Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

Bloody Freak

Someone may want to take a look at User:Bloody Freak's edits on MMA records. He's changing finishes of matches on a number of articles based on the simple fact that he claims to know better than Sherdog.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I left a warning on his talk page. Please notify an admin about this situation.
LlamaAl (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's absolutely no need for any of this. I doubt there's one good edit in there. I'll help revert a few. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And he re-reverts them all. Fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The wiki entry of keylocks helps understand what I'm trying to convey to this guy. An Americana and a Kimura are both Keylock submissions. Sherdog isn't listing it proper while anyone with grappling knowledge will tell you what I'm saying is truth. I tried referencing the wiki entry of keylocks as my source, is there somewhere else you'd like me to source instead?

I'm only trying to better the knowledge of submissions because people get confused. Why are you so insistent on having incorrect information on here?

Bloody Freak (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't cite a Wikipedia article. If that article had a source that agreed with you, you could use that. But it doesn't. You're insistent that "Brabo choke" is incorrect, but the guy who the D'arce (not Darce) choke is named for says it's the exact same move. There's your "truth". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Darce is the choke, D'arce is the guy's name. Brabo is the name for a plethora of different chokes. Darce is an exclusive no-gi choke. Today, in MMA, it's called a darce choke. Ask anyone with submission knowledge. Why are you acting like I'm causing harm? Bloody Freak (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you think Joe D'Arce doesn't have submission knowledge? The top MMA website (Sherdog) is run by idiots? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

From the article you posted on my talk page, "'It's too many syllables.' So he shortened it to 'darce' so when he's coaching someone in a fight or a jiu jitsu match he can yell out, 'D'Arce' quickly. ... No one ever says 'dee-R-see choke.'" D'arce is too modest to just say point blank that it's now a darce choke but that's what everyone refers to the no gi variant. In reality, they are all arm-triangles. The people at sherdog aren't idiots, they just aren't grapplers. They get a few names wrong and they don't seem to ever go back and fix their mistakes. Which is why some submissions are just listed as "choke" or "armlock."

I'm not saying it's pronounced with the apostrophe. We don't spell everything the way it sounds. Ask any colonel. Anyway, Verifiability, not truth is a fundamental policy here. Everyone's got their own version of truth, and if everyone was free to edit articles based on it, the place would be a mess. If it's as obvious as you say that so-and-so won by D'arce choke, you should have no problem finding a reliable source that says so, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Laimon, and many others, spelled it darce so that's how I spell it. Check the links I posted below. Is that sufficient? I'm not trying to fight with you here, I'm trying to have the correct information listed. Bloody Freak (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bloody Freak (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you introduce original research, then you are doing harm, because someone has to take the time to remove it. --SubSeven (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are they taking the time to remove something that is correct information? It shouldn't be. I'm fixing incorrect information. I've sent messages to sherdog, they don't respond to critique, despite quotes from the Gracies and Rutten backing up my claims.

Bloody Freak (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And re-remove it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fe0AaVDzQs&list=UUNMZWa1QP42jHrmmzayFEeg&index=1&feature=plcp Here are Rener and Ryon Gracie, the sons of the founder of the UFC, stating it is an americana. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2p5q__hcg Here they call the choke a darce. There just isn't that many sites with this information for me to properly cite it. They are the correct names though.

Bloody Freak (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, to say Tim Elliot beat Josh Rave with a D'arce, you need a source explicitly saying that. Not good enough to show that a Brabo and D'arce are the same thing, then change every instance of the word in unrelated Wikipedia results. That's called synthesis here. A sleeperhold is basically the same as a rear-naked choke, but would you want to see that word used in MMA articles? If Wikipedia didn't have this rule, it would be. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it can be pronounced as 'darce' but that doesn't mean you change the actual spelling of the name. --SubSeven (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not really the issue... if you want to have it as D'arce then that's okay but, in that quote, Laimon says he calls it the darce so that's what I went with. As long as it isn't listed incorrectly as a brabo, I'm okay.

Bloody Freak (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. It's just a synonym. English is full of them, so are combat sports. It's not a big deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the Americana is a keylock and the darce is a brabo. It's like saying Brad Pitt is a synonym for person, it's not, he IS a person. An Americana is the name for a specific keylock, like the kimura. I'm going to add these edits back up with sources, so don't undo them all, that will just waste your time.

Bloody Freak (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean that all keylocks are Americanas, like you went and changed every single keylock on Wikipedia to Americana. Note that if you intend to change the keylocks into something else, you need a reliable source for that specific match or they will be undone again (and seeing as how many warnings you've gotten, those will be your last edits here). I'm fully expecting a message board source with more of the roundabout nonsense seen here already.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, see what I'm saying is Sherdog mistakenly labels ALL americanas as keylocks - they never use americana in their records - which is why I changed them all. They aren't grasping that the name of the keylock is americana... They correctly label the kimura with its name, but it is also a keylock, which makes things confusing. The move is the same for all of these matches so one source should be acceptable. For some of these matches, there just isn't any sources to find. They're too unknown. The video I provided shows two knowledgeable grapplers agreeing with me... I don't understand why you guys want this site to be wrong. Here's a page from Gracie University showing the Americana: https://www.gracieuniversity.com/lesson.aspx?enc=S6YEki/a6RN2spry7nrSQg== clearly, that's the same move in all those matches I changed. Just because they don't have a page for each fight showing that I'm right doesn't make me wrong and shouldn't stop me from correcting Sherdog's errors.

Bloody Freak (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sherdog does not list every Americana as a keylock. See [1], [2] or [3]. There are many more. Google "Americana site:sherdog.com". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is where it's confusing! If you check [4] you'll see the editor used the correct name for the Americana and he also called a submission a "can opener," a move popularized by Mark Coleman, yet on Coleman's record they are all called neck cranks. It just shows that the site isn't consistent. A can opener is the name for a specific neck crank just like an americana is the name for a specific keylock.

Bloody Freak (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they're not perfect. If you can find another source further specifying any move, feel free. But blindly changing all "keylock"s to "Americana" without knowing if it was actually a kimura (or any other variation) instead is original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You just don't get it. Go ahead, change them, see what happens.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

you're a stubborn bugger, ain't you? If you have an ounce of intelligence, you can see I'm right, so I'm guessing you just don't want to admit it and are resorting to threats... the idea that you're so pissed at me because I'm trying to help fix some errors is ridiculous. If this site was serious about having the correct information it wouldn't be attacking me for adding it, it would be helping me find a way to do it. It was never my intent to piss anyone off.

Bloody Freak (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you even read these answers? IT'S NOT ABOUT WHO'S RIGHT, IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S VERIFIABLE! I'm not the one giving you these warnings and I'm also not the one who's going to block you if you change these finishes without a reliable source for the specific matches. Change them, I'd very much like to be done with your nonsense and move on.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When readers go to Sherdog.com and then compare the information with Wikipedia, they think we are wrong. WP only publishes material which comes from a reliable website.
LlamaAl (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Bloody Freak, i hear what you're saying. it can be very frustrating when you have personal knowledge that will benefit wikipedia but the edits you make come under fire. perhaps you can help contribute to the Grappling hold article. it looks like that page could use some sources sited. if a D'arce is more appropriately spelled Darce, that will obviously be something that should be changed. the problem is that the sources are siting something that lists it incorrectly, and wikipedia can only function properly if we all stick to verifiable external sources of information. stick with it, find good places to apply your knowledge, my most frustrating experience was way back when i tried to create categories for weight classes of MMA fighters, everyone went nuts, now it's the norm. check out my talk page, the first 5 comments are all things that were removed. being bold is important to wikipedia, but you also have to play with the group. please let me know if i can help in any way. Kevlar (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I was hoping I wasn't going completely insane. I'll need to find a page that specifically spells it darce. The only sources you can really find are just quotes and then it's just up to the quote's editor how to spell it. The problem is there really aren't any good sources for these things if I can't use video, which seems like a much more reliable source, why is video omitted? I'll use sources from now on but it seems to be hindering the information of this site instead of helping it, like some of the editors. All records currently using "keylock," "neck crank," or "brabo choke" are incomplete.

Bloody Freak (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You are characterizing these discrepancies on Sherdog as 'errors' but I disagree. If a fight is decided by an Americana submission, it is not inaccurate to say it was a keylock. Could it be more specific, sure, but it's not wrong. I really don't think this is worth all the fuss. It will be difficult to source these changes and the information gained is minimal. MMA articles on Wikipedia have far greater needs than this. --SubSeven (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

SubSeven is right. Not inaccurate, just not as specific. The "darce" quotes in the "Joe D'Arce explains" article are spelled that way to make it easier for a reader to understand the pronounciation differences he's talking about. Regardless of pronounciation, it's properly spelled "D'Arce". As for video, it's fine, as long as it's not infringing copyright and explicitly and directly backs the claim, without having to use synthesis or interpret pictures. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Navigation, deletion, & coherency.

I was looking for the article on UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall only to discover it had been deleted, next I searched for List of UFC events that provided no help just a dead-link to the aforementioned article, still unperturbed I searched for List of UFC events in 2012 again no help just another dead hyperlink, moving on I search for UFC on FX events in 2012 only to discover that it has also been deleted. I did however find UFC on Fuel TV events in 2012 & UFC on Fox (a list linking to the individual Fox cards). How is anyone supposed to find anything with this poor level of categorization & continuity?--Phospheros (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for UFC events on FX and Fuel TV are being deleted... but the event info can still be found here (it's also being considered for deletion). I don't know the reason though. Poison Whiskey (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a deletion oppose until a policy for the events can be established. Where is the project at on that point? I took a break after all the fighting regarding individual UFC PPV cards being deleted/merged. They have since been restored, I assumed FX & Fuel cards where going to stick with yearly omnibus articles, is that the case?--Phospheros (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose we confuse and annoy more readers by deleting Demetrious Johnson (fighter). The Flyweight Division has not yet passed the ten-year significance test. Perhaps a fair compromise would be creating a giant omnibus for little people. We could then filibuster the Talk Page with heated arguments about what constitutes a "little person" and who's conspiring against who to destroy Wikipedia. It'll be fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

i think a guild to help people know when to add an event as it's own page would be helpful. even if it's just "an even with 5 significant sources can be moved from a list page to it's own article". personally i don't really mind if some events are in list pages, it seems to work for event pages. i haven't been able to find a good way to list less notable people personally. also, i think it's pretty clear that politics is playing a heavy roll in the deletion of MMA articles. people don't like MMA as a sport, therefore they place a higher level of scrutiny on the articles. if you look at professional baseball, anyone who's ever swung a bat has their own article. to pick one out of a hat let's look at Fabian Gaffke if that article were about a MMA figher it would be deleted instantly. i'm not saying it should be. personally i think it's great for people interested in baseball to have that info, but he's hardly a notable player. perhaps we should look into some sort of arbitration process to decide if the deletions fall under vandalism. Kevlar (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To Phospheros: take a look here. I think any of the UFC events shouldn't be deleted, because Wikipedia had all events since UFC Fight Nights to TUF Finales. All UFC events are significant. Poison Whiskey (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I personally think the best format for usability is to return to the preomnibus disaster to the strict single page article per event with a single list of ufc events by which to navigate. If these omnibus attempts are just outright deleted, much as the UFC 27 page was, a new article will be quickly created in its place. By leaving the omnibus abortions in place, the single page articles aren't being created for a few random events.I remember halloween (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ribbon Salminen

He seems to have a personal vendetta against me. He's gone through every one of my edits and undid them regardless if they had a reference or not. I'm trying to help and he's just trying to screw with me.

Bloody Freak (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely went through every one of your edits, but trust me, none of them had reliable sources. I changed them back to what Sherdog had as the result.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looking at his contributions, he's right. Nice Job!
LlamaAl (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

He's absolutely right. You were specifically warned above against misusing that source, by several editors, for several reasons. And now you're undoing Ribbon's corrections! You're begging for a block. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There was one reason given: we follow Sherdog blindly here. Other than that, there's no reason not to use the correct names.

Bloody Freak (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd thought you were citing the Gracies naming the particular moves, like in the video you offered above. But no, I was wrong. You sourced it correctly. We follow any reliable source blindly, as long as it makes a specific, relevant claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bloody Freak is putting references on his last edits. I truly believe that he is trying to improve the articles and now has learned about verifiability and original research. Everything seems alright now, we don't need any struggle. Poison Whiskey (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate the backup. I honestly don't understand why these guys got so pissed. I really thought I was contributing by adding the correct names. I apologize for the trouble. Instead of threatening me, I wish everyone would help me find sources for these things. The records aren't complete when following sherdog's errors.

Bloody Freak (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I jumped the gun on a couple. I saw "graciemag" and just assumed it was a Gracie calling the move an Americana. My bad. I'll revert myself and cancel the block request. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

event results template

the event results template now looks and functions well. the only glaring problem i see is that it has 'winner/loser' in the template so when there is a draw or NC it's a bit misleading. this is the way all of the event tables are though, so maybe that's a detail to be tackled another day.

the two templates needed to get the table working are:

{{MMAevent}}
and
{{MMAevent card|name of card}}

here it is in action:

Main Card on WikiProject Mixed martial arts
Weight class				Method	Round	Time	Notes
catchweight	LlamaAl	def.	kevlar	KO Spinning back fist	1	0:08
Alternate bout
Weight class				Method	Round	Time	Notes
catchweight	InedibleHulk	def.	kevlar	submission (rear-naked choke)	1	0:15

if you see anything major that needs to change let me know (or change it yourself you filthy animals!). for the record, i didn't actually design the table, i just put the table into template form. if there isn't anything that needs to change i'll probably begin rolling this out sunday with a big OCD editfest. Kevlar (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A "vs" column doesn't seem like the right heading. And if we're keeping "Winner" and "Loser", "def." is unnecessary anyway. I can't remember a time where the loser defeated the winner. Not officially, anyway. The judges do screw fighters. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC) But if we keep that column, and rename "Winner" and "Loser" to "Fighter A" and "Fighter B" (or something), it would allow for draws and no-contests. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

i hadn't looked at the upcoming UFC events in a while, last i looked they were listed as "red corner/blue corner". seeing them blank does look better, and you're right the vs header is a bit redundant also. changed to reflect. Kevlar (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Check this out.
LlamaAl (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Gamezero05/Gamezero05 Sandbox/new results table, User:Gamezero05/Old tables and User:Gamezero05/UFC table, too.
LlamaAl (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

are there things we want to take from those results tables? the biggest two differences i see are the colors and sorting on this one, this one seems to be a totally different feel. i don't want to go through changing hundreds of event pages if other people would prefer a different template.

IP 177.97.79.177 issues

This IP went through and changed the flag on all pages with to the Mexican flag. I assume the Wiki community has had thus discussion in the past. What was the consensus? Luchuslu (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on what flag to use? his page says he was born in California, grew up in Arizona, attended college in Iowa and Arizona, and now lives in California. not sure i would even begin to understand the use of any other flag but .

