Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

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) [1] [2]. 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.

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)

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)

I went ahead and created the page. It is the only source of information for a number of (previously deleted) UFC events in Wikipedia. I'm not sure where the article should be linked though. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 20:58, 15 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)

I'm really not okay with this use of MMABot until a new MOS RfC can be done. Not for MMA, but for all non-team non-national-representation sports, since MMA is one of a great many that use flags (I think it's been well established now that few if any other second-tier sports have had to face the same sort of scrutiny MMA has in the history of Wikipedia). If your bot can go around removing flags from major tennis and golf pages too though, then go ahead and draw those communities into the fray. Otherwise I'd ask that you wait to deploy it, as I don't think it's helpful at the moment and would only distract from the central issue at hand. Beansy (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there a specific task that MMABot is currently permitted to do that you are against? Future tasks can be dealt with in the future. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If it leaves flags for the fighters alone (flags for event locations I can take or leave), then no. I probably was a bit hasty before. Objection to deployment withdrawn. Beansy (talk) 05:05, 15 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 4" 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 4" 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.[3] 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)
          • How is a book like an MMA organization or fighter? That these events take place within the framework of an organization does not make them akin to chapters in a book any more than NASA missions taking place within NASA makes them chapters in a book. To that extent it could be argued that a chapter in a book might be worthy of its own article if that chapter (in and of itself) altered the course of several notable peoples lives or was integral to the history of novelization, or was the first chapter to ever be written without the letter f, or was specifically ghost written by a very famous author who did not write the rest of the book. And those are only a few ways in which a single chapter might be worthy of note on it's own grounds. I see no reason why there shouldn't be the possibility for articles about sporting events that are of deep importance to that sport. Starting from a point of "This sort of thing will never be and can never be notable" seems unhelpfully hostile. Even if your own standards for why an MMA event article are impossibly high, it would be more helpful to lay them out to us for discussion and as one of many starting points for improving this project, than to continually point out what isn't good enough.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Thaddeus Venture, i think your getting bogged down in format and not focusing on the content. the thrust of what i'm trying to do with these guidelines is to protect the content and make the format (stand alone article vs omnibus) a secondary issue. a lot of people are turned off by the ongoing fighting, and some have even given up on contributing because they aren't sure if their work is going to be deleted or not. Kevlar (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
              • I'm sorry if it sounds that way I'm really not trying to push formatting decisions. Most of my worry is that if people like Kww cannot be convinced that any MMA events are notable, then whatever progress or decisions we make here will be rendered meaningless in the face of mass deletion battles. Editors/Admins who have led the charge to remove poor MMA articles from wikipedia need to be helping us develop the right standards. The argument that MMA is an inherently non-notable sport undermines this entire process. We need to hear from people on the other side of the isle as to what a high watermark is. What is a standard by which other things might be judged. I've already seen comments from several people here suggesting that the guidelines you've helped design are inherently not good enough to determine the creation of MMA event articles. If that's the case these people should be trying to make your guidelines better and more precise or we'll just keep spinning our wheels, in the false hope that we're making progress.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that you have misunderstood the reasons for the deletion of MMA event articles, it is nothing to do with notability, it is that one the whole they fall foul of the What Wikipedia is Not policy. I don't know of anyone who has said that "MMA is an inherently non-notable sport", what editors have said is that "MMA events are inherently non-notable" much the same as all other professional sports events are "inherently non-notable", the guidelines need to address this. Mtking ^(edits) 01:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thaddeus, I think it's sad that you could read what I have said on this page as saying that MMA is inherently non-notable. I haven't said that, and don't believe it. I indicated the hurdles it would take for any individual event to warrant an article, and indicated that I believe it's likely that no individual event will ever overcome them. You seem to think that MMA notability is somehow closely linked to notability for individual events, and it's not. You need to step back a little bit and ask yourself why you believe that when a collection of bouts gets packaged together that it's the package that needs an article instead of the fighters and the sport.—Kww(talk) 02:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the pity that goes a long way to soothing my soul. However, I misspoke (typed) I didn't mean to write that you thought MMA was non-notable (I was being overly hasty), and that was not the thrust of my argument. What I meant to get across is that if people such as yourselves believe that there is no criteria by which any MMA event can be notable then this entire discussion is pointless other than saying that we should do some omnibusing. And at that point it could be argued that if no piece of that omnibus is in and of itself notable then it's hard to see what stops those from being deleted. You say you have set criteria that you believe no MMA event could ever meet, what are those criteria, I haven't seen them. You may have to excuse me for being overly thick, but I would like to see specifically what an MMA event will always fail to be. If we can't figure this out, (because it's pretty obvious no editors in the MMA community know or we wouldn't be having this discussion) then we are going to continue entrenched warring between a few people who think that the bulk of this should be deleted and a significant number of people scrambling to keep it. This is the time for specifics, and saying it doesn't meet x guideline isn't helpful, please make it clearer what the guideline is. Show us something similar that exists and that meets the criteria, even if it's not MMA (or even a sport) and show us why it meets it. I think that a portion of MMA events are important to this sports history and development, much as I think that the baseball game in which Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier is important, or the boxing match in which Jack Johnson won the heavyweight title is important. I think the "Thrilla in Manilla" is important, or the "Miracle on Ice". The people and organizations that were involved in these events were important as well, but those events carry a significance of their own that could and should be recorded. Things happened at those events and surrounding them that made them important beyond simply the athletes or the organizers. At what point is the quality line drawn?Thaddeus Venture (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• No pity, just sadness. Here's a sport where people have careers that are reported on, progressing through a series of fights in different weight classes to achieve titles. They fight in different leagues, and, I imagine, some of them have fought in multiple weight classes for multiple leagues. The leagues each have histories. The titles each have histories. The fighters each have histories. Several times a year, a group of fights are put together that don't really have any relationship to each other except that they are within the same league. People are in this enormous struggle to preserve individual articles about these nearly random groupings instead of focusing on how the information about the sport can be best represented. Nearly every aspect of MMA can easily sustain healthy, informative, policy-compliant articles except the individual events, for which it will always be a struggle. I just don't grasp why the effort is being so misapplied.—Kww(talk) 17:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Here is the definition of pity, just to help you out "The feeling of sorrow and compassion caused by the suffering and misfortunes of others." That pretty well sums up what you're doing, you're feeling sorry for my misunderstanding. And you still aren't addressing my point. Do you feel the same way about "The Miracle on Ice" or "The Thrilla in Manilla" as those could be said to to encompass the exact same "nearly random groupings". If you can't tell us what would be good enough then it's hard to give credence to your opinion of what isn't good enough. At some point saying "these events will always struggle" just becomes white noise because we can't see what they're struggling to be. What events do you think matter and why? That's all I'm asking.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Those are the equivalent of individual bouts, and I think that you would have a better chance of demonstrating that the coverage of on individual bout exceeded the threshold of routine coverage of bouts than you would of demonstrating that the coverage of an event exceeded the routine coverage of events. Looking over the hot-spots of coverage in the MMA world, aren't those hot-spots of coverage concentrated on individual bouts, not on the event where the bout occured?—Kww(talk) 18:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• That is a very helpful point, certainly something worth considering. It makes me wonder then, if coverage of an event would be considered equivalent of omnibusing the bouts in that event while giving weight to whichever bout was most covered/notable. Would that make sense? Essentially you are covering the bouts in an omnibus format by event (and the events in an omnibus when no especially noteworthy interaction exists) and providing heavily sourced prosaic background for those bouts/incidents/etc. that proved exceptionally notable within that omnibus. i.e. you could write an article about "greasegate" and include coverage of the entire card (and have it redirect from UFC 94) and it's blurb in the omnibus. Is that a format that seem more reasonable to you.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have a hard time understanding what the value added by the dual level would be.—Kww(talk) 20:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• That's ok it at least sounds like we can agree that omnibusing the current event articles is a good idea, and creating articles around singular fights or incidents is a fair idea. That's a start and not far off what's being proposed.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 07:58, 16 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)

• Oppose per Stand Alone Event article requirement #3. It is a completely unreasonable requirement that is not required for any other type of article on Wikipedia. I think every single bullet point for it is ill-conceived and I'll explain why:
  • 1.) Five sources? This is frankly absurd and has no precedent whatsoever. No other Wikipedia guideline for notability requires that five sources are necessary to establish notability. This is my biggest gripe and I think it should be tossed out altogether. Cross referencing is necessary, but requiring five cross references is overkill and unachievable for probably 99% of Wikipedia articles.
  • 2.) Official pages are a primary sources, so per Wikipedia guidelines they're not reliable. There are already Wikipedia-wide standards that require third-party sources.
  • 3.) I believe this is unnecessary since for notability purposes the sources should be third-party anyway. If an article's sources are entirely from the UFC, then it's most likely not notable. But if it's source include the UFC, Sherdog, and ESPN then it's most likely notable.
  • 4.) I don't see the point of this article. In fact, I see it as a tool to prevent a notable event from having an article. For example, UFC 1 was a notable event yet I'd guess that it'd be hard to find sources online that are dated within the year of the actual event.

Drop requirement #3 altogether and I think we have something workable here. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 03:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Version 2

please note, there is now a "Version 4" below.

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

please note, there is now a "Version 4" below.

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)

• quick comment on omnibus articles. i think the much disliked 2012 in UFC or whatever it was called failed partly because we were trying to shoehorn all of the individual articles into a single article. from what i remember there wasn't much done to find a new working format for the omnibus. i do remember that before the omnibus articles all results listings looked like they still do in UFC 145 and in the omnibus someone developed the template used in UFC 146, which i think is much better. given some work i think the omnibus articles could work. plus if a full year gets to be too un-manageable, we can just propose format for breaking up into half a year or whatever. that option is already there in the guidelines.Kevlar (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose per Stand Alone Event article requirement #3. This revised version is better than the first version, yet:
  • 1.) It still has the unreasonable and unprecedented requirement of five sources to establish notability.
  • 2.) I believe this is an unnecessary requirement.
  • 3.) This is a good requirement. If any article in Wikipedia is only covered by trade sources (in this case, strictly MMA-only sources), it doesn't mean the event isn't notable to MMA itself but it's probably not notable enough for a standalone Wikipedia article.
  • 4.) Good requirement, and I'm pretty sure it's been a part of previous requirements. What troubles me is that what constitutes lasting effect for MMA should be defined so that there's a definitive list. Doing this would reduce the occurrence (and ambiguity) of people arguing over what constitutes "lasting effect" for any given MMA event article.

The only work I see needing to be done here is dropping the first bullet point and more clearly defining point 4. I'd suggest that title bouts of any weight class and fights that are explicitly meant to determine a number one contenders would be the short list of "lasting effects". As with any sport, anything outside a title fight would need to have demonstrable significance if it's not self-evident. An example of this: UFC 157 should be automatically significant since it will feature the first female bout in the UFC's history. (Plus, that will also be a title fight.) --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 03:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would specificity oppose any guideline that had an inbuilt claim that a routine title fight in and of it's self made the event of lasting significance. Title fights are to the UFC totally routine, they must have one in nearly all there PPV events. Mtking ^(edits) 03:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I would find it tenuous to argue that a title fight is "routine". This is not boxing with ~55 Champions across 17 weight divisions (no exaggeration). The UFC, which now promotes in all 8 competitive weight divisions recognized by the Unified Rules of MMA in accordance with the Association of Boxing Commissions, has 9 world champions (including one Interim Champion) and has had all of 10 total world title fights in the past 12 months, and that represents all recognized mens world title fights in every weight division in the entire sport of MMA (even if you include consensus female champions by including other promotions, that number only jumps to 14). I'd really have to reject the notion that such fights are "routine." Beansy (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Lets look at the evidence shall we, every UFC numbered event scheduled for 2012 (142 - 155) all 14 of them at some point had a scheduled "championship" fight, the very definition of what is routine for a UFC event. Mtking ^(edits) 08:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You are using 'UFC event' and 'UFC numbered event' as if they are interchangeable, but they are not. The numbered events are a subset of UFC events, and they are the ones that are positioned to be the major events. --SubSeven (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• You're still arguing that UFC numbered events and title fights aren't notable based on a interpretation of policy that's been shot down with reasonable points. Still. Byuusetsu (talk) 06:34, 18 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 as an individual TV episode? Most TV shows don't get articles for each episode, but Simpson episodes do. –BuickCenturyDriver 21:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The issue at hand is events, not fights, as no one is arguing for separate fight articles. UFC events each have around 11 fights per event these days, and virtually all have some sort of ramifications within their weight division (there are 8 competitive weight divisions internationally recognized in MMA). And yes, each UFC event is rather large in scope and up until the current conflict had been given its own article, even the lesser events. Pride FC (#1 promotion in the world for a majority of its existence) operated similarly in its heyday, as did the two top promotions that formed in the void in the Japanese market when Pride collapsed in 2007 from a Yakuza scandal (Sengoku aka World Victory Road and now defunct, and Dream, which folded but recently was resuscitated under new ownership, but no one expects it to do more than one or two events a year). A promotion like Bellator will have more like 8 or 9 events per show and usually several of those fights are filler with just local talent not under contract (as opposed to already-contracted talent placed on a card to appeal to a local audience), but Bellator is already omnibussed by season. Strikeforce was closer to Bellator's model in the past in that respect, just with bigger names, but now uses its own talent exclusively. So, uh, I hope that answers your question somehow. Beansy (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment As I said before, this needs more attention on the lasting effect and significance test, the requirement for "At least 5 different reliable sources" is redundant to item 1 (every top MMA event will get result coverage in RS) points 3.4 and 4 need to be combined into one, pointing out that "Stand alone event articles must demonstrate lasting effect using well-sourced prose, explaining how this event significantly impacted the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career, and not just merely a list of stats using citations from a range of diverse sources.". I also think so examples of such lasting effect should be included for example Greasing controversy at UFC 94 and what is not lasting effect for example the result of any given fight, a failed drugs test or a cancelled fight. Mtking ^(edits) 00:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

is this closer to what you would like to see?

