Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:25, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

10th planet jiu-jitsu

Was created & taged as a hoax (unsurprising with a name like that) I've made it into a good stub, but it should be easy to bulk out to a C or B if you have some free time --Nate1481

UFC 81

I am totally new to editing wiki and have added some info about UFC 81 I would appreciate a little feedback in terms of how I have done this, is my referencing adequate etc cheers. Please tell me if I am doing anything wrong....**** --Paul (talk)

I feel we need an overhaul of when fights can be added to PPV pages

Hi, currently, wikipedia has the problem of fights being added to pages when there is the slightest rumour to suggest said fight will take place. A few that spring to mind lately are Wanderlei Silva vs. Michael Bisping, Randy Couture vs. Mark Coleman and Georges St.Pierre vs. Dan Hardy. My problems with these fights are as follows:

• Silva/Bisping - this originally was a rumour that had as much strength as the Silva/Akiyama fight. Then, we received news that Silva had agreed to the fight, but we had no indication of whether Bisping has, nor any news on the contract signing. For this reason, I feel that the fight should not be included.

• Couture/Coleman was, earlier this week, rumoured to be taking place and that both men had agreed to the bout. Today, a new source has been added to this fight to say that Coleman has officially signed the bout agreement, but that Couture's camp could not be reached to confirm likewise. As such, again, the bout is not official, despite being agreed on, therefore a number of factors can occur that prevent this fight (e.g. Silva/Akiyama with a potential replacement being found).

• St.Pierre/Hardy is highly rumoured and has no official location/date/agreement. Someone created a page for UFC 111 (I think it was) saying that this fight would take place there, on the basis of one weak rumour.

Because of these examples, I feel that we should hold off and discourage fights being added until bout agreements have been signed by both parties. There are a number of bouts that I, personally, would disagree with and would prefer to remove, but don't due to the likelihood that users/IPs would revert. However, I feel that the MMA Project should make new rules as to when fights can be added to the main page and I think it should be when bout agreements are signed by both members of a fight. If IPs and misinformed users were to continue to re-add the fights, it's a case of letting them know and perhaps adding "bout agreed" fights to the background as is currently the common practice. Any comments? Paralympiakos (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel there need to be any "rules" created for this situation. If a fight is not reliably sourced, it should be removed. WP:Reliable and WP:Speculation already covers this problem. IPs will still make their edits regardless, so we just have to stay on top of them and revert any improper additions/edits. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I just feel that fights like Cain/Nog on UFC 110 shouldn't be there presently. It's being targetted for that event and I think that they've verbally agreed to the fight, but in terms of official signings, I don't think I've heard anything. For this reason, it should be backgrounded, but presently, it's in the officially unannounced fights. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion on this issue here. Bascially, if a bout is unsourced or rumored, it should be removed. If a bout has a signed contract or both parties have reportedly agreed to a bout, then it can stay as long as it's properly sourced.

As for the fight you mentioned, I looked at the cited source, and it says "Verbal agreements are in place for the contest" so it would be allowable (unless consensus on this matter changes). --TreyGeek (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough then. It was a new consensus I was looking for. The main reason being that UFC has become less predictable in my opinion, over the last few months in terms of its rumoured fights actually taking place. There have been a few occasions when we've heard strong rumours of a fight, only for it to be cancelled or a participant changed (e.g. Silva vs. Bisping/Akiyama). Now you may say that upon that eventuality, we can change it, but I'm just wondering whether adding these rumours is within the rules. It was my understanding that rumours are not to be added, which for all intents and purposes, a lot of these fights originally are. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If a fight is "rumored" then yes, it should not be on Wikipedia. If a reliable source reports that a fight is agreed to, then it's not really rumor any more. I will also extend this to the potential GSP/Hardy title bout. Until it is actually signed or agreed to, we shouldn't mention it other than stating Hardy won a #1 contender's bout. (Afterall, the UFC could decide to let GSP fight someone else before Hardy gets his title shot.)

To recap: signed contract or verbal agreement = good. All else = bad.  :) --TreyGeek (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem I sometimes find is that different Reliable Sources report conflicting information (around the same time which negates any recency arguement).(Justinsane15 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Joe Son arrest update

The article on Joe Son has been pretty much static for a while, with little further information on his arrest and charges filed against him over a year ago. There are legal proceedings ongoing, as you can see here [1] (p. 67), but I can't find any secondary sources that I could use to update the article. The main problem is that searching for "Joe Son" on the Internet is uniquely difficult.