I changed them back the day he did it, and let him know his error. He hasn't reverted since, so I wouldn't consider him a problem. UFC likes to hype Velasquez's ethnic nationality (undeniably Mexican), but Wikipedia uses flags to show legal citizenship (undeniably American). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You can review the archive pages for the long drawn out discussions. But you are somewhat incorrect. "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" (MOS:FLAG). If an American citizen represents Mexico in a sporting event, the flag should be the Mexican flag for that event. Additionally, "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen" (again MOS:FLAG). --TreyGeek (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if we're going strictly by the book, UFC isn't an "international sport" the way soccer or skiing is, and no flags should be used. But local, de facto consensus seems to be that it's helpful to have them. And so we should use the general flag guidelines, not sport flags. Velasquez doesn't represent any country, in an official way. He represents himself, and happens to be an American citizen. The rule about "never in non-sporting sense" applies only to athletes who do represent a state through sport, I think. In those cases, it would be confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mtking

Mtking has returned. He is adding notability tags to many UFC events articles, and PROed UFC Ultimate Fight Night. If anyone can improve the article, please do it. We have to stop him quickly.
LlamaAl (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Quickly? Ha! But yeah, hopefully less tedious than before. I'll have a laptop with a regular keyboard and trackpad soon, so I'll be able to keep up with the lawyering (and general Wiki improvement) much better soon. For now, good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This may appease his "long term significance" craving. Shows someone cares a couple years later and touches on the longterm ratings success for Spike. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is time he stops ignoring the wishes for the MMA community, I have proposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that Mtking be topic banned now. ScottMMA2 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If any of you have diffs about Mtking's deletion logs, please post them here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
LlamaAl (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Admins closed discussion. Let's get proofs and diffs, and resubmit topic ban for Mtking. Cheers.
LlamaAl (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not just any admin... InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a reference with my Keep for the Fight Night AfD, but can't get it in with the reflist at the bottom. A little help? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Try to close with </ref>. But i think that is better to leave it as an external link. Poison Whiskey (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had, but brainfarted out a <ref/>, on closer inspection. The ref list seems to be there to summarize the sources showing significance, so I figured it can't hurt to add another. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I came upon that discussion and urge you to consider a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Users about this user as clearly he does not know what he is talking about and just plain has it out for MMA articles. I'll see if I can help you out and reason with him first, but I rarely edit here anymore, so I don't know what good I can do. --Morphed Editor (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't lose control. LlamaAl and Morphed Editor have been blocked for sock puppetry. Raging also solves nothing (maybe can make things worse)... being a MMA hater or not, Mtking has support on some of his AfD nominations. However, taking a quick look on his contributions he truly seems to have articles about MMA and kickboxing events as primary deletion targets (some nominations and arguments were really reckless: see AfD UFC 144, AfD UFC 145 and AfD UFC 2, 3, 4 up to UFC 41). Poison Whiskey (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le was deleted and redirected by Mtking, then some sysop protected the page. Bad. Is there anything one can do to get this reverted and these types of actions prevented in the future? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was restored today. About this case, we can do little or nothing. Some users/admins seems to support him. The good thing is that he can't destroy the entire WP:MMA. The bad is that some events articles are likely to be deleted. I'll just quit these discussions and come back to article creation/improvement. Poison Whiskey (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to AfDs, I urge everyone to remain calm and cool as to not fall into a certain someone's games. As sad as it is, this certain someone does this for attention. One don't just stop doing something cold turkey and then suddenly come back to it unless it fulfilled something for them. I actually find it creepy a certain someone is back doing the same thing. Must be trouble on the home front. ;-) So let's not fall into the "jerkish MMA fanbois" that a certain someone wants to portray us as and handle it professionally. Udar55 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Flags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

How timely: just above is a discussion about an IP going through changing flags, and it's clear from that discussion that the flag issue is problematic to begin with. Besides issues of BLP verifiability, there is the matter of MOS:FLAG. My reading of that is, in a nutshell, that flags should not be allowed (in, for instance, the "Mixed martial arts career" sections), since there is no official national representation in those events. I happened upon this because I ran into the huge number of articles related to the Gracie family, all of which have serious problems, flags being a minor but important one. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The project's style guide also clearly states that flags should not be used.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see that--I thought it only mentioned that infoboxes (which here typically are found in biographical articles) shouldn't contain flags. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's quite clear that they don't pass the muster of MOS:FLAG. There was much discussion (search Flags in the archives) of this in the past, an attempt was made to remove the flags but ultimately it just came down to there being more people adding flags than were people removing them. Policy was cited but people just replied with "It's prettier with flags." or "It's more informative.". TreyGeek made MMABot but isn't currently running it.--Phospheros (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...prettier...I thought MMA was about pain, not pretty. Has the HGTV-inflected mindset of esthetics taken over? Thanks--that's insightful. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The "It looks better with flags" has been a comment argument among the largely MMA-only editors and IPs. If you go back through the talk page archives, the use of flags in MMA articles has been a controversial one. I've been part of the group that believes flags are over-used in MMA articles. Flags in infoboxes are clearly discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines and MMABot was programmed to remove them. Flags in the MMA fight record table next to the event location were eventually discouraged by the WikiProject (as well as site-wide guidelines if I recall) due to redundancy and MMABot was programmed to remove them as well. The flags next to a fighter's name in the MMA record table was the most controversial issue, and IMO a clear consensus has never been established; as a result MMABot was never programmed to deal with them one way or another. As noted by Phospheros, MMABot is not being run due to issues between me and some participants of the MMA WikiProject (I'm doing my best to be politically correct here). --TreyGeek (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, fuck that shit! Oops, that was un-adminlike. Well, it seems to me that not only do we have a consensus here, we also have MOSFLAG to back it up. And I really don't want to go through those archives: I've seen enough MMA stuff on ANI. Let's let this run for a couple of days and see if anyone has something else to say, preferably something congruent with our guidelines. I don't know how to run bots and it's generally looked down upon to have such edits done automatically (like with unlinking dates, for instance), but there'll be something to point to if we get a consensus out of this. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is another WP:CONLIMITED case, MOS:FLAGBIO is clear "Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship or nationality." and "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality ." so use in MMA results tables goes against that, they should be removed and I would support any Bot application TreyGeek makes to that end. Mtking ^(edits) 11:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

my comment here is also posted to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#flags_in_MMA_articles

The use of flag icons in mixed martial arts related articles has come under debate, i am wondering if we can get some guidance from the MoS community. The discussion is happening at WP:MMA. the use of flags seems to be 3 general areas:

1) info boxes - see in both examples below. also this MOS:FLAG Avoid flag icons in infoboxes

2) in event pages - UFC 94

3) in record tables - Anderson Silva

now for my opinion on the matter. the suggestion to remove flags in the info box seems pretty solid, but the use in event pages and record tables i think can be kept. i feel that MMA is an international sport. for example, of the 225 listed UFC events, only 2 have an entier fight card from a single country 1 and 2. examples of pages that use flags in what i feel is a similar way would be Boxing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and Sport_Club_Corinthians_Paulista#Players. Kevlar (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, MMA is an international sport but this does not mean that the individual fighters represent their countries like with the Olympics or the Davis Cup. And that's the point of MOS:FLAG, restricting the use of flag icons to instances where the individual represents their country in some kind of official manner. There is no situation within MMA where countries sit down to determine which fighter(s) will represent them in the next UFC event -- it's always about the individual fighters (like professional boxing vs. Olympic boxing). So yes, I am all for keeping the current consensus within the MMA guidelines which is basically just agreeing with MOS:FLAG and also support resurrecting MMABot. SQGibbon (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

in my second example Sport_Club_Corinthians_Paulista#Players, Juan Manuel Martínez is from Argentina, the club is based out of Brazil. are you stating that the use of flags in this article is also incorrect? or that Juan Manuel Martínez officially represents Argentina in that sports club? Kevlar (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a note that accompanies all such tables in football articles that reads "Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." So in his case he plays for Argentina at the national level (represents the country in a sporting manner, to use MOS:FLAG language) and that's why they use that flag there. Personally I don't understand why the football project allows flags in this situation since it's irrelevant to the clubs' articles where a player plays at the national level but at least they are respecting the requirement for official representation (which information better belongs in the article about the player). SQGibbon (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

i'm not sure i'm understanding what you mean when you say he plays for Argentina a the national level. here is a list of Brazilian football clubs List of football clubs in Brazil there are hundreds, and all the ones that list players user flags. in this example Juan Manuel Martínez is playing for that individual team, which is Brazilian. he was also not selected from what i can tell by Argentina, in the way Olympic athletes are selected he was more than likely chosen by the team. Kevlar (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your confusion, Juan Manuel Martinez plays for the Argentinian national team (like for the Olympics, the World Cup, and other international competitions between national teams). He is allowed to play for Argentina because both FIFA and whatever the governing body in Argentinian football is says he is qualified to represent Argentina in competitions between nations. Now whether the Argentinian side ever calls him up to play for national squad is up to them (though in his case they have done so) but according to FIFA rules he is eligible to play for Argentina (but not Brazil, Spain, Germany, and so on). What he does at the club level is irrelevant to his status as an Argentinian national player. He can play in Brazil, England, Italy, wherever he can get a job but he is only allowed to play for the Argentinian national squad at the international competition level of the sport. There is no such analogous situation in MMA. Fighters only ever represent themselves, they are not part of national squads, there is no Olympics or World Cup where countries compete against other countries, it is just fighter against fighter. SQGibbon (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

in re-reading MOS:FLAG#Use_of_flags_for_sportspersons, no where in there does it discourage the use of flags. it simply states that flags should "correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality". this section seems to be clarifying which flags to use, not whether or not flags should be used.

"Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with." i do not read this as "a governing body that represents the nation, will select the player to represent them" as is the case with the Olympics. other sports that i have been able to find using flags are: Gymnastics, golf, Formula 1, figure skating, Ice Hockey, horse racing, chess, Cycling, rugby, Sailing, Snooker, swimming, and tennis. while some of these sports do represent national teams. my understanding of both golf and formula 1 is that they are individuals or teams competing for money, not their nations. Kevlar (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The very first line at the link you provided is "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense". What else are flag icons being used for in these MMA record tables but to indicate the fighters' nationalities in a non-sporting sense? That seems like a pretty clear statement against using flags. Since there are no organizations claiming that the fighters represent these nations in a sporting since then use of the flags is contraindicated. And yes, plenty of other projects apparently ignore MOS:FLAG but just because they do does not mean the MMA project should as well. SQGibbon (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The way I read it, "player" here means "athlete who has a sporting nationality". It seems to exist to avoid confusion in cases where an Australian citizen plays for Germany (or wherever). Not applicable to fighters, who represent themselves, not a nation. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly they represent themselves, not a nation so use of a national flag is not appropriate where it indicates national representation. Mtking ^(edits) 22:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't indicate national representation. Just where they're from. MMA isn't an international sport, per se. If there is any legit confusion, we could have a short footnote saying this. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What may we say about this: TUF: Australia x UK and TUF: USA x UK? Also in Pride Final Conflict Absolute the Croatian and American national anthems were played in honor of both finalists. In my opinion, flags at least in MMA record boxes and events results boxes are good additional info. Poison Whiskey (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In the first two cases I can see an argument for including the flag icons in the records of those fights since the whole thing appears to have been set up as a nation v. nation competition (but given this was a reality show perhaps that debate should be held at WT:TV instead). The fact that it appears to lack any formal bodies representing the respective nations deciding who gets to represent each nation does call into question the legitimacy of the general claim of representative nationality with respect to Wikipedia guidelines. In the last example, I do not see the significance of playing the national anthems. At least as far as I can tell with American sports, national anthems are always played before sporting events but this in no way means that the teams/individuals represent their respective nations in a sporting sense, it's just tradition. I see nothing in the Pride Final Conflict Absolute to indicate that these fighters were representing their respective nations ala the Olympics. SQGibbon (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made my opinion regarding flags in MMA articles clear many times in the last 4+ years (I support removing flags in nearly every case), so I'll limit my comments to MMABot (the only thing I can truly WP:OWN on Wikipedia). I want to thank those who support the ressurection of MMABot (talk · contribs). I haven't run it in the last six months due to the issues (and toxicity) that I had with the MMA community in respect to Wikipedia. I hesitate to say this but I would be open to the possibility of MMABot starting it's work again with respect to it's currently approved list of tasks (further support of reactivating MMABot should probably go to my talk page or MMABot's talk page as it is really extraneous to this discussion).

In regards to MMABot and this discussion (flags next to fighter's names in the MMA record table in an MMA fighter's article) do not expect MMABot to handle this in the near future. Bots are held to a higher standard than individual editors and all tasks that a bot performs must be approved by the WP:BAG. MMABot is currently not approved to handle this situation involving flags. Long story short (ask on my or the bot's talk page if you want the long story), based upon one of my proposed MMABot v2 tasks (removal of future fights) and the response from the WP:BAG (pointing to the long running contentious discussion on this talk page) I would not expect to be able to get approval for MMABot to remove flags in this particular case until at least six months of solid consensus has occurred (and I mean solid). With that I return you to the bi-annual discuss--argument over flags next to fighter names in record tables. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Could MMA be considered as another sport for flag purposes?

The flag guideline says "If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used." Could or should we use the eligibility rules of international wrestling, boxing, judo (etc.) to determine the appropriate flag? Or is MMA too distinct from any of its constituent parts? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking "Can we use the fact that not all MMA participants are American as an excuse to insert flag icons all over the place?" the answer is "no". When MMA is an IOC-recognized Olympic sport, or is otherwise subject to a global sport governing body on the level of FIFA, and that body divides the sport by player-affliated nationality and they consistently and programmatically use flags as live and televised indicators of sporting nationality, then "yes", and only when adding flags is actually helpful to WP readers, which is mostly just in tables of sports data. The point isn't "it's sports-related, so insert flags everywhere", it's "very specific sport governing bodies like IOC and FIFA provably and reliably use flags in this way, to such an consistent extent than everyone understands it and follows along, and we need to do it here for a clear reason" otherwise it's just decoration for the sake of adding cutesy pictures. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If I was asking that, I'd have used some of those words, right? I'm not into flags everywhere, just results tables. And not because they're "cutesy" or because MMA is a sport. Flags are just a quicker way to convey info. Anyway, that debate is in the section below. Thanks for your thoughts. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

SMcCandlish are you saying that the World Pool-Billiard Association is a global sport governing body on the level of FIFA? yes, they are listed on the sport governing body page, but they aren't even the only Cue sports governing body listed on that page. By what standard are you deciding the "levels" of sports governing bodys? Kevlar (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG

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.

---

It was proposed, (I think on a now deleted talk page) and agreed that a wiki-wide RFC should be had on this issue, and that if it was the consensus of the wider wiki-community was to allow the use of flag icons in fight records in MMA articles then they could remain, however if there was no consensus or consensus was against there use they would be removed. I think it is now time to have that RFC.

Therefore :

Should WP:MMA be allowed to use flag icons in fight records, and info boxes on MMA articles even though on the whole MMA fighters do not compete in a national representative capacity, and they are being used to indicate country of origin or residence.

Mtking ^(edits) 01:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Since they are being used to indicate a person's place of birth or current residence and not a representative nationality in clear contradiction with the relevant section of the MOS. I would support there use on BIO articles were the subject has competed in a national representative capacity and said that representative capacity is supported by a source that meets WP:RS. Mtking ^(edits) 01:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I know little about the reporting culture around MMA, but would point out that the above is a highly selective reading of MOS:FLAG. The relevant section reads Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Thus flags are permitted in two circumstances: representation, and pertinence. Mtking presents a case against MMA usage complying with the representation justification (which, within my paltry knowledge of the activity, seems fair enough) but totally ignores the pertinence argument. The purpose of the tables in question seems to be provision of information about contests: if in the reporting of such bouts it is standard practice to refer to nationality of participants, then the judgement of the reliable sources within the field would seem to be that nationality is pertinent. I have no particular interest in researching the matter further, but would suggest that the focus of debate be on the second clause: In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. It would be for those defending flag use to prove that nationality is usually considered pertinent by those discussing and reporting on contests in reliable sources; it would be incumbent upon those arguing against inclusion of flags to illustrate that reporting in reliable sources does not generally consider the nationality of competitors to be pertinent. Kevin McE (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would oppose these flags. The little flag pictures seem to be decorative and put undue emphasis on nationality. They also lead to problems where real-world people do not fit into neat national pigeonholes. I see no reason for MMA to be exempt from rules that apply to the rest of en.wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support flags, to show citizenship (not nationality). Fighters do not officially represent any state, but it is interesting to some fans to know how many Canadians win at Canadian shows or how many Japanese a fighter has beat (or whichever country). The rule against "in a non-sporting sense" only applies to athletes who do represent a country, I think, to avoid potential confusion with their citizenship. Not applicable here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why or how is citizenship relevant in a sporting scene ? Considering throughout the rest of WP it is used in a sporting setting to indicate representation. Mtking ^(edits) 22:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If by "scene", you mean fight, it's a point of interest. Same as the location of the fight. Just adds another level of understanding of a fighter. Other sports have a whole other system, and have no bearing here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That response seems to be flawed on a number of levels. I would also point out that the "citizenship" is frequently unsourced (Should we systematically put unsourced and irrelevant labels on living people?) and even sometimes fictional. For instance, Invicta FC events puts a little picture of a saltire next to Joanne Calderwood and a St George's cross next to Danielle West, but there is no such thing as an English or a Scottish passport. Pages like that give the impression that citizenship (or some other vaguely understood national affiliation) is the most important thing about a person; what rot. That's why the torrent of little flag pictures must be stopped. bobrayner (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If a fighter's citizenship is unsourced, we should and could source it. If someone's from Wales or England, they get a UK flag. It's pretty simple. I don't think it implies "most important thing" at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Further to that, what happens if someone is born in the US to a Australian farther and a English mother, and lives in Germany which flag do you use ? Mtking ^(edits) 22:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Depends which one they're most commonly associated with or have stated a preference for. Particular cases may have other factors to consider. Is there any actual fighter you foresee a problem with? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Usually what happens is that an editor will feel that they have to put a flag next to the name, so either they'll use the UN flag (thinking that UN is a synonym for "multiple countries"), or they'll pick one relevant flag at random, or they'll photoshop a composite flag and put it in the article just like a real one. There are also editors who use the St George flag as though it means "white", the EU flag for "european", and so on. If the subject's first language is the name of a different country, that's another possible flag. You'd be surprised how inventive editors can be when the need to put a little flag picture next to a name surpasses the need for accuracy and relevance. bobrayner (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen that happen in an MMA article. Have you? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: InedibleHulk says "If someone's from Wales or England, they get a UK flag". Immediately below a link to an MMA article where the opposite has happened. Personally, I try to base my comments on the actual state of articles and the way that they're edited. If this RfC is going to be based in some kind of hypothetical alternate-reality, it's going to get out of hand very quickly. bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I brainfarted on the Invicta FC link, and assumed you were talking about a football club and its players. It was an otherwise very British sentence. They should get a UK flag, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC) And now the UK flag exists in reality. I used the edit summary to advertise this RfC. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind adding a link to a WP:RS here for those flags as it may help to asses how significant they are. Mtking ^(edits) 02:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A source saying these fighters are British? Or a source saying the Union Jack is significant to them? No problem with the first one, but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for the second or see why I should. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC) [5] [6]. These call Calderwood Scottish (the first article in the first word). I hope you're not going to play the synthesis card over deducing that makes her British. Danielle West is apparently American, moved to London in 2000 and is moving/moved to Singapore. I guess that flag's debatable. This one explicitly calls her a British fighter, and this one says the UK is her "adopted home". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think there are three things to consider here:

1) MOS:FLAG which states "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". Flag icons in these table only indicate the fighters' nationalities. The UFC does not, as yet, pit nation against nation, it is only individual fighters, who represent themselves, against other individual fighters. If it were to happen that some events were to be organized around national representation (like the reality series referenced in the section above) then those fights could be recorded in such a way as to indicate the nationality of the fighters involved (and most likely in a separate table like we do with many other sports). Fights are not reported as "Canada defeated the USA last night" but as "fighter A defeated fighter B". Points are not awarded to countries and records are not kept about which nation is doing the best. The fact that the national anthems are performed for the fighters means nothing as event organizers can play any music they want. Playing the national anthem at sporting events in the US is a tradition for all sports (like the NBA) but does mean that the players represent their countries in those events (like the NBA).