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 reliable Secondary sources where the event is the main topic of the source material. WP:GNG, WP:PSTS "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 using well-sourced prose, explaining how this event significantly impacted the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career, and not just merely a list of stats using citations from a range of diverse sources. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:SPORTSEVENT

Kevlar (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In short, Yes, I think some examples must be listed so as to help those trying to determine what is considered lasting effect, as it has in the past been argued that as Fighter A won that had a lasting effect on his career so therefore the event has lasting effect; as this is clearly not what we are looking for some guidance is need. Mtking ^(edits) 02:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In a comment earlier I listed what I think are good guidelines for lasting effect in an MMA context: I'd suggest that title bouts of any weight class and fights that are explicitly meant to determine a number one contenders would be the short list of "lasting effects". As with any sport, anything outside a title fight would need to have demonstrable significance if it's not self-evident. An example of this: UFC 157 should be automatically significant since it will feature the first female bout in the UFC's history. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 03:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No to the idea of a stand alone article on any event with a title fight, that is a back door to all UFC numbered events are worthy of an article. Mtking ^(edits) 03:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that all UFC numbered events being inherently notable is something that has been taken off the table. Beansy (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it has by Mtking, who has repeated the same points no matter what and ignored community consensus. Byuusetsu (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mtking is not ignoring community consensus, he is helping us to reach a consensus. With Mtkings assistance we will be building a list a guidelines that if followed will put an end to MMA article deletions, as the content will start and stay on the most appropriate page. either a stand alone article or an omnibus. if you believe Mtking is a "deletionist" why would he help us define a list that is specifically designed to protect content? i have not yet heard Mtking say (i'm not saying it hasn't been said, i just haven't seen it) "the results of this MMA match should not be on wikipedia". this is my prediction. if we accept these guidelines, and work to make omnibus articles great, in 1 years time omnibus articles will have some great ideas and content that would not be available in stand alone articles. how did zuffa buying the UFC change the nature of MMA, what about the adoption of the unified rules, what about pride being dissolved? an omnibus article will give us the opportunity to to explore that context as they relate to the events that surrounded them. both article styles are good, both have advantages, but we are so caught up in the two options are "have article" or "content not on wikipedia", let's change that to is the content better represented in it's own article, or is it better represented in an omnibus. Kevlar (talk) 07:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Kevlar, Mtking has been very forthright and helpful to this discussion in responding to ideas with places he feels need clarification, and offering some ideas of his own as to how this process can be further structured. We cannot start from a position of "All type x events are notable and get their own articles." We have to establish clear spinout criteria, independent of false constructs (i.e. events must have a number) and if events meet that criteria they can then be spun out, many of those may be numbered events, many may include title fights, but these things should be entirely secondary.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, one of the many issues plaguing MMA coverage on the site in the first place was that content was deleted without any attempt to back it up. Also, considering articles like the Fox 2 card were deleted, it does not appear that past attempts to define notability were made in good faith, or with any sort of logic or consistency Byuusetsu (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC) .

• • Support this revised version. I think Kevlar's proposal is the closest to a strong guideline that I see proposed here. As I've said in some other comment during this discussion (which I entered late, sorry) I think it would be very helpful to explicitly specify what constitutes a lasting effect in an MMA event context in order to remove as much ambiguity as possible. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 03:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Version 3

please note, there is now a "Version 4" below.

Version 3

MMA Event Notability MMA events will make use of omnibus articles, and stand alone event articles. Event Omnibus Articles Omnibus articles will be created for both Top Tier and Second Tier promotions, they will compile a year (Example: 2012 in UFC), or season (Example: Bellator: Season One) of events. Consensus must be reached before new omnibus formats are introduced. Upcoming events will be placed in omnibus articles with coordinating redirects created and protected. Multiple 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. 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 Primarily, stand alone event articles will be from Top Tier MMA promotions. Consensus must be reached before events from Second Tier promotions are split out. Stand alone event articles must cite reliable, independant, secondary sources where the event is the main topic of the sourced material. MMA focused websites can not dominate the list of sources. Even when they are reliable and independant, we must avoid a walled garden. Stand alone event articles must demonstrate lasting effect. This is done by providing well-sourced prose, explaining how this event significantly impacted the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career using citations from a range of diverse sources. They can not merely be a list of stats. A good example of demonstrating lasting effect would be UFC 94's section on the "St-Pierre greasing controversy". Details like match outcomes or routine event hiccups like fighters not making weight, failed drug tests, or canceled fights, are too common to constitue lasting effect.

please note, there is now a "Version 4" below.

Continued Discussion

Neutral

• Comment: No argument with Event Omnibus Guidline 2 or Stand Alone Event Guidelines 1 2, or 4b. However, really have to disagree with waiting until an event has taken place to split it off. Hell, considering that it's mostly just UFC events this applies to, the small number of upcoming events at any given time shouldn't be an issue. I would say simply wait until notability can be established to a satisfactory degree, or if there must be a cut-off period maybe wait until 2 weeks out but not at the expense of existing events (and frankly this is still going to be an utter mess). Also, the link given for "well sourced prose" contained nothing on "well sourced prose", and it's an arbitrary standard not applied to almost any other sport. Also disagree with omnibus-by-year-or-season for certain promotions for reasons pointed out repeatedly: the UFC just runs too many events for that which is what happens when you have 80-85% of the world's top talent under one umbrella. That's well over 300 fights a year. If absolutely all UFC events must have an omnibus form, break them into quarters. Furthermore unless notability can be established for all UFC events or all UFC events of a certain category (like numbered events), I wouldn't "split off" those events, I'd keep versions of the article in the omnibus as well (ditto for any other promotion). Also, please stop incorrectly referencing a "walled garden." It's an incorrect application of the phrase and the idea that MMA is WP:WG when it brings in so many accomplished athletes from other sports makes the argument laughable when it has been used in the past. In addition to that, I agree there should be diversification beyond MMA websites but if an article contains a sufficient amount of reliable sources that aren't MMA websites, if it happens to have three dozen references from (reliable) MMA websites as well I don't think that would be an issue. Demonstrating lasting effect is fine, at least for events over two years old, but doing it to the degree of UFC 94 is just an unreasonably high bar (in addition to the greasing thing that was the only superfight between UFC champions from two different weight divisions in UFC history). Perhaps a second example would be nice (and not like UFC 100 or UFC 1 plz). Okay, I have to work and I'm not going to get any sleep if I continue writing. I'd probably go into a fugue state and write about 20 paragraphs at this rate. Beansy (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we have to reasonably expect that there is no way we can develop an RfC that will be passed or recognized if it involves saying all type x events will be kept. And at least in my mind, UFC 94 and UFC 1 are reasonable comprable, as well as the event where Randleman KO'd himself, or the Tito Shamrock event, etc. I don't think using UFC 94 is overly harsh, but other examples might help. Other than that I think the plan is to develop a consensus for omnibusing UFC events as soon as this is completed. But this is all in my mind, so who knows.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Beansy, you make some very good points. 1) you are 100% correct that i mistakenly linked to WP:RS when i intended to link to WP:SPORTSEVENT, this is now fixed in v3.1. 2) I also agree that other omnibus formats will need to be created, i just felt it would be better to start with two basic formats and work from there. i assure you that i will support the creation of other omnibus formats, i'm just using all my 'wikipedia energy' on getting these guidelines as polished as possible as they really seem to have a chance of being accepted. 3) i have re-worded the walled garden section of the guidelines. i really do not intend to diminish the value of MMA websites, they are fantastic. my only point is that we need to make sure each article has diverse sources. it would really set us back to put a bunch of work into these articles only to have all the links come from sherdog, mmaweekly, mmajunkie... when there are plenty of sources now reporting on mma. the foundation of our articles can be made so much stronger with a wider range of sources. 4) UFC 94 is not the bar, it's not the minimum. it's one of the shining stars, something to work toward. i re-wrote that section but did not include extra examples, i guess my point with that section is just that saying "fighter X won the title, this event is notable" doesn't help in the AfD process. citing sources, and writing prose about how "fighter X winning the title" effected things in the long term does. 5 lastly the only thing i really disagree with you on would be splitting articles before they happen. i guess i agree that they can be split a few days before the event if all the other criteria are meet. i just feel like upcoming events are something that routinely cause AfD's. right now UFC 158 is only 90 days away. if it were in an omnibus, what would splitting it out a week or two really do? it's only time, and it really seems to be something that bugs folks supporting AfDs, i guess i'd rather compromise and let the articles incubate a bit extra. Kevlar (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That is all more or less fair, and I appreciate your diplomacy. I think we still disagree on point #5, but it is fair that articles should incubate before spinning off. I never supported article creation before a name, date, and venue had been established, but I suppose it would be fair to wait until the main-card is more or less crystalized, even if it is always subject to change. There usually is a big difference in the known details of a card 90 days out and 14 days out. One problem with waiting until the conclusion of an event is usually that's when we get a bunch of vandals on these things. While sometimes the vandalism can be amusing or cute, it's more often idiotic and always a disruption. Now if we wait until the events themselves happen, whether there are official guidelines to wait 48 hours or not, I would envision seeing vandals being the ones to create the articles and that opens up a whole new can of worms. So yeah, at least five days out please (hell we sometimes get vandalism even when someone fails a weigh-in), and more for articles that show overwhelming notability like UFC 157 where they'd remain notable even if cancelled. Off-topic: damn I am spending waaay too much time on all this :P Beansy (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

your concerns about vandals is very valid, but point 2 of the first part of the proposal says that the redirects created would be protected so vandals would be limited only to the omnibus page, this I suspect would be semi-protected anyway (not allowing IP edits) so in reality removing the opportunistic fun that vandals can have. Mtking ^(edits) 01:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Version 3.1

MMA Event Notability MMA events will make use of omnibus articles, and stand alone event articles. Event Omnibus Articles Omnibus articles will be created for both Top Tier and Second Tier promotions, they will compile a year (Example: 2012 in UFC), or season (Example: Bellator: Season One) of events. Consensus must be reached before new omnibus formats are introduced. Upcoming events will be placed in omnibus articles with coordinating redirects created and protected. Multiple 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. 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 Primarily, stand alone event articles will be from Top Tier MMA promotions. Consensus must be reached before events from Second Tier promotions are split out. Stand alone event articles must cite reliable, independent, secondary sources where the event is the main topic of the sourced material. Sources can not exclusivly come from MMA focused websites. Even when they are reliable and independent, we must avoid a walled garden. Stand alone event articles must demonstrate lasting effect. This is done by providing well-sourced prose, explaining how this event significantly impacted the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career using citations from a range of diverse sources. They can not merely be a list of stats. No event details supersede the above guidelines. Title fights, match outcomes or routine event hiccups like fighters not making weight, failed drug tests, or canceled fights, are too common to constitute lasting effect. Lasting effect is can not be implied it must be spelled out, a good example of demonstrating lasting effect would be UFC 94's section on the "St-Pierre greasing controversy".

