking in information. We should be trying to improve the quality of existing articles or imminent events before we look into the future. Reith52 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree in the context of future events that don't already have pages, but this wasn't about that. It was about figuring out how to deal with an already problematic situation. The page was already there and an AfD would take too long to address the immediate problem. Gromlakh (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I will officially state that I am in agreement with the temporary heading option for this particular page. It seems the easiest and most sensible way to handle the problem. However, if you feel that you must remove the page until the UFC decides upon a date and an event, simply save the page to a Word document and paste it back later. This would solve the Wiki problem and allow the editors to have a hard copy of thier work.
I do agree with Reith52 on one point, more effort needs to be made on completing the half finished articles that involve MMA fighters, teams, etc.Unak78 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
With any luck, if the future events get salted/protected redirected, maybe that will force people to start doing more work on the articles we've already got. Gromlakh (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I would be in favor of deleting the UFC 84 article until more information is made available. To my knowledge, we ran into this problem because UFC 83 was originally supposed to occur in England and 84 was set to occur in Canada. Mixed martial arts blog sites began reporting that UFC 83 may not happen in England as planned, but instead, Las Vegas. Then it was reported that UFC 83 (which was going to feature a middleweight bout between Charles McCarthy and Michael Bisping) was canceled all together. The UFC's website lists the events chronologically: UFC 82 in Ohio, UFC Fight Night in Colorado, and UFC 83 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. In other words, it sounds like the event that was originally planned for England or Las Vegas was completely canceled. We're left with an article (UFC 84) that really doesn't need to be here. As far as I know, nothing's been made official for UFC 84. But until something is concrete, there's no reason to keep the article.Wyldephang (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The 84 article is currently a redirecting to 83 which makes sense for now as that reflects what has actually happened, what was 84 is now 83 so anyone who isn't up to date will find out that way. When enough info for an article is available 84 can be created. --Nate1481( t/c) 09:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, someone deleted the redirect shortly after the move, then MMAKing created a new UFC 84 article with a bunch of rumors. It's now up at AfD again, with complaints about how many UFC events end up at AfD every week because of crystalballing. Gromlakh (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Is there a warning template for crystal balling? If so we need to use it and if somen does this repeatedly see if it possible to have their article creation rights removed ? --Nate1481(t/c) 13:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I can't find one. If there is, it would be at WP:WARN. hateless 05:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of waiting for the UFC to officially announce the event. The Anti-Vandalism King (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article on Professional mixed martial arts

I'm starting an article outline at User:Hateless/Professional mixed martial arts which I hope to be able to publish onto the article mainspace. What inspired me to start this section is how someone keeps trying to insert a section into the history section on UFC about steroids which was too biased for inclusion and probably didn't fit article scope, however, steroids in MMA should be covered somewhere. Also, there are topics that can be discussed about professional MMA that are not in Mixed martial arts, for instances, the role of sanctioning bodies (however small that is), how MMA is regulated, how MMA is promoted (esp as opposed to boxing and pro-wrestling), how MMA fighters are paid and what controversies exist (there's enough clamor in reliable sources to write something about it here). The current mixed martial arts article is more or less about how MMA is fought, this article is going to be about the business of MMA. I'm going to mind-dump as much stuff as I can into this outline and flesh it into an article, and hopefully get the thing sourced up toward the end. Everyone here is free to help in this effort if you like. hateless 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Kimbo vs James Thompson

Both the Kimbo Slice and Elite XC: Saturday Night Fights artcles list Kimbo vs James Thompson as an official match. It is NOT confirmed. One guy, non affiliated with EliteXC or CBS started the rumor on a radio show. EliteXC's, and CBS's official fight card still list KIMBO VS TBA http://www.sportsline.com/mmaboxing/headtohead/cbs_exc_53108 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.162.232 (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollcall!

Just wondered who in the project is still active, and what you think we should be doing and if there's anything anyone wants to discuss. I've been inactive for a long time but have done a couple of things on here recently. This is basically just an attempt to get a bit of discussion going to keep the project going in the right direction as it's got a bit slow round here recently. Talk to me people! --TheCooperman (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  1. I'm here. Mostly, I just work on pages, though, I'm not too big on organization. And I haven't done much in the last few weeks. The big project I'd like to do is a major overhaul of the main Pride FC article. Right now, the history section is weak, and the rules section is poorly organized and way too long. Plus, a lot of the verbiage can be changed now that Pride is no longer a going concern. Cutting down the detailed description of all of the variant rules and show types, plus expanding and detailing the history as more of a history of the organization and less a history of the events would be great, but I haven't found the time. gnfnrf (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  2. I'm around also, usually just watching biography pages around event time though lately. Sancho 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  3. I'm here. I joined beccause I've created a few MMA bios. I'll help out in other ways if I can though. Chicken Wing (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  4. Still here, mainly do cleaning assessing. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. I don't really edit too much anymore, but get in touch if you want to tackle an article together. :-) east.718 at 15:05, May 1, 2008
  6. I'm active, but not too much in regards to MMA articles lately other than simple vandalism reversion on a few articles in my watchlist. VegaDark (talk) 03:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Hey guys, I am active again - I took about a year off from all things wiki to work on real life, but I am back and have been working mostly on heavy metal articles so far. But I do plan on getting some stuff elevated here. I have a few Featured Articles under my belt, Megadeth, Opeth, Alice in Chains and now I am finishing up Black Sabbath(the longest thing I've ever written) - so I have a good handle on what it takes to get articles elevated. After Sabbath I wanna focus on getting this project a FA or two. Thing is we need some good solid sources. I am thinking either the flagship page mma, or the UFC page (which I did a lot of work on before my break) will have the most info, and be the easiest to cite, or maybe Randy Couture or Chuck Liddell - somthing with a lot of citable articles online. Anyway, glad to be back and see that there are still a few old 'faces' around keeping the mma articles free of stupidity! Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  8. Hello, I am new here and I have been adding articles and updating old fight records. Aducci (talk) 02:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weights