We should consider the intent of this rule, not only the words. Like I said above, this seems to be here to avoid confusion in articles about athletes who DO compete internationally. In those cases, the standardization makes sense, since legal citizenship is often different from representative nationality. But for MMA fighters, there is no danger of this confusion. So I doubt it applies here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think if you read through the years of debate on this subject at the MOS Talk page it's pretty clear that the intent was to limit the use of flag icons. In the sportsperson section it makes very clear when flag icons should not be used "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense" and when they should be used "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". There is absolutely no exception (stated or implied) here for sports that do not have these kinds of nationalistic competitions. The next line reads "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise." which means that if flag icons are used in a table and a reader might mistake them for referring to nationality then there needs to be a note that states that the flags indicate representative nationality. This does not mean that it's OK to use a flag to represent nationality/citizenship for sports that do not have nationalistic competition. Nor is this implied. I honestly do not see how any kind of exception is implied in any of the text at MOS:FLAG or how the intent is anything other than to limit the use of flag icons to some kind of national representation (like with military people or national sports teams). SQGibbon (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't directly imply whether we should or shouldn't use flags for non-international athletes, but the phrase "indicate the sportsperson's...representative nationality" indicates to me that it is only talking about those who have a representative nationality. If it said "and only if they have one" afterwards, it'd be different. We could easily reverse the "if any confusion arises" part by noting that the flags in the table stand for citizenship, in this case. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am honestly trying to see how you get this interpretation of that text. It states clearly "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense," I don't see how it can be any clearer. Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense. Never. And then it goes on "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" which gives us the two instances when flags are allowed and both are when the sportsperson represents their country. Nothing here states or implies that if the sportsperson does not represent a nation in the sporting sense then go ahead and use nationality/citizenship to determine which flag to use, in fact it states to "never" do this at all. Adding "and if only they have one" is completely unnecessary as the text tells us tells us when we can use flags. No qualifiers are needed. It tells us when not to use flags (to indicate nationality) and the only time we can use flags (represents a nation in a sporting sense). As I said, I'm trying to find a way to read this text to obtain your interpretation but I just don't see it. And as I said elsewhere, looking through the past discussions on the issue at that talk page, the intent was always to limit the use of flags. SQGibbon (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There's definitely a better way I can explain the subtleties to you, but I'm having trouble putting it into the right words. Until I can do that clearly, I'll concede my point. I know I have one, but it's not fair to you to have to argue against a case I can't adequately convey, or to me to force out a half-assed response. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Pertinence and the additional information arguments. The tables we are talking about are records of the fights that take place. As such we should only mention the the things that are directly related (pertinent) to the outcome of the fights such as the opponent, the outcome (win/loss/draw), when it took place, and where. That we also mention how long the fight lasted and how it ended (TKO, punches, etc.) is not ideal to my mind but at least that information speaks directly to the outcome of the fight. Where someone is born does not speak directly to the outcome of a fight and therefore does not belong in a table that is solely devoted to reporting the outcomes of fights. We also do not mention the race of the fighters, their ethnicities, their hair color or the color of their skin. None of these things are directly relevant to the outcome of the fight. Some have argued that indicated nationality/citizenship is information that some people like to see. First, there is no policy or guideline that allows that supports going against established guidelines just because some people like it. In fact WP:CONLIMITED speaks directly against this. Second, I'm sure there's a lot more information that some readers would like to see like weight, height, arm reach, handedness, record at the time of the fight (for the opponent), age, style of fighting and so on. If we included all this information just because some readers like it then the tables would become so unwieldy that they'd be useless. Not to mention the endless arguments over which of these "pieces of information that some readers like" should be included. Basically none of them should; as above we should limit the information to what the table is about which is the outcome of these fights.

3) Flag icons paint a broad stroke on what can be a nuanced subject. You can have a fighter born in country A to father who is a citizen of country B whose mother is a citizen of country C and now lives and works and has attained citizenship in country D. Which of these flags would we use? There are no policy or guidelines to help us determine that answer so again there would be endless arguments on this with each new editor coming along having just as strong of an argument. What it would all come down to is nationalistic pride. "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride." (from MOS:FLAG). This information can and should be discussed in the articles about the fighters but does not belong in a table recording the outcome of a fight as it too easily leads to nationalistic pissing contests among editors. SQGibbon (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say from a perspective of refereeing WP:TROUBLES articles that this could be a serious problem if there are fighters from the island of Ireland. Outright wars have broken out over putting flags in infoboxes for professional boxers, where from my limited knowledge the situation is similar to MMA fighters. Barry McGuigan, born in Clones, boxed as an amateur for Northern Ireland at the Commonweath Games and for the Republic of Ireland at the Olympics, born a citizen of the Republic, took out British citizenship to compete for domestic titles in the UK. If you have any fighters with a backstory like that, save yourself the pain and don't put flags next to their names. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nationality can play an important role in MMA. Take UFC for example. There is a reason they try to use British fighters for events in the UK, Brazilian fighters for events in Brazil and Asian fighters for events in China / Japan. I realize that the use of flags might lead to some problems, though these are the exceptions, not the rule. For the vast majority of fighters, it's really easy to determine which flag to use. Tricky cases can be dealt with in an ad hoc manner. Evenfiel (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure nationality is important to MMA, the question is whether flag icons are needed in tables whose purpose is to report on the outcome of a fight. It is not pertinent. Also, it contradicts MOS:FLAG as has been stated above. Just because some people like it is not a good enough reason to violate Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I would assume that a big reason fighters fight in events in their home countries is because that's where they live. Obviously fans like to see home-town fighters as well but once again, fights are not scheduled as country A vs. Country B but as fighter A vs. fighter B therefore the requirements at MOS:FLAG are not being met. SQGibbon (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support In my opinion this whole issue comes down to representative nationality, and who determines it. As stated in MOS:FLAG#Appropriate_use "They are useful in articles about international sporting events to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationalities). Example: List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions." The use of flags in the table used as the example for appropriate use by MOS:FLAG uses the icons in literally the exact same way the MMA articles do. so the question is, what is the definition of "representative nationality". We all seem to agree that in MMA, there is no dispute between "representative nationality" and "legal nationality", but MOS:FLAG does not state that there MUST be a different, only that it may. This is answering the question "should we use flag A or flag B for John Doe" NOT "can we use a flag for John Doe". I do not know where to verify this, but i am guessing that in the eyes of the United States Government, Michael Phelps no more represents the United States than Randy Couture. To my knowledge neither have ever been an Ambassador of the United States. I would also guess that the in the eyes of the United States Government, the World Pool-Billiard Association are no more able to select representatives than Ultimate Fighting Championship. Can an individual them-self state, "i represent my nation in this competition", or can an promoter (example: The UFC) state, "This individual represents his home nation". If the answer to either question is yes, that flags in MMA articles are appropriate. in my opinion the answer to both questions is yes.

The phrase "representative nationality" has always been a tripping point in these debates. I think when analyzing the entire phrase "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" it's clear that "representative nationality" is supposed to be the parallel version of "national squad/team" but for individual sports. It wouldn't make sense to interpret this to mean that flag icons can only be used in team sports when the player is part of the national team but can be used in individual sports for national representation or nationality/citizenship. I'm sure the intent is to keep the same criterion for both team and individual sports. I think the key to understanding this is to look at how international events are organized as compared to MMA. At the Olympics or even World Championships (like in swimming) competitors are chosen by their respective countries' organizations to represent those nations. And the events themselves are presented as nation vs. nation as well as individual vs. individual. In MMA there are no organizations that determine that a fighter represents their nation at international events. Fights are scheduled according to the individual fighters and not based on their countries. It's like in boxing, at the Olympics country organizations choose which fighters will represent them at the Olympics. In professional boxing the fighters only represent themselves and it doesn't matter where they're from. You see this in other sports as well. In golf there is an international competition that might not be as formal-looking as the Olympics but at least the participants must meet the nationality requirements in order to be on the American or European team but the rest of the time they are just golfers competing for themselves and not representing any kind of nation-based organization. If MMA events were ever to be scheduled as nation vs. nation with fighters chosen to represent those nations then of course flag icons would be appropriate when creating tables to record the results of those events. But right now MMA events are not done this way therefore the use of flags contradicts MOS:FLAG. SQGibbon (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In boxing, i looked up Muhammad Ali where flags are not used for his opponents but are used next to the locations of the fights, of his opponents the following use flags in the exact way MMA articles do: Archie Moore, Bob Foster (boxer), Chuck Wepner, Earnie Shavers, Floyd Patterson, George Chuvalo, George Foreman, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Young (boxer), Joe Bugner, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Larry Holmes, Leon Spinks, Oscar Bonavena, Richard Dunn (boxer), Ron Lyle, Sonny Liston, and Trevor Berbick.

In golf, the vast majority of tournaments either use flags in the exact way MMA articles do, or they list the flag and country in a seperate column. the use of flags in golf tournament articles seems to be more dependent on how much attention the article gets.

Kevlar (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that lots of sports projects use flag icons in ways that I think contradict MOS:FLAG. I was not implying, with my use of the examples of golf and boxing, that those Wikipedia projects follow the MoS nor was I using those projects to support my argument. Instead I was using those sports to illustrate how I think the MoS is meant to be followed (with respect to flags and national representation and so on). As a side note, I'm sure you are aware that just because some other project does something does not mean that it's OK for other projects to do the same thing especially if that action contradicts Wikipedia policies and guidelines. SQGibbon (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Words are clearer , X is from y, lived in z for 4 years and has a Aish Father. Little blurry pictures can convey the subtlety needed Gnevin (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment i thought it might help to do some digging to find where else this debate has popped up. links i have found so far: WP:MMA 1, WP:MMA 2, WP:MMA 3, WP:MMA 4, WP:MMA 5, WP:MMA 6, WP:MMA 7, WP:MMA 8, WP:MMA 9, MoS icons 1, and WP:football 1. Kevlar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think one way to reach consensus would be to propose a change to MoS:FLAG that reads something like the following. If it is accepted there, a lot of our confusion would go away.

Representative nationality is defined as being a member of a National sports team or competing in a sport governed by an international Sport governing body. Flags should only be used if the competition can be characterized as between two nations. When in 1964 The United States defeated Germany in Boxing at the Summer Olympics, Joe Frazier Vs. Hans Huber is correct. Yet when Muhammad Ali defeated Joe Frazier at the Thrilla in Manila flags would not be appropriate.Kevlar (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This brings up confusion and is unneccesary decoration. It may be confusing to the reader. Vacation⁹ 12:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support My two cents on the topic is that most fighter's flags are rather obvious. Those who are more complex can have a discussion on the talk page to come to a consensus about which flag would be most accurate. Since this is an MOS issue and not a WP issue, consensus votes would be the best way to resolve individual issues. Luchuslu (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Since this is an MOS issue and not a WP issue" the MOS is (to quote the page) "Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for all Wikipedia articles, so it is a core guideline that each page should follow agreed wiki-wide. It does acknowledged that "it will have occasional exceptions" but know one has explained why these purely decorative icons should be an exception, everyware else on WP when they are used for a sport-person they denote national representation, here they do not, they indicate citizenship, and in some cases for (example Cung Le) the view of the promoter. So IMO any exception to the MOS would be very confusing. Mtking ^(edits) 23:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:GUIDES: Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. IMO there isn't a consensus on the issue, so I offered my opinion to contribute the the overall rebuilding of the guideline. I feel it is flawed in its current state and not based on the current consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luchuslu (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but there is wiki-wide community consensus on the MOS, WP:CONLIMITED is clear on cases like this; this project CANNOT decided that the MOS does not apply in relation to the use of flags to articles under it's purview. Mtking ^(edits)

WP:CONLIMITED applies when a small group of editors try to change Wiki policy that the vast majority accept. Just look at the comments this topic has had over multiple years. On the specific topic of flags in Mixed Martial Arts, there is NOT a consensus. I am only arguing that there should be a standard based on consensus in WP:MMA for flag usage. Luchuslu (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

while i agree that MoS is built with wiki community consensus, to say that there is consensus on this issue is absurd. The difference between the use of flags in MMA articles and the use in MOS:FLAG#Appropriate_use appears to be either totally semantic or the product of two different sports organization styles. above i put together a paragraph that i believe illustrates the view of those who oppose, which got no response. Consensus Kevlar (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In case anyone is in doubt as to why this is a problem, we have the case of Cung Le, in one day (today) we have had 3 different flags used against his name , and (at one point the same page had two different flags against this guys name), any attempt to remove the flags citing WP:BLP as the use of or are both unsourced to reliable sources was reverted. Mtking ^(edits) 11:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. For every Cung Le around we have loads of fighters that would not pose any problem. For example, I don't think that we would have the same issue with any other UFC fighter. Evenfiel (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

it was not an argument it was an observation, no it is not an isolated problem, an other example from the very same day this time the icon for John Maguire was repeatability changed from to and back again. Mtking ^(edits) 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I added a source to a few Cung Le American flags (and his article). A few editors stlll don't get it, but this does seem like a rather isolated situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons I've already given in detail. Short version: The fact that not all MMA athletes are American does not mean we need to festoon articles with cutesy flag pictures. MMA does not publicly, consistently, programmatically rely on iconic flag imagery, in a well-documented way, in its broadcasts and publications as a means of identifying participants in a strongly nationalistic manner, the way the IOC and FIFA do. This is not a "MMA is a 'real' sport so we get to have our pretty flag icons too" debate, and any attempt to turn it into one is both childish and completely missing the point. WP:FLAG already disparages use of flag icons in sporting-related articles even if they are FIFA or IOC, because they inevitably lead to confusion (e.g. in the common case that an athlete's sporting nationality doesn't match their birthplace). Don't make the matter worse. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG does not in any way disparages use of flag icons in sporting-related articles. see MOS:FLAG#Appropriate_use. Kevlar (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

well it does say :

• They are useful in articles about international sporting events to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationalities).

and it is agreed that MMA don't fight in a representative capacity. Mtking ^(edits) 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just like boxers do not fight in representative capacity, though flags tend to be used as well. Evenfiel (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Try telling the 1968 Mexico City Olympic Heavyweight Gold medallist that boxers don't fight in representative capacity. Mtking ^(edits) 00:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that most boxing matches happen outside Olympic games (ie: where fighters do not represent a country), right? The usage of flags in sports where no country is represented seems to be widely accepted. Formula 1 is another example for you. Evenfiel (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Off topic comments on FIA

Glad you mentioned Formula 1, because in fact if you read the F1 rules you will see that both drivers and teams are licensed by there National Sporting Authority (ASN) and they are in fact representing there National ASN when they compete. Further to that if you read the 2012 International Sporting Code you will see, that to race in any FIA saction race a driver must apply for a licence from their ASN and there flag as published by the FIA is the flag of that ASN. Mtking (edits) 03:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Mtking, please stop pretending to cite sporting regs which you've obviously never read. Anyone who's seen the relevant section of both docs should be aware that direct sanctioning by the ASN is only relevant in national events and that international races ie. F1 are regulated by the FIA itself. Driver FIA superlicences is routed respective ASNs as a matter of paperwork, but drivers don't "represent" anyone except perhaps as honorifics since they mostly all work in Britain and live in Switzerland. Agent00f (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Have a look the decisions of the FIA International Court of Appeal, you will see that cases are lodged by ASN's "on behalf of its competitor", including for example this one. This is now going of topic so any future replies will be hatted. Mtking (edits) 08:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC) The deletionist crowd violating TALKO by hatting whatever's inconvenient to them is nothing new. It's pretty amusing that focus was shifted to wording of press releases instead of FIA's own rulebook on the matter now that the falsehood was caught. Agent00f (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC) No falsehood, just using the press release to demonstrate the actual reality; hatting appropriate as this is not off topic. Mtking (edits) 08:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Leaving the false F1 statements out of the hat while hiding the statement that what's said doesn't at all reflect the sporting regs is quite dishonest. Agent00f (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

MtKing, please avoid selectively hiding replies to your comments using mislead titles. Agent00f (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2012 (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.