Kevlar (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I support this version. (not so much the extra is in the last point which I assume is a typo). In reply to Kevlar's point on splitting out before the event has happened I would have to agree, it would leave any stand alone article open to accusations of speculation; I am however willing to go on record and say that should it be obvious that prior to the event a significant and lasting effect will be associated with this event, and it was well sourced with diverse sources, I would support the use of the {{split}} procedure to obtain consensus to do an early spit. Mtking ^(edits) 10:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Version 4

Version 4 - possibly ready for RfC

MMA Event Notability MMA events will make use of omnibus articles, and stand alone event articles. Event Omnibus Articles Omnibus articles will be created for both Top Tier and Second Tier promotions, they will compile a year (Example: 2012 in UFC), or season (Example: Bellator: Season One) of events. Consensus must be reached before new omnibus formats are introduced. Upcoming events will be placed in omnibus articles with coordinating redirects created and protected. Multiple 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. 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 Primarily, stand alone event articles will be from Top Tier MMA promotions. Consensus must be reached before events from non-Top Tier promotions are split out. Stand alone event articles must cite reliable, independent, secondary sources where the event is the main topic of the sourced material. Sources can not exclusivly come from MMA focused websites or sources. Even when they are reliable and independent, we must avoid a walled garden. Stand alone event articles must demonstrate lasting effect. This is done by providing well-sourced prose, explaining how this event significantly impacted the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career using citations from a range of diverse sources. They can not merely be a list of stats. Continued coverage after the event is also a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. No event details supersede the above guidelines. Simply stating that something happened at an event, (title fights, match outcomes or routine event hiccups like fighters not making weight, failed drug tests, or canceled fights) does not constitute lasting effect. To do so, well-sourced prose needs to be written on how that something had a lasting impact on the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career. Pointing out that "UFC 94 had a title fight: Georges St-Pierre vs B.J. Penn" does not demonstrate lasting effect. UFC 94's section on the "St-Pierre greasing controversy" is well-sourced prose, and does.

Continued Discussion

Support

• Support Mtking ^(edits) 03:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
• --LlamaAl (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose Setting the ridiculous standards some people want for MMA articles into policy might get rid of the edit wars, but it will still be disastrous for coverage of MMA events, it will still go against many valid points made in Article for deletion disputes and elsewhere, and it will generally make the site worse to use for MMA information without improving the site in general. It's also pretty much everything that editors who have been acting in questionable faith have wanted. Is this what's considered to be compromise here? Byuusetsu (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What parts exactly do you disagree with ? Mtking ^(edits) 07:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• My goal with these guidelines is simply to take all the other guidelines/policy and compile the relevant parts into one concise section as they pertain to MMA event articles. I am very much willing to make changes and or listen to feedback. Editors from all sides are starting to see some consensus here and i would really like to bring your ideas to the table. Would you be able to give some more specific examples of why you Oppose this proposal? Kevlar (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess the only part i Oppose is that stand alones have to come from top tier and i think there are a few events out there which don't apply. I realise it says 'primarily'. for instance, Bodogfight Clash of nations had Vladimir Putin and Berlusconi in attendance. Fedor vs Lindland was the headline. Lets just say it's next on my list after King of the Streets. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My continuing issue is that there's a massive burden of proof placed on UFC events to be individually notable. The UFC on FX 6 deletion review had plenty of good points made and there was a large consensus that the article was worth keeping before the event occurred. Having to go through a process just to prove that numbered events can be split into their own page is still a draconian standard that most people clearly don't support, so I don't see how there's a consensus there in any way. Byuusetsu (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose in its current form. Some parts are good, but quite critically, "lasting effect" needs to be elaborated on and clarified. Furthmore the "well-sourced prose" link does nothing to clarify anything at all. If you want to illustrate that an event is still considered relevant via continued referencing over a year after it happened, that sounds well and good, but the way the current version is worded is not something I can agree with. It is too open to draconian interpretation and that will solve absolutely nothing. Beansy (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• thank you for the specifics. i will work on rewording/clarifying "lasting effect", see if i can better link "well-sourced prose". i really don't think the bar is as high as you are fearing it might end up. and there are a lot of different reasons an event could have lasting effect. Kevlar (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose for the reasons given by Byuusetsu and Beansy. I appreciate Kevlar's attempt to solve the problem we have, but this proposition seems almost custom made for creating UFC omnibuses. The last time we had such an omnibus, it created a major shitstorm. I don't see how this would result in anything different. Making some crystal clear rules on what is a notable event, such as having a title (or interim title) fight by an athlete who is in a consensus top-10 ranking, would make everything much easier. Evenfiel (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I think the following should be removed as either redundant or not necessary. A link to WP:NEVENT should be included in the guideline as well.

• This is implied Consensus must be reached before new omnibus formats are introduced.
• no reason to protect them and protected.
• I don't think events necessarily need to have taken place, so it should not be absolutely required. split out into stand alone articles only after they have taken place and meet the criteria ... → split out into stand alone articles only if they meet the criteria ...
• Again, implied by the fact that there is a consensus-based guideline. Consensus must be reached before events from non-Top Tier promotions are split out.
• This is not really based on policy, although it alludes to WP:NEVENT Sources can not exclusivly come from MMA focused websites or sources. Even when they are reliable and independent, we must avoid a walled garden.
• This should more directly come from NEVENT, or just link to NEVENT instead. Stand alone event articles must demonstrate lasting effect. This is done by providing well-sourced prose, explaining how this event significantly impacted the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career using citations from a range of diverse sources. They can not merely be a list of stats. Continued coverage after the event is also a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance.
• does not constitute lasting effect. To do so, well-sourced prose needs to be written on how that something had a lasting impact on the sport, the promotion, or the fighters career. → does not demonstrate notability. To do so, well-sourced prose needs to be written demonstrating the events notability beyond routine coverage.

--Odie5533 (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

• Moving to neutral — for the concerns raised by Byuusetsu and Beansy. Poison Whiskey 17:41, 21 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. (the below list has been updated for "version 4") INSERTED EDIT: No it really hasn't. Also earlier votes only applied to a particular version and as of this edit the current count is 1 support and 2 oppose to Version 4.Beansy (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC).

• Support - Beansy, CaSJer, Courier00, DefGrappler, I remember halloween, Kevlar, LlamaAl, Mkdw, Mtking, Nintendude64, Oskar Liljeblad, Poison Whiskey, and Thaddeus Venture
• Oppose - Uzma Gamal
• Only Commented - BuickCenturyDriver, Byuusetsu, Dennis Brown, Dream Focus, Evenfiel, Hasteur, Kww, Scottywong, Silver seren, SubSeven, 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.
  • If we polish it now and get it to a point that a strong consensus accepts it, we'll put it through a RfC (for process sake) to enact it as Standard Operating Policy for WP:MMA. At some point we've got to neutrally (and dispasionately) consider the articles we have so far and create the year articles (and apply the standard to previous articles) so we can demonstrate to the community at large that we're attempting to be a responsibile project. Hasteur (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, if this passes that will only be the first step. implementing it will also need to be done carefully so things don't just break down and people don't retreat back to their trenches. Kevlar (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This is why I think an adequate amount of time should be given to implement the article changes. Amnesty for articles of a certain age or for top tier organization events that are over 10 years old are also things to consider (I think the only promotions I specifically argued for all or majority stand-alone articles were the UFC, PrideFC, EliteXC, and Strikeforce, and come February only the UFC will still be promoting new events). Like, I don't think someone should be able to delete all the Sengoku articles a week after an RfC is passed because the remaining members of WP:MMA haven't gotten around to omnibussing it yet. I would ask for 3 months minimum for second-tier omnibusses (and more for something like the UFC or Pride). In order to preserve content, the omnibusses need to be in place for articles that don't meet the new guidelines before they're eligible for deletion, and that's going to take some time. Beansy (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't intend to start tearing through these articles as soon as the RFC is finished. The plan (at least in my head) is to start at the beginning of the UFC events, creating the yearly index form the ledes (which should be a summary of the event and why it's notable) of that year's events and then taking a look at each event individually to tag it (if appropriate) as failing the consensus. I'll then open a talk page section explaining what concerns I have regarding the event so that they can be corrected. After a reasonable time (1 month or so) if the concerns are not resolved, I'd raise a concern at WT:MMA asking for attention on the concerns regarding the event. After a reasonable time has passed from the second attempt to get improvement (and failed) I'd probably put it up for merge/redirect (at Proposed "contentious" mergers) based on the consensus and the fact that attempts have been made for improvement to the stand alone article without improvement. In my mind I think that no more than 4~6 should be proceeding through this at any one time to give MMA researchers an opportunity to improve without the "en masse" concern breathing down their necks.

TLDR:1 month period at the individual article to improve, 1 month at WT:MMA to improve, then propose a contentious merger.

Thoughts? Hasteur (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've put together a start of what I invision the page looking like at User:Hasteur/List of UFC Events (Pre 1996) Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: your example page. I appreciate the effort, and like that they link to the stand alone articles and focus on critical aspects, but event table results I think would be absolutely critical. Furthermore I would probably split up the UFC omnibusses by individual year from 1993 through 2004 (and then semi-annual omibusses after that and quarterly omnibusses after that), maybe including 1993 in the same page as 1994 as only UFC 1 took place then, but UFC 1 is undoubtedly going to retain a standalone article in my opinion, so I could take or leave that. Doing it by year limits those omnibuses to between 3 and 7 events (3 would only be for 1994, when the sport was still rapidly evolving and still basically in its "human cockfight" stage), which I think would be fair for the omnibus component. The boom period started in 2005 and there were 10 events that year, including the first Ultimate Fighter Finale, which is where most people trace the genesis of North America's MMA boom period to (which has spread out quite a bit internationally). Beansy (talk) 06:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I left the results blocks out because, in my mind, those articles are safe from deletion because they have enough content to be stand alone. In that case I think the "executive summary" is enough to describe the high level events of the page, leaving the individual articles to explain more (and give the results). I'll put together an example of what I see a more recent UFC "Annual" (that includes stand alone articles and "sheltered" ones). I chose Pre-1996 so that there were multiple events sumarized together. Hasteur (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: Does anybody have a concrete (reliable) source for the "alternates (replacements) were required to win a pre-tournament bout to qualify for the role of an alternate." rule introduced in UFC4? That's a significantly unusual change that could qualify for a "Did You Know" hook. Obviously we need to carefully plan it/the article we include the hook for, but it would be a great way to focus positive interest on the article space Hasteur (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, off the top of my head, I think it was announced on the broadcast, which is available on home video. I don't know if that counts, and I could be wrong. I'm sure there are book references (Jonathan Snowden's Total MMA maybe). Dave Meltzer has also gone over the evolution of the rules multiple times in the Wrestling Observer Newsletter, although those are not publicly available. Anyway I'm not sure if that actually was ever an official rule, more just a rule of thumb from event to event (no one wanted a repeat of UFC 3). Anyway alternate bouts definitely have been an important and practical part of MMA tournaments in general ever since then, even if one-night tournaments were made almost extinct in North America under the Unified Rules, which was done for the sake of making it a proper sport (a notable exception to one-night tournaments in North American MMA would be Strikeforce Challengers 10, which unfortunately no longer has a Wikipedia article. Strikeforce specifically worked with the Arizona state athletic commission to do a one-night mini-tournament with four women plus an alternate bout with two more, using shorter rounds as a trade-off for the commission.) Beansy (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You are forgetting about Jorge Santiago and his MW Strikeforce tourney win. That was the real last important tournament. Women's mma is a joke. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Strikeforce:_Four_Men_Enter,_One_Man_Survives

@Hasteur: hmmm..... look, the UFC articles specifically I think are going to need a bit more time because I think the stances of people in the two camps are farther apart on that. I think where most people on either side aren't too far apart is omnibusses for second-tier organizations (as well as second-tier events for Strikeforce and EliteXC, and maybe lowest level UFC events by category), and redundant omnibusses for top-tier organizations whether standalone articles also exist or not. I almost feel like we should start with that, and leave things like UFC numbered events and PrideFC for later. And um, just for second-tier organizations, 2 months total might be sufficient, if that's a component of your suggestion? I don't know. With the editing group we have now, processing 4-6 at a time or maybe even a dozen isn't unreasonable, but even that would take quite a while. What I've found most difficult in finding references to establish notability isn't finding news articles for major events, as there are a million of those. It's just that over 90% are from MMA websites, and a lot of what's left is from the sporting press which seems to be in a gray area of disagreement (I would argue that full articles from months in advance should not be considered "routine", and I know that some folks would argue differently). There are plenty of sources to be found to establish relevancy, particularly when book and foreign language sources are included, but you have to wade through an awful lot of repetitive MMA website articles and outright fluff, and some of the good stuff is harder to obtain, particularly for older events (I don't personally have a collection of MMA books; a lot of older sources would require using a non-public periodical database, like Lexis Nexis or JSTOR). So yeah, that takes time. Maybe start with establishing omnibus guidelines for second-tier promotions and certain categories of events from Top Tier promotions, and doing a separate RfC for the rest after that? It seems like we could probably obtain at least a consensus agreement on part of this conflict with that. Also I think the early UFC events.Beansy (talk) 06:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your proposition is quite sensible, but since the deletionists' aim is to get rid of the UFC articles, I doubt they'll accept it. Evenfiel (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thought i should note that some of the discussion about some of the changes took place on both my talk page, and Mtking's talk page, much thanks to Mtking for the assistance and suggestions. i've also asked for guidance from Dennis Brown, Kww, and Scottywong on their talk pages as to how to move forward. It's looking like a RfC might be in order, i would really like to bring Uzma Gamal back into the conversation before, but it looks like an RfC will take 30 days, so they should have plenty of time to voice concerns during that time. the main reason i'm posting this is that i want everyone involved to have easy access to the full conversation, i don't want people to feel like they are missing part of it. any suggestions or guidance is very much appreciated!! Kevlar (talk)