When reporting weights, usually the reported weight of a fighter seems to be the maximum weight for their weight class. However, often there are sources (interviews, for example) that report the actual weight of the fighter between fights (before cutting weight). What do people think about reporting this weight in the "weight" section of the infobox. Either that, or maybe we could change the name of the "weight" section to "weight-class" or something like that. Sancho 14:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Change weight to 'Fighting weight' and add weight class as a new field as weight classes tend to be (relatively) constant. I can do an AWB run to fix them up if people agree to change the template. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds sensible enough to me, unless anyone else has any objections go for it. --TheCooperman (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sancho 08:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
There will be a few problems that will have to be tackled. Some people will want to insert unsourced "off-season" weights. Another problem is that not all fighters make public what their normal weight is. Another is that some fighters in their interviews talk about how they've cut from different weights. So, this might be a pretty difficult task. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done; I'm just pointing out some of the obstacles that might be encountered. Chicken Wing (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Because I proposed a couple of solutions above, I just thought I'd make it clear that the proposal is that we're considering is the one made by Nate1481: changing the "Weight" label to "Fighting weight", and add the new "Weight-class" field. That would be a sensible solution I think, and avoids for now the problem of having to find and source their actual weights. Sancho 07:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fight Record stat box (formatting / consistency)

How would one go about establishing an agreed-upon specification for formatting these? The outline on this page seems outdated and there are arbitrary differences across most fighter's pages. The two most popular styles are:

Result Record Opponent Method Event Date Round Time Location Notes
Win 16-8 Flag of Brazil Gabriel Gonzaga TKO (strikes) UFC 74: Respect August 25, 2007 3 1:37 Las Vegas, Nevada, United States Defends UFC heavyweight title

And

13 wins (1 (T) KO, 6 submissions, 6 decisions), 2 Loss (1 (T) KO, 1 decision), 1 No Contest
Date Result Opponent Event Method Round Time Notes
4/29/2008 Win Gesias Calvancanti DREAM.2: Middle Weight Grandprix 2008 1st Round Decision (unanimous) 2 5:00

Note also the differing column order - BenTrotsky (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the first one better. gnfnrf (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the first one also. What about the first table style, but with a heading row that includes the breakdown like in the second one? Sancho 06:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer this option... 1st table, but the first row is the breakdown with a [show] link that unhides the breakdown table within the same cell. hateless 07:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
The first one looks good, but is the Record part really needed? I really don't see the necessity of having the fighters record after each fight displayed on the table.. it's just a waste of space and looks a tad tacky, other than that the first one looks fine. SuzukS 05:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Scott Levy

Not familiar with him & not on Sherdog is this in needed of referencing or deleting? --Nate1481(t/c) 08:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Article here. 20+ fights with no mention on Sherdog, plus article was written by a single-purpose account...looks very suspicious. hateless 08:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Article was WP:PROD but tag was removed some time ago. shame because it's a blatant hoax. you don't have "unverified reports" of fighting in UFC and K-1 because they...surprise...keep records of events, fights and fighters. Should this be transcribed to the article's talk page? -- BenTrotsky (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article Generator

This website pulls information from sherdog and creates a Wikipedia article with an updated fight history. You can also use it to update a fighters record history. I have used it to create multiple fighter entries and to update older fight records.

http://mmawiki.awardspace.com/

Aducci (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Affliction: Banned

I created a page for Affliction's first show Banned. I figured the time was right as matches have been officially announced and it is a pretty big show. Unfortunately, it was deleted immediately as the Wiki mod deemed it as reading too much as a promotional tool and not noteworthy. Feel free to start it up again. I know you guys will do a great job. Udar55 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the text of the deleted article, and it looks okay, except it had only one reference: MMAJunkie. If we created an article for Affliction: Banned in much the same way as any other event, but just including more references to news articles to give more evidence of notability, I'm sure it won't be deleted again. Sancho 17:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adriano Santos listed on AfD

Please go here: [[{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adriano Santos]] to comment --Nate1481(t/c) 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)