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.

What is the number 1 thing you do to make MMA articles better?

here's what i'm sending to editors who haven't listed themselves as participants.

Thanks so much for contributing to Wikipedia, last month we collectively made 977 edits to MMA articles. Did you know there is a WikiProject dedicated to Mixed Martial Arts? Check out WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Feel free to sign up on the Participants page! This month we have a survey for new and existing members, What is the number 1 thing you do to make MMA articles better? Kevlar (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

and here's what new members this month will see.

Wow! 15 new members in October! Welcome CarlosB2709, ComputerJA, De132Wiki, Dolson94, I remember halloween, Miufus, MMAcleanup, Onebadtown, Poison Whiskey, Rissx, RonSigPi, Stewwie, TheAmazingChandler, Willdawg111, and WilsonFiskUFC. Posting this to your talk pages and PW:MMA Talk page. This month we have a survey for new and existing members, What is the number 1 thing you do to make MMA articles better? Kevlar (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

who want's to get the ball rolling on what they do to make MMA articles better?

See WP:CANVASS, WP:USERTALK, etc. Badgering people who happen to have edited an article you personally think is MMA-related is not the way to go about this. Just put {{WikiProject MMA}} on the article talk page, and anyone who is actually interested in such a wikiproject will line right up. Spamming people's talk pages just because they hit your watchlist is not cool. PS: Sport and [non-trademarked] game names are not capitalized; it's "mixed martial arts", not "Mixed Martial Arts", just like we engage in "basketball", "triathlon", "chess", "swimming" and "poker". Wikipedia does not capitalize random nouns and noun phrases to make them seem more important; this is English, not German. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry if i have bothered anyone by posting messages to their talk pages. It wasn't my intent in any way. I have done my best to only ever post a total of 2 messages to their talk pages. 1 if the edit a mma article (if you're wondering i get the list of editors from page). 2 if they join the wikiproject i send them a second message welcoming them to the group. As you can see by visiting the participants history page, from January 1 to August 11 there were 7 new members who joined. From September to now there have been 22 new members. if you feel there is anything we as a wikiproject can do to attract more members, i would be happy to follow your lead. two things i would like to point out. 1) from WP:CANVASS it states: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." i think this is what i have been doing as i have not asked anyone to join on either side of a debate. 2) at the time of me writing this you have 4 comments on this page. 2 of the 4 you yourself capitalize mma. It's a common mistake people make. I think it would be better for everyone involved if we all scaled back the negativity. Kevlar (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"MMA" should be capitalized. "Mixed martial arts", no. Your recruitment drive seems fine to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Number One

- Stop deletions and support additions. Information is being lost to editors bent on destruction, but has not read the deletion guidance. Deletion guidance clearly states to preserve information which is also implied to be more important than article formats and over reaching changes to Wikipedia pages. One addition would be a list of fighters currently signed to a promotion and the past ones. That page existed for a moment until found by those who edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.168.140.188 (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for help

I recently created an article for world champion kickboxer and professional mixed martial artist Marcio Navarro and I was wanting to add a pronunciation of his last name because it's not pronounced how it's spelled and I've always had trouble with the phonetic alphabet so I was wondering if someone could do it for me. Navarro is pronounced like Nah-vah-hoe. Here's a link to one of his fights on youtube with an announcer in case you have trouble figuring it out the way I wrote it.--Rockchalk717 07:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, i don't know how to do this but i think it's a great idea. i think everyone's a bit tied up in the flag debate. Sorry for the lack of response. Kevlar (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm free, but I'm also useless when it comes to phonetics. Perhaps you should check out the talk page or edit history of International Phonetic Alphabet for an editor who seems like they know their stuff, then ask for help on their talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind that, found someone myself. Thanks, Kwami! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I noticed somebody added it. I appreciate it.--Rockchalk717 08:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC 155

If someone is willing to recreate or merge the article into a list later, i've copied it to my sandbox. I don't (usually) create or update the events articles, so anyone who wants, feel free to do it. Poison Whiskey (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Update — Beansy copied and improved the content, so i'll blank my sandbox now. Poison Whiskey 23:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Oi. I took Poison Whiskey's sandbox version, updated it, diversified references and prettied it up, and put it in my own sandbox, for anyone wanting to use it. Beansy (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Very nice Poison Whiskey, and Beansy! I really like the use of references from the Los Angeles Times, Las Vegas Sun, and ESPN. In my opinion this satisfies WP:Crystal "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." One can only hope others agree. Kevlar (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone recommended to try approaching the admin Worm That Turned about getting MMA articles restored, as he's supposedly a very nice and reasonable guy. I think regardless it would be best to ask him what criteria needs to be met first, just so there is no ambiguity and also something to cite against deletionists. I'd do it myself but my life is very hectic right now. So if someone wants to make an articulate plea, I strongly encourage them to do so. Beansy (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, yeah, I strongly encourage diversification of references. I know it's easy to get everything off MMAJunkie.com and they are an original news source, but MMA is big enough that there are plenty of mainstream sources you can use now (USA Today covers it regularly). And yes, I know this wouldn't be an issue if we weren't being targeted, as we're being held to a far higher standard than most second-tier sports (by which I mean anything outside of the Big Five), but whatever. Beansy (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

More diverse sources are always good, well done on that. But "lack of sourced prose" is another key deletionist argument that should be addressed (in general, not just for UFC 155). There's more to these fights than the end result. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"Vs" versus "Vs."

I've noticed the UFC card articles tend to use a period after "vs", but the official posters do not. I get that this is one of those words that can go either way, depending on the writer, but shouldn't we be echoing the primary source, regardless of personal preference? I think so, but figured I'd look for consensus before moving the pages. What say you, Wikiproject? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I realize that this WikiProject likes to ignore the MOS, but it states that a period should follow the 'shortening' of the work "versus". --TreyGeek (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we generally realize the guidelines aren't set in stone, and should be used with human judgment. Not the same as ignoring. Anyway, we're not shortening the word, in this case, just transcribing it (already shortened) from a poster. This policy seems to be intended for original writing. If we were to mention the fight itself (not the show name) in the article, for instance. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow WP:MOS on this. Making up weird rationalizations like "we're just transcribing" (from your personally favored sources that conflict with other equally reliable sources) is WP:BOLLOCKS. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of personal preference. The posters that UFC designed to promote the shows they created and named just seem like the most authoritative sources. If you find my rationalization weird, try reading it again. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This right here is why this project has such a poor reputation on the wiki, rather than just accepting core MOS guidelines, the project collectively sticks two fingers up and says we plan to ignore anything that gets in the way of presenting articles exactly how we want to, be it "Vs" versus "Vs.", flag icons, ignoring BLP "'cos the UFC does it that way" or WP:NOT does not apply "'cos MMA is not like any other sport". Mtking ^(edits) 19:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I'm not a member of this Wikiproject and do not represent it when I type. My proposal here is to change one way this Wikiproject does things. Back on topic, I didn't ignore the MoS. The section TreyGeek linked to deals with shortening words. In this case, we're not shortening "versus". That's already been done by the primary source. Titles of works don't always follow Wikipedia's MoS (C U When U Get There, for example). The most relevant guideline here is probably WP:Naming conventions (television) (or WP:TITLE), though I can't find the part where it explicitly says we should call shows what the creator calls them. I think that probably goes without saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll commit argument suicide by pointing out that UFC's official website uses a period for all events (in text), and that its exclusion from the posters is apparently purely aesthetic. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're trying to apply a standard when there is no universal standard!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.244.95 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Locations on MMA records

What if we make MMA records look more like Boxing records? Specifically the location. I think it'd look more specific, legitimate, and 'complete'. For instance instead of City, State/Provence/District, Country how about Arena, City, State/Provence/District. Also I know the whole flag thing has probably already been discussed a lot, but I think they add a nice visual appeal. Plus, if we add have the flags in we wouldn't have to write down the country. So it would work itself out. :) Or maybe because the MMA fighters "don't necessarily represent their country of origin" we could get rid of them but keep the flag on the location?

Thanks for considering everyone! No harm in having it this way I figure.

ex.

Boxing:

MMA:

Res.	Record	Opponent	Method	Event	Date	Round	Time	Location	Notes
Win	17–1	Vitor Belfort	Submission (keylock)	UFC 152	September 22, 2012	4	0:54	Toronto, Ontario, Canada	Defended UFC Light Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Night.

-->

Res.	Record	Opponent	Method	Event	Date	Round	Time	Location	Notes
Win	17–1	Vitor Belfort	Submission (keylock)	UFC 152	September 22, 2012	4	0:54	Air Canada Centre, Toronto, Ontario	Defended UFC Light Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Night.

Res.	Record	Opponent	Method	Event	Date	Round	Time	Location	Notes
Win	17–1	Vitor Belfort	Submission (keylock)	UFC 152	September 22, 2012	4	0:54	Air Canada Centre, Toronto, Ontario	Defended UFC Light Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Night.

Although i see your point, adding more flags to MMA articles for better or worse at this point would be the equivalent of poking a bees nest. something i would like to see in MMA Record boxes would be the addition of weight classes. also adding either inline citation or putting citations in the notes sections. Result Record Weight Class Opponent Method Event Date Round Time Location Notes Win 17–1 Light Heavyweight Vitor Belfort Submission (keylock) UFC 152 September 22, 2012 4 0:54 Toronto, Ontario, Canada Defended UFC Light Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Night. or Result Record Weight Class Opponent Method Event Date Round Time Location Notes References Win 17–1 Light Heavyweight Vitor Belfort Submission (keylock) UFC 152 September 22, 2012 4 0:54 Toronto, Ontario, Canada Defended UFC Light Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Night. Kevlar (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the arena idea, but think the weight class column is too much. Sufficient to note it once in the first fight's notes column, then note any weight changes there if/when they happen. Otherwise we'll have 20 "Light Heavyweights" in a row, for some folks. Better to just let readers assume he's still fighting at his usual weight, until stated otherwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that many fights in MMA's earlier days weren't under strict weight classes. Technically, most of the fights in PRIDE were "openweight" outside of title bouts and tourmanents. Adding weight classes could get a bit complicated, I favor noting changes in weight classes in the notes column like we've been doing for a while. Luchuslu (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Lukeh15 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

new WP:Mma page /sources

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/sources

I am hoping this will be a good place to discuss and share quality sources. I also placed it below the Article improvement drive in the WP:MMA header Kevlar (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So i put a bunch of work into what articles have good sourcing and which don't. hijacked the Article improvement drive, now all UFC events are listed in the table. I also put some potential sources for UFC 41 in it's talk page. Kevlar (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

i put a bunch of the prospective links into a template. place the template in the talk page of an article and click links to find good sources! {{MMA find sources}} Kevlar (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That's got to be the most helpful template I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Someone give Kevlar a barnstar. Although I was trying to use it to find some mainstream stuff on Fedor VS Henderson and could only find a blocked Examiner link. It sucks cuz its exactly what I need to prove it was a KO. Without having to grab it off of some secondary mma site. "if I see a fighter face down receiving shots, I'm going to step in and stop the fight," Dean today told MMAjunkie.com. "I can't predict how long he's going to be unconscious for." Beautiful Herb, Beautiful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, i will add some good sites to your sources page later! keep up the good work! regards — Poison Whiskey 20:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC

I am going to start this page - see User:Oskar Liljeblad/2012 in UFC - if there are no objections. I am doing this to prevent further data loss on Wikipedia in case more UFC articles are deleted (which unfortunately seems likely due to overzealous editors/admins). Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There is already a List of UFC events in 2012. I think it would be better to add your info to that article, instead of replacing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Good job Oskar, that was exactly what i had in my mind. But please, don't make any change yet. Let's first reach a consensus here to avoid more AfD discussions. Poison Whiskey 01:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting something like the original attempt at a 2012 in UFC article? It's alright until people want to throw full fight cards, payouts, bonus awards and the kitchen sink into the summaries. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth would (99% of) fans not want full fight cards? That's easily the most sough after information that people who go to those pages are looking for. And bonus awards take up like 3-4 short lines per event and could alternately be included in the Notes section of an event table for the fights they apply to. Beansy (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I would support this, mindful of WP:BEANS, I think it may be wise to consider a DRV on 2012 in UFC events, not doing so could leave the article vulnerable to CSD G5. Again for the record I would support the restoration 2012 in UFC events at any DRV as a venue to summarise UFC MMA events. Mtking ^(edits) 09:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For me, "List of Something in Year" is a summarization of articles/abbreviation of information most likely existing elsewhere on Wikipedia. "Something in Year" is shorter and better applicable in this case - the article will hold all information on events previously deleted, from background to results and bonus payouts. (TreyGeek: Do you realize that that information will be lost otherwise? If you think each UFC event deserves an article of its own you are fighting an uphill battle.) And I'd rather call it 2012 in UFC than 2012 in UFC events because it would list other UFC happenings in 2012 as well as events (e.g. The Ultimate Fighter seasons). With 2012 in UFC I don't see any point in List of UFC events in 2012, but I still think List of UFC events deserves a place. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Oskar, you are pretty new to the situation so I don't fault you for being uninformed. I absolutely do not agree that every UFC event deserves its own article. Earlier this year, during the last wave of deletions, it was proposed by a number of people, admins included, to roll the various event articles into a yearly omnibus. The omnibus article would summarize the year in UFC events. I wrote the initial draft of 2012 in UFC events (an early version of that draft is in my sandbox here. However, people complained that it didn't include the full fight card results (even though that information is readily available from Sherdog and other stat sites) so that was added in. People complained that payouts weren't listed, so that was added in. People complained that event posters weren't being included, so that was added in. So much more information, outside of a summary of the event, was added into the omnibus article it became unworkable. I'll reiterate my stance. Not every UFC event should have a stand-alone article. A yearly omnibus article (thought perhaps by splitting out the "on Fox", "on FX", "on Fuel TV" events into their own omnibus article) summarizing the events (not discussing with great detail and with full stats and data) is a good option, in my not so humble opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The basic reality that there's too much relevant info for a single page should be a sign to consider a better format, not one that people aren't being beaten enough to love the omnibus. For example, the card result for an event links cause-effect for the ladder (ie linked directly from bios). I don't blame people for not knowing how the information is used, but I've explained this in the past and thought that you understood this rather simple reasoning, so it's disappointing for it keep cropping back up anew. Agent00f (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I just want to reiterated to Oskar Liljeblad that the community already tried something like that it created such a huge backlash that the page was deleted. Evenfiel (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's too much information for a single page. With just ~5 events the page is already 50K. But how do we solve this? UFC event articles have been and are going to be deleted. I count at least 5 past events and 1 future yet. Where do we put the deleted information? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The page is nearing completion now - I have information on all deleted events, except last revision of two deleted articles. (I'm still waiting for those.) I guess I could just go ahead and create 2012 in UFC - what's the worst thing that could happen? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It will be nominated for deletion? You are just wasting your time. Evenfiel (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

So? I would contest the deletion. Intelligent WP MMA fans should contest it as well - seeing that the information would be gone from Wikipedia otherwise. The so called deletionists should not endorse deletion, because it is what they wanted after deleting all those UFC events. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC) rephrased on 14:45 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe that the information would be gone from Wikipedia otherwise. They've been trying to delete UFC articles for well over a year, and they only manages to get rid of a few. By adding that page, you're just helping the deletionist group. It'll be easier for them to try to delete UFC articles from 2012 and add them to the one you want to create. Evenfiel (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Mtking