Some Suggestions: I think the two camps are closer on omnibuses for second-tier promotions than on the standalone articles for top-tier promotion. So I would propose this be done in two stages, or more specifically, two successive RfCs. The easier stuff would be first, in its own RfC. Keep in mind that WP:MMA has already sacrificed a hell of a lot in the name of compromise, in my opinion. Anyway I would request that all Strikeforce Challengers shows be restored for omnibussing by year as that content is outright deleted right now, and ditto all UFC on Fuel shows. So, maybe restore those lost articles for oh, a month? They must be combined within that timeframe. The only exception that I would consider an inherently standalone article from this category I would consider UFC on Fuel shows that conclude a reality show (Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson is the loan one so far), and the main information for any such standalone show would be duplicated in the omnibus (this show be true across all omnibuses in my opinion). There is lost content that needs to be restored. Note that I am not saying title matches make something inherently notable (although I'm not not saying that either). For instance I would accept UFC on Fuel 7: McDonald vs. Barao, to be stored in an omnibus. I would not accept it be deleted before that happens. Ditto UFC on Versus: Cruz vs. Johnson on both counts.

As it is I think we've reached a tentative agreement on the omnibussing of most second-tier promotions. I guess I could reiterate specific proposals on that? Also, for borderline deletion cases (keep in mind I'm not putting this there), there is a Deletion Proposal template that is far, far more helpful than outright nominating an article for deletion and it serves as a warning with specific requests for improvement. For cases that are not black & white, that needs to be used before an AfD in my opinion. I would also establish that particular events can split off an omnibus well in advance of the show, where they show particularly strong notability. For instance, UFC 157, and in this hypothetical example should the landmark fight Rousey vs. Carmouche get moved to a different card, the solo page is deleted should the card fail to reach notability standards and the content would still be preserved in the omnibus Also, I would think we need to establish some guidelines for omnibussing. Any event must have at least a basic infobox, which must included name, date, and location, at the very least, with a citation (a promotion's official webpage is an acceptable source I would think). Furthermore no new event can be added without those three things (I know that event names occasionally change but as long as the names are updated it shouldn't be an issue). Maximum time in advance for adding a new event I would limit to 6 months out (it'd be extremely rare that any event would have the three most basic details that far in advance anyway, so this point is almost moot. Almost). In addition, all omnibusses of events that have happened must include either a fight table with no professional fights omitted (amateur fights, which occurred on some pre-Zuffa Strikeforce prelim cards for instance, are take-or-leave), a tournament template where applicable, or at least a simple match listing with applicable weight divisions (obviously that's not going to apply for early MMA), and method, round, and time of victory. For upcoming shows, guidelines for listing matches in an Announced Matches section versus putting them in an official table remain the same as current WP:MMA guidelines. Anyway I need to get to sleep. I think waiting for a second RfC to focus more on the bigger areas of conflict concerning standalone events for top-tier promotions would be best. I'm sorry I can't be more articulate on that but I'm tired as heck right now. Beansy (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just one thing the guideline does not cover: What will happend when an omnibus article is too large to be editable? Do we split by quarter or month? DoDo we split out events based on the amount of information? Do we remove sections with information? With 7 full events an omnibus article is ~50K. User:Oskar Liljeblad/2012 in UFC is an example. See also WP:SIZERULE. Maybe the guideline should just say [..] year, month, or quarter [..] instead. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 18:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I really don't know what smaller omnibus articles will look like when/if they need to be split. i didn't want to make up my own examples so i just included "Consensus must be reached before new omnibus formats are introduced." i think it's inevitable that promotions that produce a large number of events a year will need to have more than one omnibus per year. i'm sorry i'm being so vague but i just don't know how they will be split, if it helps, i am willing to say that i will be a part of the conversation and can already support the idea of new omnibus formats, as the need arises. Kevlar (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read it carefully enough and missed the word format. So I think it's perfectly OK the way it is. Thanks for working on the RFC and I hope it will make guideline status. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• i am going to take a break from the above for a while. i think i underestimated how entrenched the "pro mma" side was. if anyone else wants to make changes feel free, i will also assist if constructive suggestions can be made. sorry if this turned out to be a big was of everyone's time. Kevlar (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WFA King of the Streets

This was actually the first fight event I ever saw. Some guys from the club invited me and it was amazing. ANyway i was saddened to see it was proposed that it be merged with the main WFA article. I took that off cuz it was over a year old and added some citations. Deletionists stay away from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WFA:_King_of_the_Streets .It is one of the most stacked cards to ever take place. It had Machida, Kampmann, Razor Rob, Bas Rutten, Ron Waterman (WEC champ, pride/ufc vet), Ricco Suave, Mayhem Miller, Rampage, Lindland. MAN. What a day for fighting that was. FYI I still maintain Lindland one. The only reason Rampage won is because he ended the third round on top. Otherwise Lindland almost put him to sleep with a guillotine. Lindland is hard! PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet, at least in my mind this is exactly the sort of thing that should be omnibused. The only reason not to would be if something of particular note to MMA also happened surrounding that card. Was this a notable fighters first, or last fight in MMA, did WFA leave a lasting mark on MMA because of this card. Was the location/event special in any way other than it had a lot of notable fighters involved. If not I don't see why it can't be listed in an omnibus with its results and a brief overview of the event, and you can still remember how awesome it was.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thaddeus beat me to it. I was writing this when he posted. Look, I sympathize, but this is not an internal MMA discussion, or a message board. This is not the place for this. WFA had all of three events, and in order to adhere to guidelines designed to save UFC events from getting outright deleted without accessible back-up (unless you know Portuguese), I informally proposed above that those three merge together into a single event article. This was in-between a ton of other proposals I made for specific promotions. The promotion itself would still have a separate article. The article for WFA events would still have the content of all three. This has been an 18-month war across all MMA events and some other MMA content on Wikipedia, so this goes way beyond all that. I think what I proposed would be fine and this really didn't need its own section. Beansy (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It had only four events... seems fair to merge all into the organization's article and keep the events' pages as redirects to the sections. Poison Whiskey 22:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I really think an article for the promotion and a separate one for the events would be more user-friendly and be completely in line with every other omnibus proposed. Keep in mind each individual event would need multiple sections covering it. Ditto Affliction I suppose. This is kind of a silly thing to be spending time on though considering everything else at the moment. Beansy (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• This is the exact thing i believe the new guidelines protect. If you are concerned about the content of this article, you should breathe a sigh of relief because it should not be hard to make the case that the WFA is a defunct second tier promotion, and the article would be merged into an omnibus article. without the guidelines, i would guess that it's only a matter of time before all of the WFA events are put up for AfDs. Kevlar (talk)

Yes, It was former UFC Heavyweight champion Bas Ruttens final MMA appearance. KIng of the streets should stay as per Thaddeus' requirement that it have a notable fighter have his last mma appearance there. Bas is a legend and this final beatdown he gave to warpath is his legacy. I'm honored to have seen his final fight live. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The event was also mired in controversy because of Kimo failing a drug test days prior. So the opponent got switched to warpath at the last minute. To compound the matter Rutten failed his pee test after too. This was also the last fight for Machida and Rampage before thir contracts were bought by the UFC. we know what happened to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Then serious work needs to be done to improve the prosaic content of that article and to clearly show the lasting significance of it being Bas Rutten's last MMA fight, and the significance of Kimo's drug test failure. These sort of things bump the article forward, but they are arguments for consideration for a spinout not reasons to keep the article separate right now. As the article currently stands it contains a single paragraph with a single mention of drug test controversy, until much, much more information is gathered that's not enough. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree the article requires serious work. But that is no reason to be hasty and take away its individual merit. I added that stuff literally an hour ago or so. Patience please. Why is there this rush to condense and remove articles that are of obvious individual notability. You are right tho I should emphasise that it was the last time that UFC champ and King of Pancrase Bas Rutten (also notable as a tv personality) would step into the ring. And that he delivered his win via leg kicks in vintage fashion. Also:Rather than simply critisizing the prosaic content of the article, why not expand upon the seeds that have been planted in the article? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Because at this point I would still argue that it should be omnibused. It has points in it's favor, but it's largely a sidenote in MMA history as a whole. The current standpoint for all MMA event articles is that they are going to be omnibused unless incredibly definitive guidelines are met. Even as a big MMA fan I don't have the interest in WFA 3 right now to put it at the top of my to do list. Currently no content that was displayed in that article would be lost in an omnibus of WFA articles, even if that article was only a subsection of the WFA organization's article itself.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

PortlandOregon97217, do you think we're the ones creating this situation? Myself, Thaddeus, Kevlar, and Poison Whiskey are part of the group that is trying to preserve MMA content across Wikipedia, in an ongoing war that has spanned well over a year now. If WFA's events are omnibussed then its contents would be preserved, and with proper redirects you'd barely notice the difference, and if you really wanted to expand on them you could always recreate old articles independently if you satisfied the new requirements once they are passed in an RfC motion (which would be for their protection). The latter would require establishing notability through citations, and that would be on you. If you did that for an individual event it'd probably be able to stand on its own and could be protected. I do think we need to have time simply to create the new omnibusses but still. Beansy (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Theres quite a bit of stuff out there on this event. I'm going to go one edit at a time but significant progress will be made. For what it's worth Kevin James from King of Queens and other big time movies was in Bas Ruttens corner too for the king of the streets. Sherdog has pictures which I guess I could cite but not use on there. http://www.mmaweekly.com/more-mma-on-espnews-as-bas-rutten-appears — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC) The newest Ref on King of the streets speaks of "Ricco being involved in dominating fighters at smaller events(minus the WFA)". SO this magazine does not classify WFA as a small organization. That is one notch in its favor. Plus there is a rampage article out there saying tha the WFA paid way more than pride. Lindland proves there is life outside the UFC too in the Portland Trib. article. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Could someone in the know take a glance and see how the King of the Streets article now stacks up against being deleted or omnibused please? I know I gotta fix the Loretta Hunt Ref (I botched it). PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• I have been asked to comment on this following a talk page post, my view is in line with Thaddeus Venture, having read the article (but not the sources) the article is missing any sort of claim to lasting significance and as such fails the inclusion criteria for the encyclopedia. I would support the omnibusing of the event. Mtking ^(edits) 10:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as notability goes the sources are anywhere from 2-4 years after the event and fighters involved were still noting it. Kampmann notes that after his win on that card the UFC had him fighting a month later. Lindland was interviewed a couple of years later and he was on record saying that his loss to rampage was his most bitter loss. Bitter means that the memory of it bothers him. That is a lasting impression on the fighter/s involved, and that is just talking Kampmann and Lindland. There is also an interview with another UFC fighter named Matt horwich on there who says (years after the fight) that one of his favorite fights was Lindland VS rampage cuz of the size difference. If something is somebodies favorite isn't that a lasting impression? replace impression with significance where neccessary. I believe one of the the criteria is lasting significance for the people involved who are notable, yes? Oh and the other lasting significance is that LIndland proved he could get a high payday somewhere besides the UFC. and that isn't original research as the title of the article is "Lindland finds life after the UFC" and his quote 'A lot better payday than in the UFC. There's life after the UFC, for sure,'. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This demonstrates that this event could and should be mentioned in all their individual wiki-articles as major points in their careers. However, it does not represent lasting significance to the MMA landscape. Was it the first event to establish big fight paydays in the US outside of the UFC? If so that should be most of your talking point, saying "Martin Kampmann fought there and then a month later" shows no significance to the sport of MMA. The two things I would focus on for that article if you feel like continuing to put work into it would be the impact of Bas Rutten's retirement from the sport (if there was any impact, which I'm not sure there was) and the impact of Matt Lindland getting a large fight purse fighting in the US and outside the UFC. If you could find articles that talk about how important those things were, they would be the cases to make, everything else is interesting, but not monumental to the narrative of MMA's history.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure i can prove one way or the other about the WFA payday without it being original research. At this point in time i think the article passes WP:SPORTSEVENT largely because of LA Times writer Adonde being present and writing an article about it. I disagree about your assessment of Kampmann's being in the UFC shortly after as not being notable to the sport. He is still in the UFC and regularly has big fights. I've got some more stuff to comb through and a razor rob interview to listen to. i pray he mentions king of the streets by name PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Comparable boxing articles

Quite randomly I typed in "amir khan vs" and came up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Khan_vs._Marcos_Maidana . How is it that this does not have the threat of a merger or deletion of some sort yet UFC on Fox does does? Is it because it is a boxing article? I think there are people out there who seem out to get MMA for whatever reason. Then there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Cotto_vs._Kelson_Pinto . All I can say is "who?" MMA is not getting a fair shake. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

there is far greater coverage of undercards on mma entries.

and im pro mma. i dont find that a conflict of interests with loving wikipedia.

a better argument is the wrestling coverage on wikipedia which lists exhaustively, every ppv and special wwe event since the hogan landed. its very easy to find obscure wrestlers too.