Can anyone help? gnfnrf (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The same problem with Jeff Monson, he was supposed to be senetnced in October 2009, but nobody seems to know what happened with that and he's still fighting on a consistent basis. (Justinsane15 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

That was actually pretty easy. He's on work release. Added and cited in article. gnfnrf (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

UFC and UFN article names

Currently, the UFC events template looks as such:

Why do the UFNs have fighter names, but the main UFC events do not? Surely it should just be numbers for every event or names and numbers for every event. For the purpose of space, I think the articles should be renamed as UFN (number) like the current UFC articles are. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the UFC uses numbers for fight nights anymore. They will still use numbers for their major shows and add a subtitle (ie "Ortiz vs. Griffin 2" is the subtitle to UFC 106). So, without the UFC officially using numbers for fight nights then they shouldn't be numbered in the template, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They do use the numbers internally and with the media, but on the promos they do not- so I think there is no change needed on the Template, but on the article itself it should remain Ortiz vs Shamrock 3 also known as Ultimate Fight Night 7 ---David.snipes (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MMA Junkie

I made an article for MMA Junkie. Are there any reliable sources to make it notable? Portillo (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would you create an article without reliable sources in it to prove notability from the start? I doubt MMA Junkie would be notable for Wikipedia. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Im an Inclusionist. Portillo (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but gather sources first? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It won the award for Best Media Source at the 2009 World MMA Awards, I would say its pretty notable. There's plenty of relaible articles covering the World MMA Awards that mention MMAJunkie. (Justinsane15 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

Do you think we should make another article with sources? It also won 2008 Best Media and 2009 Best MMA Journalist. Portillo (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to create the article in a sandbox. Then when you are happy with it, ask other editors to provide feedback. If it is 1) well written, 2) properly sourced, 3) shows notability then I would suggest recreating the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Biography sections?

An article about a person is a Biography [2] ... so I don't understand why MMA bios need a bio section. Hutcher (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I always thought a "biography" section was a bit strange myself. I think "career", "personal life", "early life", ... are better. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone standardize the pages?

Can someone with a bot standardize the record boxes to the one in the main project page here

Half the pages have record boxes that either have something missing, is arranged differently or, is altogether altered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Silva (this one is normal)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Lutter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Tapia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirko_crocop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Alvarez

Some examples I found, all are different. It's a big mess 128.54.175.110 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Nate^t/_c 08:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah those were just examples, a vast majority of the fighters pages are inconsistent with each other and the standard formatting like that. It would take too much time correct all of them by hand, but with a bot it would be instant. I don't have a bot though haha but I know some contributer here does. 128.54.175.110 (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon Jones (fighter) vandalism

Just a heads up, Jon Jones' page has been vandalized quite a bit over the last couple of days. I've fixed it up, but even as I was doing that, others were vandalizing it.

Thought you guys might want to keep an eye on it. --James Duggan 07:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Is there a list somewhere of which MMA-related websites are considered reliable sources, and which are not? If not, it might be a good thing to create. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

don't like the idea personally. it puts us in a position where we're taking anything on those websites based on authority. generally sites like sherdog, mmajunkie, mmaweekly, etc. can be used as good references, but they can and are often wrong many times. a non-credible list would be much more appropriate imo. 128.54.175.110 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would be fine, too. I just think that we should try to address it in one fashion or another, as there are a lot of MMA articles out there right now with "mystery meat" sources. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Strikeforce Women's Weight Classes

Recently, Scott Coker said that the women's 135 lbs. weight class would be known as Welterweight (as well as calling the 145 lbs. divison Lightweight- which makes it even more sillier imo). A lot of editors have been opposed to this on Wikipedia. My suggestions would be to call them the same as the equivalent men's divisions just was the World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts and other organizations do. I.E. 145 lbs. is Featherweight regardless of what Strikeforce wants to call it. Thoughts? (Justinsane15 (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

• Second Paralympiakos (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Makes sense to me, although it may be worth a disambiguation hatnote on the articles for the relevant Strikeforce champs. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I will start making the changes on all the related articles. I may need some help on the best way to make notes regarding the subject.(Justinsane15 (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

British pratictionisers category needs fixing

I created a British Jiu-Jitsu practitioners by nationality but I realised my mistake can someone fix it please? I dunno how to. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

UFC 24

Please note that the reference to Scott Adams's page leads to an author with the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.216.209 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks, Feel free to make any other changes you see on those early ones. David.snipes (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)