Who would like to help draft a user conduct RfC on Mtking? --Good MMA Editor (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Not you, because I've just indefinitely blocked you as yet another MMA sock. Seriously, to genuine MMA editors, are not this parade of socks reflecting badly on you? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For me, yes. I can just ask to whoever is doing this, please stop and calm down. Do something else or just stay away from the PC for a while. Let's solve it the right way. Poison Whiskey 19:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I really hope we can move from argument/debate to conversation/consensus. I do not agree with Mtking on the flags or AfDs either, but we can't win the 'debate' with him, we need to join the conversation. Without diligent editors, articles stagnate. With the AfDs let's 'prove him wrong' by citing more sources and bringing as many or all of the UFC event articles up to a higher standard. We're all here looking to contribute anyway, who loses in that situation, no one. As for socks or any other attempts at circumventing the rules, that's terribly counterproductive. Kevlar (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the deletions happen without any regard to the quality of the article. Currently, they can be 10 pages+ long with 100+ refs and a given admin will still delete due to "WP:NOT" with no further explanation. I pushed pretty hard for a brightline test for inclusion, and you can guess the reception from deletion advocates to the idea that editors can do something to make sure their work won't be arbitrarily deleted. Agent00f (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Such is the nature of WP:NOT. I could write an article with 100+ refs on every single match that the football team I support plays, but they still wouldn't pass that policy. So, instead, the info goes here. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the deletion of 2012 in UFC events and so on was the stupidest idea ever. Now, when articles are deleted (and given that a hell of a lot of them fail WP:NOT, there is every possibility that this may be a lot of them) there is nowhere for the information to be merged. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I will go in the opposite direction and say that attempting to consolidate a lot of separate frequently updated events into one page was the stupidest idea ever, and obsessively deleting random 2012 UFC events has not helped the issue. Byuusetsu (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted at deletion review and about a few dozen times previous, UFC events are unlike single match, and deleting events of this nature is unprecedented in sports on wiki (ie apparently limited only to MMA given they fail elsewhere). I suppose the reason why is rather obvious. It's very unclear why these trivially true and uncontested facts need to be repeated again and again as if we're dealing with an unteachable audience. Agent00f (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not just MMA anymore. He's also trying to lay the smackdown on Survivor Series (and a couple of others). I'm not complaining, just pointing it out. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of believing that Mtking is the only person who wants UFC articles gone. Many editors and some admins agree with him that the events are just not notable enough to deserve separate articles. No matter how many championship bouts there is in an event, no matter how many references you come up with, they can always argue that it is just routine coverage and is not sufficient for notability. So IHMO it's an uphill battle until at least we can come up with a set up notability guidelines for MMA events... Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that "routine" guideline needs work. Following it literally, everything the British Royal Family has ever staged is routine and should be deleted. At least UFC coverage doesn't go over what they'll show you and talk about, minute-by-minute, a week before the event happens. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not MtKing's noms. In any case they'll likely fail just like they do for anything else in sport, yet the deletion drama for equivalent pages in MMA continues regardless. Agent00f (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply he nominated it. Just supported it. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that not every MMA event is notable, and therefore worthy of it's own article. The way we have agreed to determine if an event is routine coverage or not is if it meets the criteria for Individual Events. If an article cites no sources is put up for AfD review and no one works to improve the article, it should be deleted. If an article is up for AfD review and editors are able to demonstrate with citation that it meets the guidelines in Individual Events, it should stay. If even after the citation is added people continue to advocate that it be deleted then i would question their motives in the same way that i would question anyone who says an article with 0 sources should stay. Kevlar (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Have a re-read of Black Kite's comments above, sources are not the issue here, every MMA event will have sources, some of them will be from very reliable sources, most (if not all) MMA events will meet WP:GNG, I will repeat in case you missed it, most MMA events will meet WP:GNG, but and it is a big but, made clear at the top of the GNG page, meeting the GNG is not a guarantee a subject should be included in the encyclopedia, in the case of sports events in general, while newsworthy, the vast majority are not of any lasting significance, most happen, get reported on and forgotten. Mtking ^(edits) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This claim's been repeat and refuted at least few dozen times before. These pages are referenced ~10K+ a month long after the event is over so the argue fail by default: "not of any lasting significance, most happen, get reported on and forgotten". Eg. UFC 145. Not that factual evidence's ever stopped parroting false claims over and over. Agent00f (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC "pick a number" in my opinion is not a run of the mill event in the scope of MMA, it clearly is in the scope of the UFC. As i said below, this is not WP:UFC the standard is not is this a 'notable UFC event' the standard is 'is this a notable event'. The way that we demonstrate that an event is notable is by pointing out that article is still talking about UFC 37, 7 years after it happened. The number of page references just doesn't matter. Kevlar (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

People continuing to read about an event well after it's over is tautological evidence of its enduring significance. Agent00f (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, i agree 100% that not all sporting events have lasting significance. I'm not even making the case that all UFC events have lasting significance. This is not WP:UFC, this is WP:MMA. Currently the UFC is the most watched/followed/known about brand in the sport. It is far more likely that a UFC event has lasting significance than most other MMA promotions. If you look at Anderson Silva, he is without a doubt one of the most well known people in MMA at this time, yet almost half (15 of 37) of the events listed in his record do not have their own articles. People clearly accept that having one of the most famous fighters in an event does not make it notable. What i'm saying is that we have agreed as to how you determine if something is notable. A much higher number of UFC events will meet that criteria, if they all don't then they all don't. Right now, as the articles stand Mtking, is 100% right that a large number of them do not meet the standard put forward Individual Events. If people want to argue and not put forth the work to improve the articles i can't support them. On the other hand, we shouldn't move the bar if an article, or group of articles, are improved to the point of meeting that standard. I don't want the current UFC articles, i want UFC articles that make the cut, if UFC "pick a number" simply can not be improved it should be removed or merged. Perhaps i'm late to this conversation, but it seems like up until now it's a debate between 2 sides. side 1) keep crappy articles because the crappy articles represent a subject that i know in my heart is worthy, and side 2) every so often i'm going to nominate a group of articles for AfD because the should (and i'm saying Mtking is right here) be removed. i'm trying to plead for option 3, make the articles AfD proof by following the standard set. Kevlar (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You continue to reference a "bar" as if one actually existed, when the very idea of any sort of bar was shot down by predictable parties for obvious reasons. Given that even fairly quality entries have been up for AfD in the past by the same people using the same trivially refuted arguments, this seem like a poor assumption. Agent00f (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"People clearly accept that having one of the most famous fighters in an event does not make it notable." This shows that the MMA community recognize that what is important is the MMA organization behind the events. UFC is just so much more important than other organizations that most people consider an UFC event as inherently notable. Evenfiel (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

To add to this point, the same guidelines for notability exists for other sports like Tennis which considers ATP to be inherently so. We did try to add similar guidelines for MMA to end the most egregious AfDs, but this was stopped by the deletionists who controlled the process for the sport at the time (yes this conflict of interest is as ridiculous as it sound). Agent00f (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Anderson Silva was not considered a truly elite fighter until he began his UFC run. His early events (outside of his Pride FC run) were not notable because he himself was not all that notable yet. It's a silly point to make. EDIT: Nevermind, misread you. Beansy (talk) 12:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big mma fan and UFC got me started on it. With that it is my opinion that most UFC events are not notable enough to receive enough coverage unless (currently) it is GSP or Anderson Silva defending their title/fighting, or a UFC on FOX card. I think you would be hard pressed to find coverage for UFC 42 for example. Taking all the UFC's and making one page seems like a good yet tedious idea to me.maybe something showing the different eras. like 1-29,30-60,61-UFC on fox 1.1-29 cuz thats the seg era. 30-60 is the ZUffa era and Hughes pounding out Gracie was like a milestone. That or you could use Anderson Silva arriving at UFN or defeating Rich Franklin the first tine as the begining of an era PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC 27

Anyone interested in helping out with getting this article restored? I'm thinking about a Deletion Review but my last two DRVs (UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall and UFC on FX: Maynard vs. Guida) failed so I guess I don't have much credibility. :) Looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_27 it seems to have been deleted because of lack of notability and lack of references. It is absolutely ridiculous to have articles for UFC 1-153 but not 27. There are many numbered events which are less notable than UFC 27. UFC 27 was Dan Severn's last UFC event. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The argument when I tried to restore the article was that since people aren't writing news reports in major publications today about a UFC event in the 1990s, it lacked WP:N and failed WP:NOT, both of which I refuted with articles from the event and from years afterwards still talking about the event. It took the Admin a matter of minutes to decline it. It's an uphill battle, but I'll do what I can to help. Luchuslu (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's one article that may be helpful [7], a Yahoo Sports piece from 2009 talking about the significance of the event. Luchuslu (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

And here's the Fightmetric numbers for the card as well. [8] Talking about who did what should help in fulfilling the WP:PROSE requirement. Luchuslu (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC On Fox 2 deletion review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_16#UFC_on_Fox:_Evans_vs._Davis

Anybody feel like helping out with this? I seem to be getting opposed with the same circular arguments as usual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu (talk • contribs) 22:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I added my main arguments: Notability is there (of course this can be argued), Keep the article because of consistency. If someone else reading this is going to comment, I suggest listing arguments briefly and to the point. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I found Fox, CBS, Yahoo sports

, SPortsillustrated/cnn and Chigaco Sun timesarticles referring to this event. I'm not too familiar with the process but how do I go about arguing for this article because clearly it is notable. On personal note I do think the UFC is played out and I don't really enjoy a homogenous combat sport. Its supposed to be MIXED martial arts but there are so few specialists anymore it isnt really interesting...I digress....PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

MMAwiki.com

Are any editors here also members of MMAwiki.com ? if the MMAwiki site use CC-BY-SA (which I think they do) have you considered importing results from articles her that do not meet WP:NOT ? Mtking ^(edits) 23:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, thanks. Wikipedia is perfectly fine. Evenfiel (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was until people became obsessed with deleting articles that would have easily met WP:NOT before. Although that site is still extremely incomplete and would take a massive amount of work to even have the present amount of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byuusetsu (talk • contribs) 03:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No the articles have never met WP:NOT. Mtking ^(edits) 05:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, recently there's been an obsession with deleting MMA pages, done by people who don't know anything about MMA and always citing WP:NOT and nothing but that policy in a rather vague way. Even the manner in which the articles have been deleted doesn't indicate it's due to that policy since both less important past events and events of smaller MMA organizations have been ignored. Byuusetsu (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Why don't YOU do the importing, Mtking? --SubSeven (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You want the real answer, I don't trust the site owners not to publish the IP address I edit from. Mtking ^(edits) 05:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Why are you even recommending a site you don't consider trustworthy? Beansy (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely you mean WP:N, not WP:NOT... Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Puno se prica o svijetu borilackih vjestina,malo ili slabo pokriveno o povijesti sport,samo suhoparno,eciklopedijski.Trebalo bi otvoriti temu o nepoznatim ,ali vrhunskim sportasima u svijetu borilackih vjestina,a ima ih puno.Danas sam poceo o jednom nepoznatom,ali u svijetu uskog kruga vrhunskih sportasa,poznatim borcem-Zlatko Vujasinovic.On je skoro 40 godina u svijetu vrhonskog borilackog sporta,a malo ljudi zna o njemu.Puno je vrhunskih boraca izaslo iz njegove skole borbe,koji ga znaju cijene ga i postuju,samo zato sto je bio vani,sto je uspio u svjetskim sportskim dvoranama,sam sa trenerom,pun znoja,krvi ali pun ponosa jer je sve sam napravio.Takvih vrhunskih sportasa,kasnije trenere ima jako puno i otakvima se treba govoriti,jer kao i gospodin mater Vujasinovic,koji radi sa mladima,makne ih sa ceste,sam im kupuje kimona,opremu i sto god treba,jer sve federacije ,asocijacije ili kaoko hocete dobro zive od milijun stvari koje nemaju dodirnih tocki sa sportom, a u njegovo ime se to radi.To je kao i vjera,intima svakoga pojedinca,samo ljubav ibeskonacno povjerenje u onome sto citavog zaokupplja,a to je ljubav,tako je isport,ili ga volite ili ste tu zato sto je to "kul".hval na temi ,nastavit cemo je zajedno sa vame -neka bude :Vrhunski nepoznati sportasi,veliki ljudi u malom svijetu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.233.173 (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Biography Maintenance

i added another new section to WP:MMA/Biography Maintenance. i think it will be helpful for keeping pages up to date. i've also noticed that a lot of the AfDs seem to be fighter bios right now. might be nice for a newer editor who just got a page deleted to have a list of pages that need to be made. keep that frustration in check. oh and yea, the icons i chose are -terrible- but i didn't want to spend all day looking for better ones, if someone want's to help with that, that would be great. Kevlar (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I want just to suggest you to put the second tier organizations too. I think a fighter deserves an article if he/she has a considerable number of bouts for any second tier organization, since the criteria supporting deletion is:

1. Only amateur bouts

2. Few fights for notable organizations

Just my opinion. Poison Whiskey 20:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

i would agree, but this would first need to be changed in WP:NMMA and/or WP:MMANOT. Kevlar (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about WP:MMANOT, since your page seems to be based on it. A reasonable argument to create/maintain an article about a fighter with (for example) one bout for the UFC and a lot of bouts for KOTC and M-1 Global can be made based on the essay (eg. it doesn't meet the deletion criteria). Poison Whiskey 22:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Menacing looking figures in Octagon

In case I ever have to mention them in an article, who are those big dudes who stand around in the Octagon before and after fights? There's one in each corner, and I've never seen them actually do anything. They just stand around, looking like you shouldn't cross them. Some sort of security, I'm guessing, but any elaboration would be cool. I've tried Google, and it's not going so well. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the guys who in Las Vegas events wear red-ish coats and a badge as a 'necklace'? Those are security persons. I don't ever recall them becoming notable involved in a match or an entire event. Or are you referring to other persons? --TreyGeek (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd read the redcoats are guys from the Nevada State Athletic Commission, who keep on eye on the fighters and their corners to prevent any shenanigans. The guys I'm referring to may do the same thing. One of the particular guys I'm thinking of is a very wide black man, somewhat similar to Mark Henry. The other guy is a slightly smaller, leathery-skinned Italian or Native American. If memory serves me, they sometimes wear red blazers and sometimes black. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

As said above, they are some sort of security personel to prevent altercations between fighters and/or corners inside the cage/octagon. I never saw a situation like this happen in the UFC, but a struggle between Jake Shields (alongside the Diaz brothers and Gilbert Melendez) and Mayhem Miller happened on Strikeforce: Nashville (search for "StrikeForce Jake Shields vs. Dan Henderson + Jason "Mayhem" Miller" on youtube). Also, you can see in the staredown of great rivalry bouts those guys approaching (search for "Free Fight: Tito Ortiz vs Ken Shamrock III" on youtube). Poison Whiskey 13:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they're those types of guys from the Mayhem melee. But it wasn't the specific guys I'm thinking of. I'll try to find a picture or video of them. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

on a similar note, does anyone know why there are often two uniformed police officers that walk in on either side of a boxer? i assume it's just done for show, to make the event look more official. and/or to stop the crowd from messing with them during the walkout. Kevlar (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure they're to stop the crowd from taking cheap shots. They used to come out with pro wrestlers until the late '80s, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Inclusiveness

Is there any way to send a message to every active member of the Mixed martial arts WikiProject. It seems like some very large decisions are getting made here with through the voices of a very small number of people. I understand that there should be active dissuasion against spamming, and canvassing in general. But surely, we need a better way to get the message out when major structural changes are being discussed as to the way in which pages should be constructed, or the reasons by which they should be destroyed. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I struggle with this myself, and i have no answer for you. I know it's frustrating to me to feel like i finally understand one debate, voice my opinion and look to go back to editing articles... only to find yet another beehive of debate under another rock. Something like WP:CENT would be nice, but it specifically states that "Topic specific discussions" are Inappropriate use. i'll see if i can find a central wikiproject page, someone must have addressed this before. Kevlar (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd assumed the whole point of this page was centralized MMA discussion. Perhaps members should be encouraged/reminded to keep it on their watchlist. Of course, you'd still need a way to reach them to remind them. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I just learned something: You can't Wikilink to the page you're on. Fascinating! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

the other big one would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. i guess we come up in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard in a negative light more than i would like. also, some discussions on article talk pages, or AfDs may be missed by many editors. Kevlar (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletionist are on their way to achieve their goal

See this. They'll now be able to silence part of the opposition. Expect a massive UFC article meltdown pretty soon.