Flags (again)

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.

---

What's this nonsense about removing flags? I read the discussion above and there are some grave errors. UFC does pit nation against nation - see the past TUF seasons. The sports recommendation says it is OK to use flags for individuals in sporting events, even if those are not between countries. People will cheer for GSP because he is from Canada, Dos Santos because he's from Brazil, Alexander Gustafsson because he is from Sweden, and so on. The flags make the articles look good and easier to read. Almost every other international sport on Wikipedia will put flags in front of the athletes or whatever... Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC fighters do represent their countries. Commentators speak about the fighters' nationalities. If there is any doubt about the country for fighter, just look at UFC's official fighter stats and use the country noted for Fights Out Of. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG says "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" since for the most part MMA fighters do NOT represent national squad or team and there is no international sport governing body to set the rules it is not appropriate to use them. There are exceptions to this, for example the fights in UFC on FX: Sotiropoulos vs. Pearson being part of The Ultimate Fighter: The Smashes where there were two national teams. Mtking ^(edits) 09:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Mtking, you did not quote the whole sentence (from MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspersons): 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 (and it is not an exception to #Avoid flag icons in infoboxes). That non-sporting sense changes everything. Later it also says how to use flags appropriately in tables. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 09:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, your statement there is no international sport governing body is not correct. See http://immaf.org. Also see http://www.immaf.org/2012/04/ufc-sends-press-release-announcing-support-of-immaf/. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't follow your non-sporting sense comment, from what I can tell the UFC uses flags in fashion that indicates for the most part place of brith take for example Cung Le he is listed variously with a South Vietnam flag or even Vietnamese one. There is no representative nationality in the vast majority of MMA events, where are the national team selections like in athletics or in Davis Cup or Federation Cup tennis for example. The German MMA board does not pick which German fighter is going to fight at UFC 160, the UFC pics who is going to fight.

As for the International Mixed Martial Arts Federation, I stand corrected, however as it is less than a year old, and there is no indication that it has been recognised as such, nor do they actually claim to be a governing body they are not like for example IAAF, FINA, ICC, IRB or FIFA, for example there is also no indication that it has set up any international MMA events or competitions a common function of governing bodies. Mtking ^(edits) 10:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Cung Le is about as cherry picked an example as you can get. There aren't any other notable MMA fighters who were born in a country that no longer exists to my knowledge. Also IMMAF was founded specifically to do everything you are talking about with Zuffa's blessing, including obtaining IOC membership. That they have not accomplished that in a year is because very few such federations do. Anyway I would strongly encourage someone start an MOS flag RfC for all individual (non-team) sports, lest tennis and golf get caught up in this too without recourse, among a great many other sports that use flags on Wikipedia in the exact same manner as MMA (those are what, only the #1 and #2 most popular non-team sports in the world? Shall I add another 15 popular sports on top of that do the same thing? Formula One Racing? Judo?). Beansy (talk) 12:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can, please start such a RfC. Instead of applying an inconsistent policy to MMA, that would only settle things down for us. Evenfiel (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC 58 was billed as USA vs canada. The flags are very important. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the RfC close ? It says that in those cases it is appropriate. Mtking ^(edits) 10:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(consults google for "RFC") Hmm... sorry. I gotta get hip to the slang around here :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• http://nooooooooooooooo.com/ Kevlar (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we should go through and change all of the Armenian fighters flags who were born in the Armenian SSR to reflect this. Sorry, I was just mocking the people who change Cung Le's article. WHO CARES ABOUT FLAGS?! PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

http://i583.photobucket.com/albums/ss276/mike54147/Fight/genki-sudo-flag.jpg genki sudo flag^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.228.172 (talk) 11:53, 16 December 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.

Just a suggestion. MMA fans love wikipedia. Why not request a donation notice on mma sites?

This might be a bit of a crazy one, or somehow be a conflict of interests...but the entire mma community, from viewers to fighters use wikipedia a lot. i think we all know that. why not request a donation notice on the biggest mma sites as i imagine there would be a lot of people that would in good faith be happy to donate.

again, nothing should comprimise wikipedias integrity or neutrality, but im sure a lot of people would love to help pay for wikipedia as its chronicle of ufc events alone is such an invaluable tool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.228.172 (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly because the MMA community at large (at least as far as I know) would give us a bag of excrement and call that a very magnanimous donation. Hasteur (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• That was uncalled for :( When you, yourself, tried to off-wiki canvass, it went poorly. One of the reasons was your reluctance to answer questions. The whole situation got even more hostile. It's like you are, metaphorically speaking, pissing on an ant hill just to prove that ants are angry...

Regarding donations, it has been discussed already. Donations does not help this situation. It's not the bandwidth that is the problem, nor the size of the page, or number of hits.. It's all down to policy and how to make it work - for you. Mazter00 (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• WP:CANVAS has a very specific definition. Please cite which case you feel it qualified under or strike your assertions that I canvassed. My answers were there, but because they were not congruent to the MMA groupthink they were downvoted into oblivion (in contravention of Redetiquette). I went to extend a tentative olive branch and to dispell some of the outright lies that posters were making (Deleting for the lolz). Hasteur (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

hey, its just a suggestion. these pages get a lot of hits. the argument over notability is a bit silly. there are pages and pages on wwe events. likewise films and even individual episodes of tv series. i follow a lot of sports and can find individual handball and football teams (no such thing as soccer) from all over the globe. literally nothing is considered too small to feature.

whats real and positive is aside from the kids on sherdog, a lot of people watch mma and a lot of people value wikipedia for the fact its a source guide of the skeleton of modern mma (ufcs past and future). im sure the community at large would be more likely to donate than your favourite danish handball team.

sites such as sherdog get knock on traffic as soon as someone googles the letters u-f-c or b-r-o-c-k in the first place and land on a wikipage with a sherdog reference. people everywhere use wikipedia as a reference (rather than a sports page).

speaking of favourite danish handball teams, mine is aargus gf btw. they probably get attendances of 100 and the information on them is exhaustive. thanks be to wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarhus_Gymnastikforening

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.228.172 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is probably a decision the owners of Wikipedia should make, not us "little people". I suggest you contact Jimmy Wales with your suggestion. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

how does one do that? :D

seriously. the message is that its your site. wikipedia should be everyones site surely. fair enough that i should be saying this on an account i havent made, but wikipedia is an organic entity that features pages on obscure lithuanian handball teams. someone makes the page and it is there. ufc is not mma. they are two different things. but there are pages on wikipedia for 100000/0s of films, sports teams, and (it seems) literally every football (no such thing as soccer) team on the planet. there have been less than 200 ufcs and even with minor events, it adds up to a lot less space than wrestling in wwe. if a model is needed then i would suggest the wrestling one is best. "wwe" ppv events and special shows are a good approximation of ufc. the prominence of a major and some notable minor orgs is also a good mirror. numbered ufcs and pride should be sacrosanct tho.

and there is no animosity from me. wiki has a job to do. if wiki gets silly and complains that i call it wiki and tries to troll me, then its a little bit of a silly wiki, and thats a regression from its rep as one of the greatest inventions of mankind.

have fun people. thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.228.172 (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Ricci (fighter)

They are trying to push Ricci out of the boat. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring for the moment the issue with WP:CANVAS here, before everyone goes rushing over to the AfD and commenting, I urge you to take a moment and actually look that the single sourced article and to consider why WP has the WP:GNG. It is for a very good reason, without quality reliable sources that cover a subject, it is imposable to write a balanced article that is verifiable and so WP should not have one, this is especially true when the article is a WP:BLP. If you feel that WP should have an article then by all means !vote to keep it but try and do so only after you have added sources. Mtking ^(edits) 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect there are quit a few who would like Ricci pushed out of the boat to get rid of the whole walled garden atmosphere. It was not my intention to make people lean one way or the other. I was just notifying an intersted party as per WP:CANVAS. I'll try to avoid using colorful language in the future on serious matters like this in the future. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would disagree that WP:GNG is the issue, but Mike Ricci technically fails WP:MMANOT. He has two fights with top-tier organizations and needs three, and his article can be recreated when that happens. Also, walled-garden is not an issue in a sport with elite participants from a wide array of other sports where they also competed at the elite level themselves. It's downright comical. However, as for talking about Mr. Ricci: This is not the place for this. We have much bigger issues here and this is incredibly trivial for its own section. There is already a page for ongoing Martial Arts-related AfD discussions that the nominator himself conveniently added the article to (although any editor may do so) and is an easy way to keep track of such things. Beansy (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, MMA related articles that are up for AfD (as well as PROD and GA nominations) will usually be found in the article alerts section of this WikiProject page. The caveat is that the MMA WikiProject banner is being properly added to the talk page of MMA related articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Being the nominator a couple of points - it is a personal obsession to make sure project banners are placed and the AfD articles are added to the Martial Arts-related AfD discussions. AfD is not an attempt to push articles out but to get a discussion especially for some of those borderline cases. AfD's that result in a Keep decision tend to protect the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A comment about MtKing's first comment: please note that placing a message here not a violation of WP:CANVAS. The original notice by PortlandOregon should have been more neutral (an appropriate message would be something like "An article of interest to this WikiProject has been nominated for deletion; the discussion can be found at ..."). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Rousimar Palhares

Are there any quick fixes to get people to stop adding "Paul Harris" as a nickname on the Rousimar Palhares article? There's no source for the nickname, and it's not really encyclopedic content to add every nickname that people on message boards come up with. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That's actually a mispronunciation of his surname ("Paul Harris" - it should be pronounced like "Paliares") often said by Joe Rogan and other native english speakers. Definitely not a nickname, but an explanation can be added to the article, just need to find a source. Poison Whiskey 15:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit strange that Rogan says "Magalhaes" right. Part of me thinks Palhares might pronounce it the "wrong" way, otherwise someone would have corrected Rogan by now. Maybe not. I don't see any point in adding the "Paul Harris" name (unless it's well-sourced), or know of a way to stop people from adding it. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just checked it and he also mispronounces Magalhães (it's hard to explain how to pronounce... you may wish to check in the google translate; i heard it from the UFC 152 weigh-in video on youtube). "Magalhães" is also mispelled without the tilde. But i think these cases can only be considered mistakes to portuguese speakers, nothing really serious.