It's also funny to see Mtking closing the discussion on the usage of flags. How can he call it a consensus? The result obviously is a no-consensus. Evenfiel (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you take a look at the result box, I closed the RfC. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 18:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm amazed that you can call that a consensus.Evenfiel (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:Consensus. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 18:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It still looks as a no consensus to me. Evenfiel (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I know it does to you. The problem is that in life, consensus often gets conflated with compromise and majority rule. In Wikipedia, consensus is a process that incorporates policy and editor concerns into a coherent approach to an issue. The goal of an editor is not to see what (s)he can read into policy, but rather to be informed by policy, and attempt to become a vehicle for writing the article in line with those policies as best (s)he can. Now take a look at the RfC above, and actually look at the policy cited, not from the perspective of what you can read into policy possibly supporting, aka WP:Wikilawyering, but rather what the entire policy is trying to say about how to approach situations like this. It's fairly clear in that discussion that those advocating removal of the flags were trying to apply the most pertinent MOS policy they could find, while those advocating for inclusion of the flags were trying to find loopholes in the MOS. The MOS isn't just a suggestion of one of the ways to approach something, it's a thoroughly vetted, endlessly debated, coherent guide to how to approach given issues, and it needs to be taken with the understanding that it is the wisdom of the community speaking to you. Fortunately, you are a part of the community, and have perspective that can inform new approaches for the MOS. If you truly believe that MMA articles pose a unique set of circumstances for the use of flags that MOS:FLAGS never conceived of, they should be having that conversation. VanIsaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 05:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My main problem with the result of this RfC is that is creates a specific rule for MMA, while the exact opposite is used for a whole host of other sports (the examples given above are Boxing, F1, Golf, Billiard, Tennis, Cycling and so on). It actually seems to me that the consensus in the usage of flags in sports is to always use them to indicate nationality. The result of this RfC is going explicitly against the consensus build across the wikipedia sports' community. If you guys think that the usage of flags is so distracting, you should have opened a RfC to deal with the usage of flags to indicate nationality in all sports, not only here. Evenfiel (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that the biggest thing I see out of the MOSFlag guidelines is that it is incredibly vague when it comes to flag use in an individual sporting sense. And I believe this is a discussion worth having, and one I haven't seen (not that that means anything). The term "representative nationlity" is a hugely vague term, and carries a lot of weight. Who is to say who establishes a representative nationality in any specific competition. The general method with which it appears to apply to individual sports is that if at any point in any competition nationality is made use of in any way, then flags are free to use in all areas of that sport. This is what boxing, soccer, and to a lesser extent tennis and golf all do. To that extent the UFC makes use of flags, and makes use of nationality in their events. As this is such I see no reason why the flags the UFC promotes with its fighters in the tale of the tape shouldn't be used for UFC fighters and UFC events. The counter argument to that has been that these flags are gotten by the UFC from a fighters country of birth. However, at least to my understanding that would be an entirely secondary concern as they are still then used by the promotion to establish "representative nationality". And it would also leave the argument that they could then just be replaced with a 3 digit country code if the flag itself is the problem. I have read MOSFlag 20 times over at this point and I fail to see how it adequately accounts for this problem.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Above I discussed what I think "representative nationality" was intended to mean. If you read the entire sentence it starts with a pretty clear claim about dealing with sportspeople who are part of national teams (with all that entails) and then mentions the parallel situation when dealing with individual sports. So just like there is typically some kind of formalized process by which a sportsperson is qualified for or joins a national team and therefore represents their country in competition there should be some kind of formalized process by which the individual athlete is part of a national organization and represents that nation. I think there are problems with how soccer uses flags but at least they assign flags as per FIFA standards concerning eligibility for joining a national team. There are plenty of instances of players who are born in one country but have a strong enough tie to another that they are allowed to play for that other country and then the flag for that second nation is what is used. Further, if boxing, golf, and tennis were to come under an RFC like we had here I expect that the consensus would follow what has happened here. As for the rest of your comment the biggest issue, as far as I'm concerned, is that the UFC does not promote these fights as Country A vs. Country B, it is always (with the exception of that one TV series where flag use might be appropriate) Fighter A vs. Fighter B. If these fighters truly represented their countries in a sporting sense then it would be billed as such and records kept of how each country is performing. And perhaps a champion country declared and so on. SQGibbon (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the UFC not billing country vs country: I disagree. UFC billed UFC 58 as USA VS Canada. Just saying :) PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The general method with which it appears to apply to individual sports is that if at any point in any competition nationality is made use of in any way, then flags are free to use in all areas of that sport. That's exactly how it is used across most, if not all, sports in Wikipedia, yet this RfC established that for MMA events we cannot use it. That makes zero sense. Evenfiel (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully I've responded fully to your point just above (even if you disagree with my assessment). So I'll make just one point here, just because one (or many) project(s) appear to apply the MOS incorrectly that doesn't mean that the MMA project can or should as well. I have absolutely no interest in the MMA project but got sucked into this debate I guess like two years ago trying to mediate as a neutral party. This has taken too much of my time and energy and I do not look forward to going through all the vitriol, name-calling, and general negativity of bringing this discussion up at the other projects (though if someone else brought it up I might participate in those discussions). Another approach is to try to get MOS:FLAG changed to basically allow flag usage everywhere in order to indicate nationality at which point we lose the ability to distinguish between someone's nationality vs. the national team they play for or country they represent in certain competitions. SQGibbon (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• First, i would like to thank you for your voice. from what i've read you have always stated your views in a balanced way. i really do hope that those of us in the MMA community who truly wish to move forward can take advantage of the example editors like you have given us. Second, and this isn't really directed at you as much as it's just another thought. I think the MMA community should first work to reach consensus on the new event guidelines, i really think they will help limit bickering. After that, i think two essays should be worked on and perhaps continually developed. both would look at how wikipedia policy is implemented for other sports vs how it is implemented in MMA articles, specifically when it comes to individual events, and flags. i think the essays should be very careful and clear to state, we understand and accept that consensus has been reached on 'no flags in mma tables' and 'not all mma events are notable', here is our thought out and sourced dissenting opinion, only an opinion, we will follow consensus. last i think there should really be some discussion within the WP:MMA community about asking members to leave. editors who show up, contribute very little, and make WP:MMA look terrible should not be permitted to be viewed as representing our community. Kevlar (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• I agree with Kevlar, this is definitely a secondary discussion. And my point about other sports is not actually a "other stuff exists" point, but a look at what the "meta-consensus" is through practice. It's understandable to say that Administrators/editors don't think flags should be used in way x. However if 99% of the usage across wikipedia is wrong then a serious examination of fixing the entire problem should be made rather than just pointing to specific pages/tables/projects. And I agree MOSFlag starts out clear but your interpretation of representative nationality is your interpretation, it does not provide clarity to the document from the stand point of any single user who might go read it in order to understand wikipedia's guidelines. MOSFlag needs to be clearer on individual sports, without question whether that is more restrictive than or more in line with current standards, it is not an adequate guideline for these articles. And without that added structure debates on both sides feel thin, with admins arguing that consensus interpretations of MOSFlag exist, with no evidence that those consensus are in practice, and editors arguing that interpretations exist without any evidence of discussion.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

They're just reacting to the constant violations to WP:SOCK and WP:CANVASS. WP:MMA never had a good reputation within the community, i guess the socks just pulled the trigger. Poison Whiskey 18:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

i don't read this as anything that should bother anyone trying to stay on the up and up. If we can't improve the articles, and make our points using existing policy then the articles won't be around for long either way. i think the use of socks is counterproductive at best, and the personal attacks on Mtking are flat out disgusting. Kevlar (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen quite a few AfDs where the "Keep side" shoots itself in foot with incivility and dirty tricks. If a deletionist brings up a point, either acknowledge and address it, or if it's not a valid point, calmly and clearly explain why not. No need at all to use terms like "Nazi" or "parent's basement", except to blow off steam. If someone absolutely must insult someone else, it's best to use their Talk Page (though even that's not very nice, just less likely to ruin someone else's proper argument). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming UFC Events Omnibus

In order to limit the debate about WP:CRYSTAL, i am wondering what people think about an 'Upcoming UFC Events' article. I realize that no one liked the '2012 in UFC' or whatever it was called, and i include myself as someone who didn't like it. The reason it didn't work in my opinion is that there were too many unrelated events, and the page became way too big, way too fast. It seems like the upcoming numbered events are almost instantly nominated for AfD, if this one article can be seen as appropriate we could save a lot of arguing and get back to building articles. Kevlar (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The debate over WP:CRYSTAL is completely overblown. In 221 UFC events, only one was cancelled. So far, more than 99.5% of the UFC events went ahead. The Olympic Games have a far worse record of cancelling events. We are so sure that an UFC event will happen, that when it doesn't, that's still a notable event. Evenfiel (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should create events articles in WikiProject space, and when it's confirmed they will occur, transclude them to main namespace. This would avoid AfD nominations. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is also a very good idea. Would we have to build a redirect to prevent well meaning editors from creating the articles who do not know about WP:MMA? for example if we build WP:MMA/UFC 345 how would someone not a member here know not to create UFC 345? Kevlar (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we would have to keep an eye on the redirect. --LlamaAl (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The AfDs that keep popping up come from unreasonable applications of sourcing standards, mischaracterizations of the various UFC events as routine and the holding of grudges because of (entirely too many) personal attacks. It's one thing to push for better Wiki standards, but entirely another to start deleting or bodging things together into an unwieldy catch-all. Furthermore, there's only about 35 or so UFC events a year. It's not like this is spawning hundreds or thousands of game-specific pages like an NFL or MLB or soccer/football league season would. It's an incredible amount of fuss over what amounts to be a small amount of pages that are actually very useful and usually well sourced and written.(DefGrappler (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC))

Possible resurrection of MMABot

I have been contemplating becoming more active in the MMA WikiProject space. This is in part due to seeing some of the new, active editors here seeming to be more level-headed, willing to work within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and less likely to support attacks against those who disagree with them. It is also in part due to the possibility that such attacks will be dealt with swifter than in the past. Anyhow, one of the things I have been thinking about doing is getting MMABot up and running again. For those unfamiliar with it, I created it last year to edit MMA fighter articles to fix MOS issues and have the articles conform to WP:MMA guidelines. The tasks it has been approved to perform by the Bot Approvals Group is listed on its user page. Questions or concerns about it's tasks or my running it again can be raised on its talk page or here. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who did my best to articulate why i think flags should be kept, i would like to support the use of MMABot in the removal of flags. I feel it's important to abide with the consensus reached. Other than that, i'm not sure what else MMABot can do, but i trust any changes will be made in good faith. I really hope we can move forward in reaching consensus in more areas, even if i don't personally get what i want. Kevlar (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick response while I'm at work. The tasks that MMABot can perform are listed on its user page. Just to be clear, MMABot will not be removing flags from next to fighter's names in record tables. I would need to add that functionality into it, test it, and then get approval from WP:BAG for that to happen. If I restart MMABot I'd like to complete one full pass of all fighter articles with the existing set of tasks before adding new tasks. I would estimate that it could take 1 to 3 months to complete the first pass depending on how much time I have to spend monitoring the bot. Let me know if there are any other questions or concerns. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A New Day

After reading much of the drama in the past week, and with the passage of new Community sanctions, I'd like to float a new compromise for MMA events

1. Within ~3 months of the new year, a "YEAR in PROMOTION subcategorization events" page gets created as a refuge for what would have been stub articles to develop. This includes "Just announced" events that are still too new to stand on their own.
   1. At the time the event is announced a Redirect should be created and protected at all potential names and search terms to funnel effort into one location per "Redirects are cheap".
2. Within 48 hours after an event has occurred, an evaluation of sources/notability/viability will be made to determine if the content can be split out into a stand alone article per WP:SPINOUT.
   1. This can be waived if there is significant policy based support for splitting the article out before then.
3. In depth analysis of the event is a way to build support for the individual notability of an event. News reports that consist of thinly veiled press releases do not reinforce the notability regarless of how many times it is found (including which "site" has the scoop).
4. When an article is spun out, a summary blurb should remain containing highlights of the individual event with a {{Mainarticle}} hook for those who are navigating by the index
5. We will subcategorize the events as needed. For example, UFC has Numbered Events, UFC on FuelTV, UFC on FX, UFC on Fox. If we were to include all the incubating events in a single UFC events, it would get significantly unreadable. Therefore it may make sense to subdivide by quarters of the year or to divide by event lines.

This is a cleaner and more refined proposal based on one several months back. What do MMA editors and readers get out of it? The ability to have incubating articles improved upon while under a general protection banner of the year's events for the promotion. The ability for events to have their own article if they are appropriate. The ability to have all of the contributors to a specific event noted (per WP:SPLIT we have to retain the history of split text articles for copyright/licencing reasons). What do the policy hawks get out of it? The improvement of the MMA project space and higher quality articles. What does the wikipedia community as a whole get out of it? Less MMA drama.

Please express your reasoned comments here Hasteur (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is highly supportable, and a much more reasoned approach than the mass deletions and mass omnibus attempts of the past. I would wholly support this well reasoned approach to keeping data on UFC events, without giving each event it's own article. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I would support this (see the "2012 in UFC" section of this talk page). Poison Whiskey 18:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

i am willing to support anything that ends the constant nonstop debate. This is a very good process for what happens before and after consensus is reached on an event having it's own stand alone article. coincidentally i have been looking at a bunch of the AfDs and produced this to help us determine if an article is or is not worthy of a stand alone article. the largest difference would be what to do with upcoming events. in short, i agree with the above, and would also like consideration on my effort to round out Event Notability. Kevlar (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the individual event determinations are much better handled in your document (perhaps integrate it (or this) into one big MMA Events Handling procedure?) and are more the evaluation of sources in point 2. I know that at best I can evaluate the notability form a obvious pass/fail but the nuanced debates and marginal ones I'm not good at. Hasteur (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I would also argue that an event must be notable for one of the following reasons: A person, A Location, An Incident. Liz Carmouche being the first openly gay fighter in the UFC would be a good reason for including UFC 157, UFC Macao being the first event held in China would be a good reason for including UFC: Macao, Ben Henderson fighting with a toothpick in his mouth at UFC on Fox 5 might be a good reason to include that. These would be in addition to the criteria Kevlar laid out, not as a workaround, but might help provide more clear prose context for importance.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• As a groundwork for what constitues a "Major MMA Org." I would suggest the following guidelines, which are a cut down version of what I've been using to keep the List of current mixed martial arts champions in order.

1.) Promotion has existed in it's present form for at least 5 years. 2.) Promotion holds at least 10 MMA events per year. 3.) Broadcasts of this promotion are reasonably accessable, be it through TV, PPV, live stream, etc. 4.) Promotion is the or one of the most distinguished in it's region of the world. 5.) Promotion hosts 50+ fighters who meet general notability guidelines. I think this could stymie discussions of what constitutes a "Major" MMA Organization.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• The above, yes. This, no. Each event article must still pass the notability guidelines (see WP:INHERITED). Otherwise every match/fixture/event in any major sporting league would be notable, because they would hit all of those guidelines too. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me. My point was not to establish these as the only guidelines, but to set out a clear criteria for which an MMA org. might be considered "major" enough to have it's events given any consideration for article status. It could be argued that BAMMA should get omnibusing/individual article coverage, based solely on notoriety criteria, yet they are a very small organization within the spectrum of MMA. I am not trying to set separate criteria, only additional criteria, through which we may do a better job policing ourselves. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is just my take on it, but my vision is that initially while the promotion is growing, the event list/summaries live at the promotion's page. Once they start to be unmanageable, we split into a "List of PROMOTION events", after that "YEAR in PROMOTION". This way we split out as needed. Also, there is already a line between Top Tier and second tier promotions (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability#Current_list_of_notable_MMA_organizations_and_promotions) which gives a good idea of where the line is. Hasteur (talk) 20:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That list already looks pretty dated, and the idea of having to continually reform it based upon consensus top ten rankings seems like a chore and a half. It seems like a much more solid criteria would be the history and size of the promotion, the number of wiki-notable fighters it promotes, the number of events it holds, the distribution range of its product. For instance, calling Shooto a top teir organization is ludicrous at this point in time. Most of its belts are empty most of its notable fighters have left, and it has almost no coverage even within MMA media. These criteria will always be in flux, but fighter rankings change week to week, month to month and are a shockingly unstable method of ranking promotions. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Other guidelines list specific notable sports organizations. MMA could just list the notable ones instead of developing criteria. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is fine, but what are those notable ones. Where is this list. The link that Hasteur provided was a terrible list, based around fighter rankings. Even if the criteria is clearly available somewhere else, we need to make a concerted effort to make it clear for MMA editors what that criteria is, how it applies to MMA Orgs. and which orgs. are currently considered "notable" and why. A lack of clear information is obviously a huge problem within the MMA editor community, without stabilizing some of this we won't solve the bulk of the problems created by new users or overzealous admins trying institute mass change. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

we should probably move this conversation to it's own topic. Kevlar (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Instead of complaining it's a bad list (and considering that the list was developed in 2010), might it be more productive to improve the list HINT Hasteur (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My fault, I didn't mean to sound like I was dumping on you, I just found the standard for notability to be poor, and think that using it as a baseline just leaves this project open to getting smacked back down. But yes a concerted effort to improve the list is another good place to start. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• If I can be bold enough to inject a view, I think you should work from the basis of where the project as a whole draws the line between composite articles and individual spin-offs because that line reflects a meta-consensus of how we should do this and is perfectly defensible without needing artificial standards that do not necessarily reflect any real-world threshold. The alternative is an arbitrary line that gets endlessly argued and wiki-lawyered over. The reason why MMA articles have been such a source of endless problems is because the MMA community has sought independent standards that do not necessarily reflect the way the rest of the community deals with such content. What we could also do is link pages to a MMA wikia or somesuch so that there can be a seamless movement of material that wikipedia cannot carry into a wiki that can. The reader experience will be similar and editors can cross between wikipedia and wikia depending on the nature of the content they feel like writing at the time. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, but the question still becomes where do we draw that line for promotions. And how/why do we develop composite articles for promotions. However we do that still requires the development of some baseline standard that we don't have.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If I had to take a whack at it myself I think we should construct a List of MMA promotions. Which would include the name and a short blurb about the promotion. In order to be on that list at least one good resource which discusses or describes the structure, history, or current makeup of the organization must be included. This must come from a source other than promotional material, or routine coverage such as a list of fight results. From there articles could be spun out when a reasonable amount of coverage exists to build a comprehensive description of the organization, its structure, rules, and history, in a way that is comprehensive and seriously improves upon the blurb in the initial list. From that point forward we could get to the omnibusing of events and the spinout of events.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Event Notability

Proposed change to Wikipedia:MMAEVENT#Individual_Events

the current language is:

Individual Events See also: Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (sports) Individual events are not inherently considered notable because, on the whole, the coverage they receive is routine in nature (consisting of the event announcement, who is going to take part, and the results). To be considered for a standalone article, the article will need to demonstrate the event's lasting effect using references from reliable and diverse sources that are both independent of the subject and show that the duration of coverage lasted beyond the end of the event.