Yeah, the Google Translate "lady" sure doesn't sound like she's saying it the way Rogan, Dana White and Ariel Helwani do. Thankfully, we all spell it (basically) the same. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Poison Whiskey 02:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here, as I'm not on either side here: you could probably add the weirdly popular "Paul Harris" meme to his background section if you find a citation, as it's an affectionate nickname given to him by fans (and even folks like Ronda Rousey, who claimed she invented it, apparently the same way Chael Sonnen makes up obvious baloney for the sake of comedy in his interviews). Anyway it's a sign of his popularity, and that's consistent with tons of famous sports figures throughout the last 100+ years who have been given nicknames by fans. That being said until he refers to himself as "Paul Harris" in an interview or Bruce Buffer announces him as Rousimar "Paul Harris" Palhares, it doesn't belong in the infobox. Beansy (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly what i meant: add it to the background section if there is a proper source. Sorry if i wasn't accurate. Poison Whiskey 02:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I will have heard it all from Bruce if he says Rousimar "Paul Harris" Palhares. I had similar problems with people repeatedly adding the nickname "American Fedor" to Justin McCully. Chicken Wing (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I found three sources about this: Bleacher report, Graciemag and MMA Rio (portuguese). The first two have only trivial mentions. The third explains more about the meme, but it's in portuguese. Poison Whiskey 03:08, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Notification

• Just a notification as I see no one else has done this yet. Please see [4] which authorizes special sanctions in the MMA areas. Specifically,

Therefore, per consensus, from this moment on, any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the the topic of mixed martial arts, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This may include, but is not limited to, banning from participation in deletion discussions any editor who reasonably appears to be acting in coordination with an interest other than that of the Wikipedia community and without regard for compliance with content rules. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, it will be moot but wanted to at least notify participants that this passed recently. Keep in mind, the goal is to promote actual discussion by giving admin more tools in tamping down disruptive editors by disallowing them to participate in discussions, even if those actions do not warrant blocking. I am hoping to start an RfC (which I won't vote in myself) before too long that will answer some questions on notability and put that issue to bed for good. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC 155 and 156

If anyone can, please help out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_18. UFCFan92 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review was apparently canceled at the same time UFCFan92 was blocked for sockpuppetry. So yeah, don't bother. His arguments were so awful that I'm not convinced he was specifically a pro-MMA sock by the way. The deletion review was slightly premature anyway. Also @Stalwart111: I didn't get to respond to you before the discussion was closed but you mentioned the Australian Open was a mere month away in your argument. UFC 155 is only two weeks away dude. Beansy (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ricky_Shivers

Another fighter on the chopping block. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts#Article_Alerts - Kevlar (talk) 04:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up the format

Several issues I see while putting in event results. 1. Some use flags and some don't. I think it needs to be 1 way or the other. Because so many MMA fighters train and fight out of different countries than where they were born, I think it just isn't as relevant for MMA.
2. Decision scores: some people are putting these in the same column as the result and others into the comment section. The problem I see with putting it into the result column is that is normally a narrow column and when you add more information it makes the table look bad. It looks much better in the comment column.
3. KO & TKO results: Since 95% of KO and TKO fights end as a result of a strike, putting TKO (strikes), KO (punches), etc. seems redundant and a waste of server space/bandwith not to mention the table would look cleaner and easier to read if we just used TKO or KO without all the extras, except if it was a TKO for a more uncommon reason like physician stoppage.
What does everybody else think, do these seem like good ideas to make everything cleaner and easier to follow? Willdawg111 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll put the formats below for a better understanding. The "current format" is being applied on this page (and that's where began the edit war): Bellator Fighting Championships: Season Seven. If there is something wrong, please fix it as you wish. Poison Whiskey 17:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

you had a few small mistakes but it made a big difference on the readability so I updated it with the correct proposed improvements. That was a really good idea though, because I think this makes it very clear how much better the tables look and how much easier it is to follow than what is being used now. Thanks!Willdawg111 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Current format

Card	Weight Class				Round	Time	Method	Notes
Main	Featherweight	Fighter A (c)	def.	Fighter B	3	5:00	Unanimous decision (29–28, 29–28, 29–28)	Non-title bout
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter C	def.	Fighter D	3	5:00	Unanimous decision (30–27, 30–27, 29–28)	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter E	def.	Fighter F	1	2:37	TKO (knees)	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter G	def.	Fighter H	2	1:57	KO (punch)	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter I	def.	Fighter J	3	5:00	Split decision (29–28, 28–29, 29–28)	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Preliminary	Middleweight	Fighter K	def.	Fighter L	3	3:41	Submission (triangle choke)
Preliminary	Bantamweight	Fighter M	def.	Fighter N	3	5:00	Unanimous decision (30–27, 30–27, 30–27)
Preliminary	Lightweight	Fighter O	def.	Fighter P	2	5:00	TKO (doctor stoppage)
Preliminary	Heavyweight	Fighter Q	def.	Fighter R	3	5:00	Unanimous decision (29–28, 30–27, 30–27)
Preliminary	Light Heavyweight	Fighter S	def.	Fighter T	2	2:09	TKO (elbows and punches)
Preliminary	Welterweight	Fighter U	def.	Fighter V	3	4:14	TKO (punches)

Suggested Improvements

Card	Weight Class				Round	Time	Method	Notes
Main	Featherweight	Fighter A (c)	def.	Fighter B	3	5:00	Decision (unanimous)	29–28, 29–28, 29–28 Non-title bout
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter C	def.	Fighter D	3	5:00	Decision (unanimous)	30–27, 30–27, 29–28 Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter E	def.	Fighter F	1	2:37	TKO	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter G	def.	Fighter H	2	1:57	KO	Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Main	Heavyweight	Fighter I	def.	Fighter J	3	5:00	Decision (split)	29–28, 28–29, 29–28 Heavyweight Tournament Quarterfinal
Preliminary	Middleweight	Fighter K	def.	Fighter L	3	3:41	Submission (triangle choke)
Preliminary	Bantamweight	Fighter M	def.	Fighter N	3	5:00	Decision (unanimous)	30–27, 30–27, 30–27
Preliminary	Lightweight	Fighter O	def.	Fighter P	2	5:00	TKO (doctor stoppage)
Preliminary	Heavyweight	Fighter Q	def.	Fighter R	3	5:00	Decision (unanimous)	29–28, 30–27, 30–27
Preliminary	Light Heavyweight	Fighter S	def.	Fighter T	2	2:09	TKO
Preliminary	Welterweight	Fighter U	def.	Fighter V	3	4:14	TKO

Suggested improvement 2

Main Card (ArbCom)
Weight Class	Win	vs.	Loss	Method	Round	Time	Notes
Middleweight	MBisanz (c)	defeated	Elen of the Roads	KO (front kick)	2	0:01
Light Heavyweight	Dennis Brown	defeated	TheSpecialUser	Submission (flying armbar)	1	0:17
Welterweight	Jimbo Wales	defeated	User:JohnCD	TKO (kick to the body)	2	4:47
Catchweight (187.5 lb)	Mark Arsten	defeated	Mtking	KO (axe kick)	1	0:08
Bantamweight	Hasteur	drew with	TreyGeek	Unanimous draw (28–28, 28–28, 28–28)	3	5:00
Preliminary Card (AN)
Heavyweight	Worm That Turned	defeated	cyberpower678	Unanimous decision (30–27, 30–27, 30–27)	3	5:00
Preliminary Card (MMA)
Lightweight	Willdawg111	defeated	JonnyBonesJones	KO (punches)	1	1:00

please note that there are already two templates that will make implementing this format much easier:

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

Kevlar (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Vote on Formats

How do we go about creating someplace for people to vote on which format they like better? Let's move forward with this, and get the improvments put in place. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to suggestion #2: I love the fact that Willdawg KO'd JonnyBonesJones, and I like the look of it, however it was a little tough on my eyes. Maybe I'm getting a little old, but have you tried to make the font a little bigger and see how it worked? Oh, and I'm a heavy weight who cuts to 235lb catch weights. At 6'0", I would be a really skinny 155lber. Willdawg111 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

We're in a bit of a war, and that is part of it, and something I figured would be tackled after the event articles were settled. Look, I am all for flags used in MMA articles the same way they're used in countless other non-team sports articles that are not strictly competitions between nations. The historical major promotions have all gone out of their way to illustrate MMA as a truly international competition where fighting brings nations together in a way that transcends nationalistic differences, and the use of flags to establish that competitors come from a wide variety of nations is not an expression of nationalist supremacy anymore than it would be at the Olympics. In MMA and many other sports it is, and always has been, first and foremost a measure of diversity, and how athletic competitions between people from drastically different backgrounds are a bond and not a barrier. Genki Sudo has amply demonstrated this much more concisely, as a picture says a thousand words. However I would think the best way to address that is a new Request-for-Closure in the Manual of Style Flags section per the recommendation of admin Vanisaac (who would rather not participate btw as he is not involved in the MMA debate and I don't blame him one bit). Vanisaac is a vexillology specialist (study of flags and related symbolism) and made the original ruling in an RfC near the top of this page, one which I do not think included the strongest possible arguments, and it is on strength-of-arguments that these things are based on, not number of votes (afaik number of votes is more like a tie-breaker and even then it has to be an overwhelming majority on one side). I believe it can be overturned if an RfC that included not just MMA, but all non-team sports such as golf or tennis or Formula One Racing were involved. That would not be inappropriate as precedence set against MMA could be extended to those articles too at the moment right now, and I believe a notice could be placed on WP:SPORTS as it would be of the most relevance to them, and they could all give their input. Even if the result is "flags optional," there are already MOS guidelines that give precedence in edit-wars to whoever was the first major contributor to aset of articles (considering that flags have been used in MMA articles for years prior to the recent spate of deletions, the answer to that should be obvious). If someone who is not me, preferably a veteran editor, can launch such a thing, that might be for the best. If an MMA events RfC is imminent though, I might think it best to wait until that concludes however. Beansy (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the format needs to be changed at all. Regarding decision scores, it makes more sense for them to be right after the decision. Regarding TKO/KO stats, you need to include that info regardless if you believe "95% of KO and TKO fights end as a result of a strike." Of course they do. But the additional info helps the reader know more info about the method of victory. An example is "KO (punch)" is quite different than "TKO (knees to the body)." Udar55 (talk) 15:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, there is a wide variety of strikes. About the "Method" section, i think it should describe the method accurately (including the judges' scorecards in case of decision). The "Notes" section should be for... notes? makes no sense to me to put the scorecards there. Poison Whiskey 16:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Previous consensus has been to use whatever Sherdog states (read about it on the MMA project page). I was not part of that discussion but the result makes sense. It's a site that is considered reliable and if we just duplicate what it states and all follow that then this will cut down on arguments about what should be there (with all the original research that entails). I think keeping with Sherdog just makes life easier for everyone. SQGibbon (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Sherdo: What's the reason why Sherdog is being considered for reliability for records. WWW.mixedmartialarts.com is actually the site that is linked up to the Association of Boxing Commission, or ABC which is the federal database for MMA fighters. Their records are more complete and more accurate than Sherdog, especially for more recent events.Willdawg111 (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

When the UFC was choosing the candidates for the second season of The Ultimate Fighter: Brazil, you had to show that you had fought at least three times professionally (I think that was the number), and Sherdog was one of the sites that you could use to prove it. I can't remember what was the other one. Evenfiel (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

MixedMartialArts.com is nowhere close to being as comprehensive as Sherdog. Sorry, but it's not even debatable if you're a hardcore MMA fan. Their historical database of over 100,000 MMA fighters is the platinum standard. Also, per flags, Sherdog allows input from fighters themselves to a degree if they can prove who they are (proving who you are isn't hard in the day and age of twitter and flags are certainly one of those things they allow input into). Also, ABC is a network of state, Canadian provincial, and tribal athletic commissions, it is not "federal" anything (sorry to be anal about that). Beansy (talk) 07:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It is debatable. As far as hardcore fans go, do you realize that when Joe Rogan references "The underground" he is talking about mixedmartialarts.com. Yeah the thing is they show if a fight is santioned or not. For instance, if you were to go to mma.com and look at Soa Polalei you will see he has only 1 sanctioned fight((he has fought since I have last looked so I could be wrong.); and that is with the UFC. Sherdog isn't able to tell you that kind of info because it doesnt have that athletic commission connection. also just an FYI MixedMartialArts.com uses actual weights and the height people submit. For my buddy sherdog added an inch and took off 30 pounds. He was fighting at SHW. But he was a college lineman so you know. Of course thats neither here nor there. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• idea: given that these changes will take a lot of grunt work, and there are other similar changes that could be easily grouped. IF we reach consensus that something needs to be done like switching all MMA events cards to a different format, we could create a friendly competition. perhaps two team captains would be picked for January, the captains would draft teams from the WP:MMA Participants List while someone else divided up all the different pages that will need to be changed. Winning team get's glory and helps the losing team finish their edits. we could call it TUE (The Ultimate Editor) or UEC (Ultimate Editing Challenge) or something cheesy like that. just an idea to make a possibly tedious task more fun. Kevlar (talk) 00:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Lasting Effect on the Sport

When determining whether an event has a lasting effect, I think there needs to be some clarification as to what determines a lasting effect. In mixed martial arts, any title fight can alter an entire weight class for the foreseeable future. Additionally, any fight that features pugilists who are ranked in their division's top five is an event that will have a major impact on the title scene. Due to their impact on the sport as a whole, all UFC events should have their own page. - Andrew Saunders, MMA Journalist (UnheardConcept (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC))