Taking what User:Hasteur presented above, and what i had been working on and posted in Notability Talk i have combined them and would like to present the following as new guidelines for event notability.

please note, there is now a "Version 2" below.

MMA Event Notability MMA events will make use of both omnibus articles, and stand alone event articles. Event Omnibus Articles Omnibus articles can be created for either Top Tier or Second Tier promotions. Omnibus articles will represent a year (Example: 2012 in UFC), or season (Example: Bellator: Season One). Consensus should be reached before ther omnibus formats are introduced. Upcoming events will be placed in omnibus articles with coordinating redirects created and protected. Multiple potential redirects can be created for potential names and search terms to funnel effort into the omnibus articles as "Redirects are cheap". After an event has occurred, it can be split out into a stand alone article only if it meets criteria for stand alone event articles (See also: WP:SPINOUT). Stand Alone Event Articles Stand alone articles must represent events from Top Tier MMA organizations. When an article is spun out, a summary blurb should remain in the omnibus article containing highlights of the individual event with a {{Mainarticle}} hook for those who are navigating by the index. Stand alone event articles must have the following for sources (all sources must be reliable WP:RELIABLE): At least 5 different reliable sources where the event is the main topic of the source material. WP:GNG "Official Pages" can be linked to but will not count as a source. WP:IS At least 2 of the sources must be from sources where MMA is not their primary focus. WP:WG At least 1 of the sources must be from within the last year. WP:SECONDARY Additional work should be done to demonstrate lasting effect. Prose about how this event impacted the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career would be helpful.

please note, there is now a "Version 2" below.

Kevlar (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

This is very good, I would still propose extra weight on the lasting effect prose. Most specifically toward the importance of a particular person/place/or incident that the event encompassed. An event shouldn't be notable just because GSP defeated Jake Shields for the Welterweight title. It may however be notable because it was GSP's first fight returning from a two year recovery from knee surgery, or because Anderson Silva set the record for most title defenses by a UFC fighter. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Also we still need to better define what a "Top Tier" organization is and why. Those guidelines must be set in stone and our current structure doesn't seem good enough.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. The guidelines are clear and concise and seem very reasonable. I agree with Thaddeus in that what constitutes a "Top Tier" organization should be explained so that we have a clear idea of what company's events necessitate a separate article and which events can be combined and displayed in one article. I also agree that each UFC article should explain why the event has a lasting impact upon either a fighter on the card's career or upon the organization as a whole. I tend to feel that each UFC event does have a very significant impact on the sport, but the reason(s) for that are not always spelled out in the article itself. I, and I'm sure many others, will do my best to research information and find sources that indicate why each event was noteworthy and how it will have a lasting impact on the sport that will affect it for years to come. I just hope that this entire debate can be resolved peacefully and both sides can come to a reasonably conclusion so we can focus on the task of writing high quality MMA articles that contribute to the overall information stored on Wikipedia. Courier00 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I support this. I also agree with Thaddeus Venture in that we should determine the top tier organizations. --LlamaAl (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question - "Top Tier" needs to be strictly defined, to make sure it complies with Wiki policies. Can there be a short list of "Top Tier" events and organizations? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The list of "Top Tier and Second Tier" promotions can be found here: WP:MMA/MMA_notability#Current_list_of_notable_MMA_organizations_and_promotions. Many Editors are calling for it to also be reformed/updated. I am willing to put work into anything that will move us forward to consensus. Kevlar (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Really don't want to be a downer on this as it is a processes that we must to, but this proposal stands zero chance in a RfC, if you look at it from the point of view of a different sport say Soccer, rugby, NFL or MLB and applied the sames guideline it would allow for articles on every single professional match played every week, there needs to be a concentration on what defines lasting significance, in fact that is all we need to do because any definition of that will also show passing WP:GNG. Mtking ^(edits) 19:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Mtking. I don't feel it's my responsibility to guard against the creation of pages in other sports. I do see your point, but other sports already do have individual pages for events, Formula One, College Football Bowl Games, and Professional Wrestling are one's that i've taken note of in the past. My goal here is to move forward, although this may not be the best solution, i think it's something people can agree on. As someone who has put a number of MMA events up for AfD you should note that any "second tier" event with it's own page will be migrated into an omnibus under these guidelines. the choice is not between 0 UFC events with stand alone pages and ALL UFC events with stand alone pages. if a stand alone UFC event from 2003 has an article sourced from less than a year ago from today, i think that goes a long way to display enduring notability. Kevlar (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You keep on making the same mistake when you compare an UFC event to a match of soccer, rugby, NFL and so on. If you want to make that comparison, a soccer match would be equivalent to one fight within an UFC event. There are around 12 fights in one event. Besides, a good deal of events have fights for a title or interin title in one of the eight, soon to be nine, weight categories. Evenfiel (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Reply: It's well-established, and the consensus of sensible editors agrees, that individual sports have differing standards of notability; it's why we devolved from a one-size-fits-all standard of notability in the first place. Ravenswing 20:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

An appropriate comparison would be more along the lines of tennis, golf, racing, etc. A football match would be the basic equivalent of one fight not one fight card. And if it is "we" you're pushing for then you should be laying out a plan for defining lasting significance. What UFC events define lasting significance in your mind. If the answer is none of them, then your position in improving articles on this subject is probably overly hostile. I don't see more than 5-10 events per year being important enough for their own article spinout, that would be a significant reduction from past numbers. Combined with careful omnibusing of past or more generic events this could and should create a form that is more friendly to general guidelines. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a Years worth of numbered UFC events are notable enough for a single article, and a years worth of Fox events are notable enough for a single article and a years worth of Fuel events are notable enough for a single article. From there the most notable events can be spun out. I think that the lasting effect could be reasonably easily shown, but some help going about that would be appreciated.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I support this proposal as well. It is a great comprise.I remember halloween (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"At least 1 of the sources must be from within the last year." Measured from when? This criterion makes it sound like there needs to be a new source every year or else the article will get merged back to the omnibus article. Might want to clarify this a bit more. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 19:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it may need to be re-worded, but yes, my intent was to say that if we can not find an article that discussed the event that was posted within a year of today it may no longer be considered to have had lasting effect. This may be too harsh, but i'm more interested in retaining content in whatever form. as long as an omnibus page is readable and easy to navigate, i see no problem with an event being moved back to an omnibus page. Kevlar (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I have to agree with Scotty Wong, and it's why I haven't voted yet. This needs to be re-worded. Maybe at least one source dating one or more years after the event (for events over two years old). Albeit, give us a sufficient amount of time to gather those sources, as one week is hardly sufficient. I'd say sources must be compiled within 3-6 months of the passage of an RfC maybe, before that becomes grounds for any AfD nominations? Beansy (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Note that requiring a <1 year old source at all times would be an exceptional requirement that no other Wikipedia article is held to. Just because a reliable source hasn't written anything about Maltbie Davenport Babcock in the last year doesn't mean we're going to take it to AfD and delete it (or merge it to some American clergyman omnibus article). There is no requirement in WP:N that notable subjects have continuous coverage for all eternity. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 00:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that the Omnibus articles be default and not the exception. As evidenced by several of the articles this year, prior to the event occuring there is very little that raises the coverage above standard WP:NOTNEWS (typical reporting of sports events/Press releases). This gives us the double benefit of having the refuge for nascent articles/events while at the same time making sure that the index article is not left behind in coverage (or for people who want to take a high level tour through the year's events) in addition to the benefit of not having a fait acomplis as to the article's existance. Hasteur (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

what would you think of rewording it to: Events by default will be placed in omnibus pages, They can be split out into stand alone articles only after they have taken place and meet the criteria for stand alone event articles (See also: WP:SPINOUT). Kevlar (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

That is my ideal solution. There may be exceptions to this where pre-fight shenagans (One fighter gets beatean up by the oponent's crew 2 days before the fight, the president of the league decides to go for a 2 on 1 fight, fighter is unable to attend the match becuase their work visa was denied (since it's a job), etc.) may eleveate an event to significant notability before the fights. In my mind most elevations to stand alone event articles will be between 48hrs ~ 7 days after the fight (once the "Results coverage" has concluded). Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The Omnibus should be the default for second tier organizations, not top tier.Evenfiel (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

No... it is not possible that every single event in the top tier promotions is immediately notable. IF the event has the notability it can be split out.Hasteur (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I understand the desire for each Pride/UFC event to have its own article, but I think it's a point we could reasonably capitulate on. Starting out by saying "It's a UFC event therefore it's notable enough for a separate page" is a fragile argument and too easy to dismiss and start mass deleting again. That being said, omnibus pages shouldn't be longer than 10 events. Once they reach that size they begin to become unwieldy and hard to use. Finding good breakdown formats (Event type by Year, Events 1-10, 11-20, etc.) should be a good midpoint between huge unusable omnibuses and 5000 single event articles.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think we should split all organizations only in top tier and second tier. UFC and Pride are way above other organizations. We should have a top tier, a second tier and a third tier.Evenfiel (talk) 20:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• I only used that language because we already have existing guidelines on "Top Tier and Second Tier". Changing this has come up a bunch lately, but should be a separate discussion. Kevlar (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see why this sport is different than any other. Look at the template for Template:World_boxing_champions. Template:Main_world_championships shows all the various sports represented on Wikipedia, there some I never even heard of. Dream Focus 20:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to suggest a reformulation on the first criteria of Stand Alone Event Articles. Seems arbitrary to require that all events be from top-tier organizations. It can run over some guidelines (mainly WP:GNG and WP:EVENT), since events even from unimportant organizations can meet the guidelines. Poison Whiskey 20:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• How does this look? "Stand alone articles should primarily represent events from Top Tier MMA promotions, consensus should be reached before events from Second Tier promotions are split out of omnibuses." Kevlar (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. I would support. Poison Whiskey 21:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Support. Looks good to me, although I think it is okay for certain upcoming events to have their own article, granted that there's enough coverage in other media. Also omnibus articles can be created for any MMA promotion, as long as it is notable enough. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• I believe you are correct, and it should just be a simple but bureaucratic two step solution. If the MMA promotion is notable enough for an omnibus, it should be easy enough to first add it as a Second Tier Promotion. Kevlar (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Support, although I agree with Scottywong that the secondary source criteria should probably be reworded. Could you say something like "within a year following the event, an additional source should be provided to establish enduring notability" or something? CaSJer (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• As I've indicated previously, getting the wording right is very, very tricky. There are a lot of vague terms here that would not pass muster in a standard RfC. I've been working on a possible idea but it takes a little time and tweaking. Regardless, I don't expect to vote in the proceedings as I don't have a dog in the hunt, and would restrict myself to mediating. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, I'd be very interesting in hearing your ideas. It's always hard to strike a balance between being too vague/strict and too inclusive/exclusive. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The trust of the WP:NOTNEWSPAPER section of policy is that this is an Encyclopaedia and not a newspaper, not covering routine newsworthy events but on events of lasting significance, the criteria above only addresses this point almost in passing with item four saying only that it should be done and would be helpful, in reality it is this policy that most MMA/UFC articles fall down on. The wording of the guideline needs to address that more specifically, and make it clear the sort of sources that help to demonstrate that, help on how to identify good non-routine and non-WP:PRIMARYNEWS sources for the event, touch on the sort of things that show the event has lasting significance for example incidents that lead to changes in rules, how the sport is marketed, things that help to demonstrate the narrative of the sport as a whole. Passing this guideline is no indication that an article will not fail WP:NOT and articles can and will still be liable for deletion based on that policy since policy trumps guidelines, we need to arrive at a guideline that leaves it in no doubt an article does not fail that policy. In the last RFC on notability guidelines failed partly because some felt that they were both more restrictive and others felt that they were less restrictive than current practice, having a requirement for five reliable sources is two restrictive, I know at least one admin who will probably oppose this just for that. Before someone jumps on me and says yo offer an alternative, I will post one below later. Mtking ^(edits) 21:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• I was invited to this discussion.[9] I agree Mtking. Articles in article space need to pass both WP:N and WP:NOT. The above "MMA Event Notability" request is an effort to remove WP:NOTNEWSPAPER from article requirements by using WP:NOT importance and significance requirements under a "Notability" heading. When there is enough reliable source material to satisfy WP:GNG, then issue then turns to whether WP:NOT is satisfied. This MMA effort is taking us deeper into the muck by expanding on "Notability" rather than trying to expand on or give more details on how editors may want to apply WP:NOTNEWSPAPER when it comes to MMA article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for joining in. I think this will be a more meaningful process if we get the honest opinions of everyone involved. Did you happen to notice below where the guidelines have already moved to a second version? i re-wrote the two sections that i believe Mtking was pointing out from "At least 1 of the sources must be from within the last year. WP:SECONDARY" and "Additional work should be done to demonstrate lasting effect. Prose about how this event impacted the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career would be helpful." to "Stand alone event articles must demonstrate lasting effect. To do this citations must include a good mix of Primary sources, Secondary sourcess, and Tertiary sourcess. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER WP:EFFECT WP:PSTS" and "Stand alone event articles should have well-sourced prose, explaining how this event impacted the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career, not merely a list of stats. WP:SPORTSEVENT". Can you offer any guidance how i might be able to further refine it. Kevlar (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• More Suggestions, and sorry for the length and I really don't have time to give in-depth arguments on these (I was asked to participate and thus am trying to contribute but I have a lot to do today) but I'm trying to cover over half of the significant first and second-tier promotions in MMA's history here, and I think most MMA historians would agree with the assessment-by-tier. I'm going by significance within the sport here and obviously am open to suggestions or constructive criticism (keyword is constructive). I think most of the promotions I'm suggesting for standalone articles can be properly sourced per above, although many would have to include foreign language sources (I think Japanese mainstream newspaper and Japanese sports papers would be helpful) and book sources (Jonathan Snowden's Total MMA would be a useful one I suppose, opinions on his inflammatory journalism outside that book notwithstanding). Also, possibly Dave Meltzer's Wresting Observer Newsletter (wrestling and MMA industry newsletter that dates back over 30 years and has around 50,000 subscribers). Anyone not bogged down by both grad school and a job up for some legwork? EDIT: ugh, when I started writing all this there was like one vote up so far and only a few lines total of responses. Funny how much discussion can happen in an hour. Still:

• If we're going to do UFC omnibusses (like in addition to redundant standalone articles), doing them by year is impractical due to the required size of such articles. Sure it'd be fine for a year when there was only 5 events, but I would recommend breaking the more recent years up into quarters. Again, I would only argue for UFC omnibusses as a redundant measure.
• Honestly I would argue for inherent notability of all UFC numbered events for standalone articles. If a fractional minority wouldn't quite make it on their own (I'm looking at you, UFC 37.5, even if it technically was the first show to have a match replayed on non-PPV national television), the same can be said for quite a few sequential web of articles in sports or other subjects. It's still much easier to navigate, more user friendly, and all of the pages were relatively popular. I think it should be of note that as of January and the impending death of Strikeforce, the UFC will be the loan remaining organization that would still be considered worthy of standalone articles.
• I would argue that the 4-5 weird outlier non-numbered events prior to The Ultimate Fighter Finale 1 (basically the start of the boom period) merit individual articles, as an omnibus would be just awkward (The Ultimate Ultimate, The Ultimate Ultimate 2, The Ultimate Brazil, The Ultimate Japan, and arguably the aforementioned UFC 37.5 all fit in that outlier category).
• I would also argue that the way infoboxes are set up for UFC events before and after remain in a navigable way for for events that are only in omnibusses, with separate infoboxes inside omnibusses leading to the subsections for each event.
• I would also argue for the inherent notability of all Ultimate Fighter Finales for standalone articles since they are the culmination of reality shows with standalone articles per-season.
• I think a compromise solution to lesser UFC events might be omnibus-by-year for UFC on Versus, UFC on Fuel, Ultimate Fight Nights, and maybe UFC on FX.
• I would argue for the restoration of Strikeforce Challengers shows as annual omnibusses, many of which have been deleted including the one headlined by the inaugural Women's Bantamweight Title. A few of those could probably stand on their own against a determined opposition (the one-night mini-tournament that Miesha Tate won and where Liz Carmouche made her major league debut, winning the alternate match, also comes to mind), but I would not bother if most could not.
• I would have to argue for individual event articles for PrideFC, Elite XC, and Strikeforce events (separate from Strikeforce's much earlier kickboxing events). I would separate those from ShoXC, and Strikeforce Challengers, all of which are omnibus-by-year-level in my opinion. Elite XC would end up with 8 standalone event articles and 2 for ShoXC. Pride would have, well, several dozen, but they were the world's top organization for a majority of their existence.
• There are a number of defunct second-tier organizations that I think would qualify for annual or semi-annual omnibusses that altogether would not be a large number of articles, like BodogFIGHT (would argue for semi-annual omnibusses, 12 events, 3 articles total; would not be opposed to a single article but I think this would be unwieldy) and the IFL (IFL seasons were annual, and started and ended within individual years, and would probably amount to three event articles total in that format).
• I would argue that short-lived but notable promotions World Fighting Alliance and Affliction each be allowed single omnibussed articles in their entirety, including the canceled Affliction event Affliction: Trilogy, which is a casualty of the past year's war I believe, despite the fallout having a direct impact on the landscape of major league MMA with all the high-profile free agents that scattered to the UFC and Strikeforce (again citing Fedor here, as his deal with Strikeforce was arguably a net negative and may have led to Silicon Valley Entertainment putting up Strikeforce for sale), and more recently was the subject of a Bloody Elbow article a couple years after-the-fact I believe, regarding how Josh Barnett's pre-fight steroid test sunk the stacked card and the promotion itself. Since the event never happened there isn't even a Sherdog listing for it, yet it's notability in MMA is pretty clear. Affliction's first two MMA events currently have standalone articles but I think it would probably be fine to combine those and add a section on Affliction: Trilogy.
• I think Sengoku would be fine omnibussed by year (6 events a year, 3 years total existence), and Dream being split up into a few omnibus articles also works, but I'm not sure how the latter should be done since they went from doing 8 or so events a year to 1 now. I would argue for OneFC to be omnibussed semi-annually.
• Considering the direction Super Fight League has taken, I think having it listed as a second-tier MMA organization is premature. After the first few shows they went in a radically lower-budget direction with more frequent shows, which I'm not even sure deserve an omnibus. They've taken a radically different direction from OneFC on this. The league itself deserves an article, but I would not argue its events do.
• Invicta FC on the other hand I would argue strongly for as a second-tier promotion. They've done a tremendous amount for Women's MMA, have already been covered in Sports Illustrated, and almost single-handedly established Women's Atomweight as a viable division (okay so JEWELS helped on that but whatever, Invicta crystallized it and crowned a consensus world champion, while getting the MMA press to take WMMA much more seriously and establishing a talent-sharing relationship with Strikeforce). Would argue for second-tier status for Invicta FC and annual omnibus articles. EDIT: I see they're already listed as "Top-Tier" in a separate Women's section. Sounds appropriate, especially for weighing biographic notability. Anyway, would still go with omnibus-by-year for them.
• I would not argue for event-result articles for Shooto because, well, that would be an insane amount of shows, let alone fights, most of which are not individually relevant even if the promotion itself has been hugely important to MMA and is still very important on the grass roots level. Same goes for Pancrase on all counts.
• Along previous lines I would argue that K-1 Dynamite and K-1 HERO*s deserve event articles (if someone wants to do the rest of the K-1 shows, which were obviously significant but entirely or mostly kickboxing, I don't think that should be addressed by WP:MMA), but the irregular timing and uneven notability makes it hard to decide on the best format.

Anyway, after being graciously invited to the conversation, just thought I'd give my suggestions. Sorry if this was a wall-of-text. Beansy (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this is all very smart and sensable.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Question/Concern I also have an issues with the wording of the "1 source within the past year" thing. It would be better if it was, at least one source that is at least one year after the event. And event articles that are spun out for meeting all the other criteria should be given a stay on that last one until 2 years after the event. Whereupon, if a source meeting the requirements of #4 isn't found, it can be merged back into the omnibus.

Lastly, Beansy has a point above that the omnibuses are going to be significantly more complicated than just year by year (we should probably do season by season to make them shorter), as not all the events work as chronological things. We might want to talk about the exceptions separately though and come to a consensus on each of them and then add an exceptions section to the bottom of the proposed text detailing this consensus. Silverseren^C 22:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree (obviously I agree with myself, heh), but only Bellator and IFL have gone with a seasonal format, with IFL's seasons conveniently running January-to-December (the IFL is now defunct). So, quarterly or semi-annually for some, I dunno. I did make some specific suggestions on that. Beansy (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - My one suggestion, use a real omnibus article instead of a redlink if you want other editors to reference it for comparison. If no article exists, it should be in place before this moves on to further RfC as it will be an essential part of this discussion. Also, despite all the neysayers, this will need to happen sooner than later. I suggest the opposition here re-write their own proposal and contribute to this inevitable policy. Saying 'no' will only result in either a statemate or a policy they don't like instead of changing the policy to one where they agree on the wording. Mkdw^talk 22:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support tentatively. I do think the wording "At least 1 of the sources must be from within the last year" should be changed to "At least one source should be from at least one year after the event (for events more than two years old)". Beansy (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: This is at least motion in the right direction. I'll point out that it doesn't completely address the fundamental issues that caused me to hit the "delete" button on UFC 155 and UFC 156. The problems with those were:

• The coverage appeared routine. This is one of the key issues here: if every source that is available is saying pretty much the same thing about the event that it says about every UFC event, then there doesn't need to be an article. "These eleven guys will fight those eleven guys" is going to show up in advance for each and every event, and "those eleven guys succeeded in beating up those eleven guys" will show up after every event. If that's all that can be said, it doesn't matter how many sources said it: it's routine coverage.
• Coverage for individual fighters doesn't spill over to make the event notable. If one of the fighters is going to be the first bisexual Norwegian amputee ever to fight in an UFC bout, that makes the fighter notable, not the bout.
• Article creation in advance of an event is especially difficult to justify. It's really hard for an event that hasn't even happened to be individually notable.
• Remember that the focus needs to be on ensuring that the article meets WP:NOT. Having a notability guideline is good, but WP:NOT trumps WP:N every single time. You can pass every aspect of every notability guideline that could possibly apply, and a single well-argued WP:NOT based concern will still result in deletion of the article (or should, if the closing admin is doing his job).

—Kww(talk) 00:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment "Article creation in advance of an event is especially difficult to justify. It's really hard for an event that hasn't even happened to be individually notable." No, it really isn't. In fact, it's usually easy to tell ahead of time what UFC events are more notable, with end of year and Superbowl weekend cards in particular having notable results and aftermaths. Byuusetsu (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I hate to say this, but you've offered criticism here of what you think doesn't qualify for its own article. What do you think does? What MMA events have been notable in your opinion and why? This is an attempt to create standards that are acceptable for the wikipedia community, simply stating that this that or the other thing isn't good enough is not helpful at this point. We need real input and solutions. If you think that no MMA events are notable then I would ask that you evolve that position into something more workable. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment It's quite likely that omnibus articles are quite sufficient, and, besides articles on leagues and the fighters themselves, the only things that will ever fully meet guidelines and policies. That wouldn't surprise me a bit, and really isn't a problem. That's the part of this discussion that seems the most difficult for people to get: Wikipedia could have thorough and complete coverage of all the various flavours of MMA, the leagues, the fighters, the matches, the purses, the schedules, everything, without having a single individual article about an individual event. There's nothing about the position of "individual MMA matches probably don't qualify for articles" that says "Wikipedia shouldn't have coverage of MMA".—Kww(talk) 03:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment That's sort of like saying that an article about the first man on the moon is a good idea, and an article about the first rocket to land on the moon is a good idea, but an article about the first moon landing isn't. I can't see how that gap makes sense. If even UFC 1 is not notable then it's incredibly difficult to see that as a working baseline for the articles contained in the MMA Project. I think you should take more time to think about what might make an MMA event notable in as much as any event might be notable. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • No, it's more akin to saying "Books can be covered in depth without an individual article per chapter".—Kww(talk) 21:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• I'll admit I've just skimmed over the massive discussion that has taken place today (damn that full time job ;). In that skimming through I think I see a lot of good conversation and attempts at coming to a reasonable solution. As for my suggestions, I think I'll restate what I mentioned when this discussion was held back in May over at WT:MMANOT. As I've mentioned before, I don't believe that every UFC event is notable and deserves it's own article. A suggestion from the previous discussion that I liked was that an event with a top (or possibly even second) tier promotion that includes a championship bout is notable. Therefore, UFC 154 and UFC on Fox 5 would be notable, UFC on Fuel TV: Struve vs. Miocic not so much. I also firmly believe that WP:SPORTSEVENT should be followed; specifically "[a]rticles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." That prose should discuss more than routine announcements of injuries and fight announcements and should discuss the significance of the event to explain why it is/was notable. (Examples: Greasing controversy at UFC 94, first ever submissions of Nogiera(sp?) and Machida at UFC 140.) Some of this, I think, has been addressed above, but I figure to let ya'll know my thoughts. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support As the top MMA organisation, most UFC events are notable and have reliable sources. While other MMA organisations should have omnibus articles, besides a few such as Strikeforce and Pride etc. Also, its possible we can wait until after an event to make an article if it conflicts with WP:Crystal. Portillo (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Starting from a place that most UFC/Strikeforce/Pride events are worthy of standalone articles is a fragile place for this project. We need to think more in terms that Some MMA events are notable and for very specific reasons, others can be omnibused in a manageable way without losing a great deal of information. I would probably say that of the 220-ish UFC events maybe somewhere around 50 are notable enough for their own article. Maybe a handful of Strikeforce events and probably 1/3 to 1/4 of Pride events.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Version 2

Version 2

MMA Event Notability MMA events will make use of both omnibus articles, and stand alone event articles. Event Omnibus Articles Omnibus articles can be created for either Top Tier or Second Tier promotions. Omnibus articles will represent a year (Example: 2012 in UFC), or season (Example: Bellator: Season One). Consensus should be reached before ther omnibus formats are introduced. WP:MMATIER Upcoming events will be placed in omnibus articles with coordinating redirects created and protected. Multiple potential redirects can be created for potential names and search terms to funnel effort into the omnibus articles as "Redirects are cheap". Events by default will be placed in omnibus pages, They can be split out into stand alone articles only after they have taken place and meet the criteria for stand alone event articles (See also: WP:SPINOUT). Stand Alone Event Articles Stand alone articles should primarily represent events from Top Tier MMA promotions, consensus should be reached before events from Second Tier promotions are split out of omnibuses. When an article is spun out, a summary blurb should remain in the omnibus article containing highlights of the individual event with a {{Mainarticle}} hook for those who are navigating by the index. Stand alone event articles must cite sources in the following way. (all sources must be reliable WP:RELIABLE): At least 5 different reliable sources where the event is the main topic of the source material. WP:GNG "Official Pages" can be linked to but will not count as a source. WP:IS MMA focused websites can not dominate the list of sources. Even when they are reliable and independant, we must avoid a walled garden. WP:WG Stand alone event articles must demonstrate lasting effect. To do this citations must include a good mix of Primary sources, Secondary sourcess, and Tertiary sourcess. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER WP:EFFECT WP:PSTS Stand alone event articles should have well-sourced prose, explaining how this event impacted the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career, not merely a list of stats. WP:SPORTSEVENT

Kevlar (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Continued Discussion

Support

• Support ::I agree with this, as this is how referencing back to events works - rather than expecting a new article every so often. I do think that the MMA-focused websites in general aren't a walled garden in and of themselves. Many talk about boxing, health/medical issues, grappling coverage, kickboxing, judo and wrestling too. Those are all ways that they link into the web as a whole, rather than seclude themselves into this (profitable) corner of the web. I also want to emphasize that the returning of events to the omnibus is worlds better than deleting pages like the Ultimate Fight Nights that Mtking pushed for and got. If we could smush those into a single omnibus article or into the UFC's history, that'd be preserving information, rather than tossing out the baby with the bathwater.(DefGrappler (talk) 03:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC))
• Continued Support:: This is still a generally good idea, although we need to establish omnibusing methods that put no more than 10-ish articles in a single omnibus ASAP. If these omnibuses become unwieldy other users will start the inevitable push back to turn them into individual articles, so they must be kept reasonably short. Second we need to break notability from the tier system which is somewhat of a false construct, or at least we need to establish the tier system based upon stringent guidelines of notability. I.e. the UFC is top tier because it has x number of sources explaining it's rules, history, etc. Some weight could be given to history, size, etc. beyond strightforward notability, but it must be in addition, not as it's own system. Either way the tier system needs an overhaul as part of this process, otherwise it's sort of a house of cards that could be pulled out underneath us and used as an excuse to start deleting again.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support - It's much more thorough. Mkdw^talk 05:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Better wording, probably can be improved, but that's a great essay. Poison Whiskey 14:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support and Comment Representing a year is still a bad idea for promotions that have a large amount of annual events, mainly the UFC which holds ~30 a year now. There are defunct promotions for which this also applies. Also, merging event articles from defunct first and second-tier promotions into omnibus articles is going to take more than a week, and almost certainly more than just a month, so a timeframe needs to be given, and maybe amnesty ought to be given to articles of a certain age (if an article that gets a fair number of weekly page hits exists for 2 years and does not get AfD'd it seems arbitrary to do it now if it's not something that could just be improved, which should always be the first step now AfD nominations). Also, while I do think we need to diversify the sourcing on articles quite a bit, if there are 6 or 7 mainstream newspaper/periodical sources and still a dozen or more MMA website sources (from websites that are considered "reliable" even if they are specialized), I don't think the latter harms the article. I just think there needs to be a sufficient amount of non-MMA website sources for any given article. Furthermore keep in mind a site like MMAJunkie which shows up way too often in sourcing is still nevertheless a content provider for USA Today (and several lesser mainstream news outlets) and searching USA Today's own website for MMA will yield a lot of hit that end up being redirects to stories at MMAJunkie. Go to CBSSports.com, hit the "More Sports" option and click on "UFC" and it will take you to MixedMartialArts.com (home of the UG, for those in the know, where a number of industry professionals regularly post including Dana White). Sherdog's database is unquestionably valuable and an asset to the entire sport, and they're also an online content provider for ESPN. So I dunno if these are clearly as much of a problem as long as non-specialized sources are also present. Also, WP:WG refers to a set of articles, not referencing, and while it's been brought up in the past I do not think this has ever truly been a problem for MMA considering the number of MMA athletes who have achieved notability in other sports. There are world champions and Olympic medalists in wrestling (too many to easily count), Olympic medalists in judo (Ronda Rousey and Satoshi Ishii being the most notable but not isolated examples), world champions in kickboxing (Mirko Cro Cop, Alistair Overeem, Mark Hunt, etc.), world champions in Jiu-Jitsu (there probably over two dozen of these including people like BJ Penn and Fabricio Werdum), in submission grappling, at least one world champion in Sanshou (Cung Le), some notable boxers (Eric Esch being someone who reaches notability standards on both sides), world champions in Sambo (Fedor being the most obvious but not the only one), and even former NFL players (Bob Sapp and Matt Mitrione among others) and pro-wrestlers (Kazushi Sakuraba and Brock Lesnar probably being the most important). Furthermore you have people like Randy Couture and Gina Carano who went on to Hollywood. They don't call it "Mixed Martial Arts" for nothing, as there are a number of elite representatives from other sports, and it has never been a walled garden, so I don't think that's an actual issue. Beansy (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

• note i fixed the lasting effect link, added primary sources and WP:EFFECT WP:PSTS to the same line. in case anyone who has already looked at v2 would like to know why it's changed. i probably should have done this in a v2.5 or v3 but it was a small chage. won't do anything else unless feedback requires it for v3. Kevlar (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• The question I would have is would merging all the fights in the one article make it too large, or is each fight as notable an in individual TV episode? Most TV shows don't gat articles for each episode, but Simpson episodes do. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

simplifying the above

(please continue the conversation above, leave this at the bottom)

I am doing my best to incorporate the feedback above into the proposed notability guidelines. in an effort to give a snapshot of what i percieve to be peoples views, i am going to list people here by support/oppose. I think this will also help to clarify if someone meant to support/oppose but didn't specifically say it. If you feel i put you in the wrong section, feel free to move yourself, but also comment above. Please remember this is not a vote.

• Support - Beansy, CaSJer, Courier00, DefGrappler, I remember halloween, Kevlar, LlamaAl, Mkdw, Oskar Liljeblad, Poison Whiskey, Portillo, and Thaddeus Venture
• Oppose - Mtking, and Uzma Gamal
• Only Commented - Byuusetsu, Dennis Brown, Dream Focus, Evenfiel, Hasteur, Kww, Scottywong, Silver seren, Sue Rangell, and TreyGeek

i also do have a few questions:

• should it be stated specifically that these guidelines are not meant to supersede policy? my understanding is that it was implied.
• will a change like this to WP:MMA's notability guidelines need to have an RfC?
• if an RfC is not needed, how do we proceed? i was thinking we would continue to rewrite/polish with feedback then when the feedback dies down, re-ask the sysops who have commented (Byuusetsu, Kww, and Scottywong so far) for any last guidance, implement suggestions, and close it.