I another angle that is important is the unforseeable future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PortlandOregon97217 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The biggest thing I would consider for "lasting effect" is to approach the article from the stand point that it is not important, even if it has a title fight, and then try to convince yourself otherwise. If I were to list some examples of important events, I would say that BJ Penn/Matt Hughes I was important because BJ winning the title set the welterweight division on its head, especially after BJ then abandoned the belt. Another would be GSP's loss to Matt Serra, because of the huge unexpected shift that it caused in the division. However GSP's wins over Jake Shields or Josh Koscheck are already pretty meaningless.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Lasting effect is very difficult to prove for anything that is not an older event (sports or otherwise) and is generally not applied to articles about recent or upcoming events anywhere on Wikipedia. I would argue it should only apply to MMA event articles at least two years old, and the way to measure is is one citation should be from something at least one year after the event. Once that is all squared away, I would propose if an article about an event reaches a date 27 months past when that event took place and lacks such a citation, someone would then have the option to put up a Proposed Deletion template mentioning it, but would be required to notify WP:MMA about this oversight, and if it is the only real problem with the article, there would be a one week timeframe to fix it before the article is nominated as an AfD, which would be withdrawn if the requirement is met within seven more days. Beansy (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I Just ran accross something which I think should be considered in this discussion WP:NOTTEMPORARY PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does it need lasting effect? If a UFC or whatever has a title bout in, it's just as worthy, to me, a non-involved observer, of an article as, say, a Super Bowl final - because it may be smaller in scale, but in terms of its position within the sport of MMA, it is exactly the same as the Super Bowl is to American Football. (Super Bowl may not be the best example given its widespread American coverage, but I hope you get my drift.) Lukeno94 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletions

Moved from project page by InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if this is the proper place to put this. If not, please let me know where. I occasionally look through some of the MMA forums to see what people are talking about. I came across multiple threads on Sherdog today full of people complaining about the UFC 155 deletion and about the amount of articles being deleted in general. http://www.sherdog.net/forums/f2/wiki-deleted-ufc-155-event-2257217/ (a couple of the editors are even being talked about in these forums). It seems to me that since Wikipedia is run off of donations and in order to get people to donate, you need people coming to wiki. MMA fans seem to access our articles all the time as a quick reference. They are getting upset about the amount of articles being deleted. Can we consider not deleting so many articles. If you think it needs more information, how about trying to help make it better instead of just trying to get rid of it. Does this make sense to anybody else? Willdawg111 (talk) 04:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Without getting into the reasons why the articles are being deleted, I would suggest that anybody looking for information on UFC 155 look for it on Sherdog (especially if they're already on the site, complaining) or another of the numerous MMA websites. These are, after all, the main sources for the info that would be in a Wiki article. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually the background information for all main card fights was all diligently included in the last version of the article which I stored in my sandbox (I updated it very thoroughly after it got deleted and kept on updating it although not in the last day or so), and includes numerous mainstream sources which are to be a required component of all stand-alone MMA articles coming forward (at least one or two), in addition to sources like Sherdog. This is as a compromise to end an 18-month editing war of attrition that no other sport has had to face. It's really not a bad thing, as it helps illustrate the sports growing footprint on the world of sports and popular culture as a whole these days. Beansy (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• in my opinion this is exactly why we need to reach some consensus on new guidelines. the frustration isn't just on wikipedia, and to say that people should just go somewhere else (sherdog, mmawiki) doesn't solve anything. the only reason people care about a wikipedia article on UFC 155 (even though it's deleted) is that it's the first result on google (after the official UFC.com page and news). if it wasn't we wouldn't be having this debate, because we would all have long ago moved to whatever was the better source. it's mind boggling to me that we can't agree that UFC 38 should be in an omnibus. it seems like some editors would rather have 8 events not represented at all, and have a knock down drag out battle every time a new event is announced, than have all of the content on wikipedia, with some of it in a format they don't prefer. i just don't get it. Kevlar (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

When I just tried Googling "UFC 155", I got Sherdog's page at the top. Then the Wiki article for "UFC on Fuel TV" (with a "2012 in UFC" URL). Then a list of Google News stories about UFC 155. (If I use Verbatim mode, the UFC's page is first and Sherdog second. Then Wiki's "List of UFC events".) Using another site doesn't solve the problems of MMA on Wikipedia, but solves the problem of people complaining that they can't find info on UFC 155. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've repeated over and over the opposite, which is that there's a significant amount of support for many UFC articles as stand alone pages and little support for omnibussing everything right away. There are also lower standards for basically everything else I've seen on Wiki being notable. This is really an issue of people fixing what isn't broken, and it's been done in a sloppy and careless manner. If the number of pages were a concern it would make more sense to start by merging the pages of smaller promotions and defunct promotions. Byuusetsu (talk) 13:34, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Bodogfight and WFA top tier? Question about Tachi Palace fights/ Palace Fighting Championship (Summary? Tiers are ridiculous)

Even tho they were a flash in the pan I would argue that they should be top tier. I mean their cards were stacked. Of note Bodogfight had Fedor vs Lindland (see Bodogfight Clash of nations), they hand Lindland on there. I know Bodogfight was on TV. I forget which channel. Chael Sonnen was the winner from the TV show tho. Then they had Eddie Alvarez (Of Bellator/Dream notability) as their 170 champ for a minute there. WFA... Shoot just go look at the King of the Streets discussion on here. If Shooto can be top tier so can WFA and Bodogfight. I'm not sure how to feel about shooto. I know all-time greats have been through there but largely is made up of cans.

And on to my point about TPF. That was the main place for flyweights before the UFC. They had the (it seemed like ) forever #1 ranked Jussier Da Silva(a really good read. please indulge! .

This paragraph is probably the most significant "The 125-pound division has always been a hallmark for Tachi Palace Fights, and its earlier incarnation, the Palace Fighting Championship. The promotion routinely promotes local flyweights and has also brought in unbeaten notables such as Pat Runez and 1996 Olympic bronze medalist wrestler Alexis Vila, as well as Shooto 115-pound world champion Rambaa “M-16” Somdet in the past." Then we have top ranked Ian Mccall.

Alexis Vila also fought for Bellator...in fact what happened to him anyway...

And I guess I take back every doubt I had about Shooto cuz I forgot about Somdet. With that said I think TPF/PFC should be moved to top Tier, and WFA and Bodogfight should be added to top tier.

Although in reality I think seperating them into tiers for a matter of determining someones notability is ridiculous, especially when it is applied in a rigid manner as it seems to in the afd I have been commenting on. You have people who fought on Spike TV 2-3 times, not including their "notable" fights, getting denied. Then you have people plugging fighters who fought in the dark on a Bellator/UFC card a couple of times for a spot on Wikipedia. It's bonkers. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 08:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

An idea in the name of peace to stop the MMAdness on wikipedia.

Why create an omnibus separating the free events by type. Like UFC on Fox, UFC on FX, UFC on FUEL TV, and so on. And for PPV numbers we also have UFC 1-10, UFC 10-20 and so on in incrimants of 10? We can also made an omnibus page for the TUF Finales. But they must be AS detailed as the stand alone articles. And very notable events like UFC 94 and UFC 148 must have their own page. Also needs to be updated and have NO spelling or grammatical errors. Can this be an idea to stop the madness over MMA on wikipedia? Also can this be made into an RfC to vote on? I'd do that but I dont know how. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem within the mma community. You have the hardcore/real fans who appreciate shit. Then you have those who think that MMA either begins and ends with the UFC, or that MMA=UFC. Youre proposal doesn't stop the baby from being thrown out with the bathwater. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

JonnyBonesJones i think you make some really good points, but as things stand right now we haven't even come to a consensus on the use of omnibus articles for UFC events. i really feel like trying to figure out how the omnibus articles will be split is putting the cart before the horse. i'm not even sure we will be able to have an omnibus for UFC in 2012 without new guidelines because many members of WP:MMA fought so hard to remove it the last time it was up. Please don't let me discourage you, i really don't mean to sound like a jerk or anything. Kevlar (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the type of UFC event (numbered/on Fox/on FX/on Fuel TV/...) makes as much sense as time-based separation. UFC itself doesn't use "UFC on Fox/Fuel TV" naming consistently. See http://uk.ufc.com/event/Past_Events. While the main fights may be broadcast on FX, most preliminary bouts are on Fuel TV. Every now and then UFC introduces new event naming standard or signs an agreement with some other network. Eventually we would have to create something like "20xx in UFC on FX" because the article got to big. That's why I prefer "20xx in UFC" (or less likely, "Month 20xx in UFC"). Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but that was already tried and failed miserably, time for new ideas. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 05:41, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, the smaller broken up articles were more user friendly, took up less bandwidth, were easier to navigate, were popular, and were not actually harming anything, while being a good resource for MMA history. They also were not so small as to cover individual fights as separate articles, which would be silly. At the same time they were part of a community that actively self-regulated itself, had templates that linked events within major promotions together, and had convenient and mostly uniform formatting. The major problems? Lack of properly diverse citations (endemic throughout much of Wikipedia) and being an early target by those who apparently wanted to vastly reduce the scope of Wikipedia, but got hung-up on MMA specifically. I'm fine with some omnibus compromises for lesser events but they have to be practical and by time period + outlet (outlets being specific television networks or PPV, and as far as I'm concerned, all of the PPVs and all numbered events (these two groups are almost co-contiguous) should be inherently noteworthy enough for standalone articles, even if I know there's going to be a lot of fighting on that. Beansy (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I just want to say that I agree completely. As long as there is enough prose for the numbered events they should probably have articles of their own. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 08:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Ultimate Fighter and WP:NMMA

With all the TUF fighters being put on the delete list and the amount of people thinking these guys fail WP:NMMA, I think we need to get some mis-information cleared up. If you look up WP:NMMA it says you need at least 3 professional fights for a top tier organization. Some people seem to have this misconception about what the fights shown on The Ultimate Fighter show are. At one time, these fights were immediately reported to the athletic commission and put onto the official record. The problem was that you could look up a fighters record and track down the results of the show. The UFC made a deal with the NSAC where they didn't have to report them right away but the athletic commission wouldn't put them on the official record. I've heard people just refer to them as exhibition bouts, since they aren't being recorded, but that is just an easy, simple term. Here's what you have to understand. All of the guys participating in the Ultimate Fighter are professional fighters (once you fight pro, you are no longer allowed to fight as an ammateur). They use the 5min rounds used by professionals. They are also sanctioned by the State, meaning they check the weights, assign officials licensed in the state, etc. These are PROFESSIONAL MMA FIGHTS. WP:NMMA requirements do not require the fight to be logged onto their official, permanent pro record, it only requires it to be a professional MMA fight for a top tier organization. Fights that happen during The Ultimate Fighter show meet WP:NMMA, can we please stop trying to argue whether to count them because the guidelines have already been established, and unless the guidelines are changed, there shouldn't be anymore questioning about these fights. Thanks. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to make sure that the word exhibition wasn't still confusing people. All legal, sanctioned fights held in the US must fall under one of three catagories: toughman, ammateur, and professional. It has to follow the minimum ABC guidelines for 1 of these 3. All the exhibition means is that it isn't being reported to the ABC in time to count as part of an official, permanent record. You can have exhibition ammy fights, or exhibition profights, etc. Exhibition has nothing to do with which of the three levels it is being contested under. I ran accross a comment on another page where somebody seemed to be confused as to what the terminology meant. Hope this helps. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

The long-standing consensus within the MMA WikiProject is that TUF fights, with the exception of those in the Finale, do not count towards WP:NMMA as they are exhibition bouts. The confusion, to me, appears to be your unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as well as the established consensus within this WikiProject and how they were decided. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make that argument, then you need to debate a change to guidelines, because as the guidelines are writen right now, TUF fights count. Willdawg111 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting since the consensus on site is that fights outside of the Finale don't count for the general purpose "Appearances" for WP:NMMA. Being that you seem to advocate for the change, it's incumbent on you to demonstrate the justification for this. Hasteur (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't want it changed. I believe they should count. I'm just pointing out to the people who don't want them counted that you have to follow the guidelines setup. If you don't like those guidelines, then you need to open a debate about changing them. But until they are changed, you need to follow them. If these people really think they have a consus of people who don't think TUF fights should count, then open up the debate about modifying the guidelines, but until they do, TUF fights meet the criteria setup by WP:NMMA. In my opinion, they don't have the consensus they think they do. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Just look at the record of any athlete who took part in TUF. These fights never show up in their professional record breakdown. Only the final does. Evenfiel (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at what was initially written and you will understand why. Fights have to be reported to the ABC within a certain time frame, and the UFC has a deal with the NSAC to not do this. You keep trying to deflect the facts, but you can't. They are professional fights and the UFC is the promoter who put them on. Thus they count. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Either way, TUF fights certainly are not considered to be fought for a top-tier organization unless it`s the final fight. It seems pretty obvious to me (and probably to most people around here) that only regular UFC events count. Evenfiel (talk)

So the UFC is only a top tier organization some of the time? This is getting sillier and sillier and more and more desperate.Willdawg111 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

TUF is not the UFC. Only some TUF fighters will be hired to fight in the UFC. Evenfiel (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is evidence to support the assertions about the A/C being involved with TUF. It is irrational and illogical to people argue that these fights aren't significant and aren't overseen by an athletic commission. If they weren't,as was said earlier, Dana White and company could be tried for holding illegal smokers. This happened to poor Din Thomas down in Florida. I think his arguement for getting out of it was that his fighters needed experience or w/e. I didn't take the time to brush up on the exact facts of the case. But it is a big deal if you wanna host fights and don't have your ducks in a row. Especially in a place like Nevada where they have a strong and omnipresent A/C. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

They can also watch the videos where they show weigh ins and the NSAC rep there doing them (if my memory serves me correctly, Keith Kizer has done some of them). This last season had an issue where Roy Nelson said the guy messed the weigh ins, and Dana told Roy that if the athletic commission says he is on weight then he is on weight. The problem is that we have people with no clue how things really work trying to make statements to back their point of view. There's nothing wrong with not knowing, just don't pretend like you do, and ask somebody who does. Willdawg111 (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There is also this. Good catch. I'll admit I stopped watching TUF after the fifth season and only tuned in to watch Mike Dolce for the 7th season. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain to me why they don't count for the professional MMA record? Poison Whiskey 12:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason why they aren't on the record was explained more than once. Go back and re-read what was initially written, everything you need to know to understand the situation is already there. Willdawg111 (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, we use Sherdog and Mixedmartialarts as sources. While they may have some differences, both of them only count the TUF finals in their professional records. Even Fightmetric, which has the official UFC statistics, only takes into account the finals. If you don't agree with that, I suggest you guys start sending them e-mails. Evenfiel (talk) 14:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Sherdog and mixedmartialarts.com are used as a reference just to prove that the fights took place. There are other sources that can prove the fights took place. Where the argument falls short is that not all professional fights are recorded onto their professional fight record. In order for it to be recorded, the athletic commission has to turn it in within a certain time frame to the ABC. If they did that, then you would know the results of TUF before TUF even aired on TV, which is why they aren't on the record. That in no way, shape or form, doesn't mean they weren't professional fights. In fact, if they weren't professional fights, they couldn't be sanctioned and if they weren't sanctioned, there would be people going to jail. It really isn't that complicated people, TUF fights are Professional Fights. TUF fights are put on by a top tier organization. How about you just accept it and move on.Willdawg111 (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you say about The Ultimate Fighter: Live? Poison Whiskey 16:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

To quote mma.com "For a variety of reasons, including weight disparity and the demands of entertainment, Exhibition Bouts are held, in which the contest is unscripted and hard fought, but the results do not count on a fighter's Official Record." Folks are getting hung up on the little details. All we need to know in regards to his exhibition fights are that a. They happened (for reasons explained by mma.com), b, it was aired on a popular cable TV. c, that he was was also on TV in general for 6 weeks or so. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

What about it? Again, not even Fightmetric, which is the official statistics provider for the UFC, takes note of any fight other than the finals. Here is Michael Chiesa's profile, the guy who won that TUF. I recommend you send an e-mail to Fightmetric if you don't agree with that. Evenfiel (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Who cares what Fightmetric does? It has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed. Fightmetrics don't cover every single professional fight. I just worked a couple shows with professional fights and didn't see anybody from Fightmetrics there. You know its just useless MMA math anyway. It doesn't even help out in determining who won rounds because there are so many factors, and because they don't break strikes down into those that do damage and those that don't like the judges do. It's pretty useless except for giving the announcers something to talk about during live broadcasts. The counter arguments continue to get more desperate and more ridiculous. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. My point is that the UFC only considers the finals to be an official UFC fight, thus they are the only ones that appear in Fightmetric. Since not even the UFC considers the other TUF fights as official UFC fights (if they did, there would be a record of them), they cannot be used to determine notability. Evenfiel (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Allied Fight Series

There is a healthy debate going and any comments would be appreciated. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't even understand why anybody would even try to claim that this isn't a notable organization. We have some people with a serious lack of knowledge about MMA trying to edit the MMA section. These guys are well known in the MMA community. They put on more shows than anybody else, and even rival the UFC for the amount of shows they do. Pretty sad situation. Willdawg111 (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC) It appears as if people think that the NAAFS is a local promotion. Their reach extends over 1,000 miles. I'm not exagerating. They are licensed to put on show as far north as Michigan and as far south as South Carolina. They are also established in several states as a sanctioning body, similar to what the ISKA does. It's almost shocking about how little information gets around in the MMA community. Maybe since I've been on the inside for so long that I've really lost touch. But in all seriousness, I want to offer to help educate and inform. If you guys have questions, please feel free to hit me up. Willdawg111 (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Contant Jimmy Wales, see if he will help save MMA on wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#MMA_on_wikipedia.

Help explain what is going on, help stop Mtking! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

• Exactly what needs to be saved? You don't seem to have a problem with the AfD process. Looking at the current Article alerts which run from December 8, 2012 to December 22, 2012 of the 46 total, 33 were proposed by you, 13 by others. Mtking proposed 2. Help me to understand what you think Jimmy Wales needs to save.

WP:TUF essay

So to spare me carpal tunnel I have crafted an essay that explains why TUF fights are notable and should count. Please tell me if I have left anything out, or any advice so that I can tinker with it. WP:TUF PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I left some comments on your talk page about it. Your points are good and valid. I think at this point we just have people refusing to accept that as the requirements are written, there is not doubt about the notability of TUF fights. When you have people getting so desperate that they are trying to argue that UFC fights are only top tier some of the time, they shouldn't count because fightmetrics don't count them, and all kinds of other insane arguments that have nothing to do with the established notability requirements. I don't know how much simplier and more clear it can be explained to them, and it's not a matter of them not understanding but rather refusing to understand and accept the guidelines that were established. Willdawg111 (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Re to PO. WRONG... You don't declare outright that something is right because you say it is. I've removed the shortcut and nominated the redirect for deletion because it's hijacking the WP namespace and deliberately attempting to make an end run around the consensus here. You want to present the argument, you do it here where informed people can debate it. Hasteur (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone is clearly overreacting as I followed the instructions WP:SASC listed. I don't see what the big deal is. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently, the only mistake is that the shortcut redirects to your user page, and seems like it can't be done. Correct me if i'm wrong. Poison Whiskey 01:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess I just made some procedural error and I was supposed to make it in my userspace rather than Wikipedias. So I'm totally in the rightas far as my intentions were. in short. My essay is Tuf enuf. Hastuers WP:WITCHHUNT had a hiccup. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 04:17, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I have come up with a idea that should help out. I want to break fighters professional records down into 2 tables. Those that were turned into the ABC to be included on the record and those that weren't. That way we can document these professional fights without creating any confusion as to why they aren't being tabulated as wins and losses.Willdawg111 (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like an undertaking! basically your gonna go to mma.com and see if its NSF or has the "official" next to it? I was also just looking and remembered that the second season of the ultimate fighters fights were on the record. I noticed when i checked out jardines fight with rashad and saw it on the underground. I think i'm making headway over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports) someone chimed in that the TUf guys could fall under WP:ENT, and I think point 1 is most fitting. so i added that to the essay. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Against TUF bouts, with the exception of finale fights, being considered a professional bout for use with WP:NMMA. TUF bouts are exhibition bouts. This has been the long standing consenus and has been explained ad-nausium. That these bouts are not full-professional fights is supported by the wider MMA press. They are not scheduled to run a full three rounds, except under specific circumstances, like fully professional bouts. They are sanctioned by the NSAC just as other exhibition fights are as required by state law, but are still just exhibition bouts. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Question for admin or long time editor

A question was brought up in relationship to what happens when an editor is permanently banned.
1) Can his recomendations for deletions be close out?
2) If not, can his votes and comments be lined out?
Willdawg111 (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about JBJ, any !votes he made before he was banned stand and should not be lined out (unless the blocking admin says otherwise). If an editor who is banned creates a sock account and !votes those will be struck and not counted. Mtking ^(edits) 21:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm about at the point that I'm ready to throw my hands up and give up trying to keep this project alive. Now we have an account that hasn't been doing anything, popping up and picking up where the banned account left off. If this doesn't look suspicious, I don't know what does. I'm not going to keep taking my time to write articles that meet notability requirements just to have somebody try to say they don't and then use all kinds of BS to deflect people away from the facts and from the truth. If you want to let these people destroy this project, good luck. I've had my website for awhile now to provide fighter profiles and lists of events and results as a easy reference to people. I just haven't taken the time to really focus on getting it completed and up and running, but it looks like that might be the best route to go. Willdawg111 (talk) 19:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't specific about who you are concerned with then no one can look into it further. If you think this is account is a sock-puppet, report it to WP:SPI. If you are unsure if it is a sock puppet or are unsure how to file the SPI, tell us who the user is so others can look into it. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think he's talking about JonnyBonesJones. Luchuslu (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

JBJ was indef blocked two days ago. If that is who Willdawg is referring to, seems to be a delayed rant. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a delayed rant. JBJ appears to have a connection to at least 1 other account editing in this project if not more than one. I'm not that familiar with the process and investigation, but I also don't know who I can trust. I have somebody who is watching every single thing I am doing and trying to undo it, change it, or delete it. I'm just about to the point of bailing on this project because I feel like every step forward is met with 3 steps backwards. Willdawg111 (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, if you are unable and/or unwilling to discuss who the other user is, then no one will be able to look into it or do anything about it. Otherwise, ranting and/or complaining about the unknown user's behavior really serves no purpose. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking here, i think he is suspicious of me. If it's really serious, WP:CONSPIRACY may apply here? Poison Whiskey 21:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I also read that, and while I can't myself see grounds for saying that there is a link between JBJ and yourself (see below) I don't think it is anything like a WP:CONSPIRACY, all I see is editors discussing if there is a link; however to avoid any getting into that area I would ask anyone to stop discussing and take it to WP:SPI if they are sure.

I don't want to give away much on how to spot a sock but of the 11 AfD's on MMA fighters that they have both taken part in on 3 occasions there was a split on !vote, and on no occasion did Poison Whiskey's !vote not match the final outcome. Mtking ^(edits) 21:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No conspiracy theory, and I don't think anybody is sure about connections, which is why names (other than the banned account) aren't being mentioned. Just pointed out there are coincidenses that are starting to add up, and that I'm not going to keep writing articles until we can get the project together and headed in the right direction. Willdawg111 (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Chin (combat sports)

How are these lists not considered original research? Most aren't even referenced, this seems like a violation of the core content policies of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.--Phospheros (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

They probably would be. There is actually quite a bit of original research. Technically listing current champions of organizations would probably be original research also. Now that you pointed it out, somebody will probably nominate it for deletion for you. They are in the process of deleting the majority of MMA off of Wiki. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Listing champions requires no original research, merely a citation in a reliable source. Compiling a list of fighters with weak chins and also failing to provide sources is potentially libelous.--Phospheros (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, some of those names do have sources cited. While most of the three lists appear to be WP:OR, it appears not all of them are. I don't think the entire article would get deleted, just the notable lists section and particularly the names without a citation. I was on the verge of blanking the section until I noticed that some had citations. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

As I said: "Most aren't even referenced" also the majority of the MMA citations are from Bleacher Report, not exactly a great source, another is from MMABay.co.uk (A site banned from Sherdog for spreading false info).--Phospheros (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wilddawg, why did you not assume good faith on the behalf of other editors? Why did you assume that the "MMA deletionist cabal" would jump on it for deletion? Your comment is bordering on the edge of personal attacks. I think you've been cautioned about this type of comment before, so I'd like to understand why you felt the need to make it again. Hasteur (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the project or the group as a whole is headed in the right direction. I'm not really sure how that could possibly be construde as a borderline personal attack. I'm trying to follow the rules, and certainly not trying to attack anybody. I'm sorry you feel like that. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistancy

Let me point something out to everybody:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sako_Chivitchian
He has 1 UFC fight & was on TUF - everybody wanted to keep him and it was closed out as a keep.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Ricci_(fighter)
He has 1 UFC fight & 1 other top tier fight & TUF - mixed between keep and delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Tickle
He has 1 UFC fight and was on TUF -mixed between keep and delete
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julian_Lane_(fighter)&action=edit&redlink=1
1 top tier fight and 2 fights on TUF - fighter was deleted

Does anybody see something wrong with this? Does anybody understand why some of us are getting frustrated with the inconsistancy. I am in no way, shape or form trying to single anybody out, or attack anybody, I am trying to point out what we are doing as a group. The same fights are notable for 1 guy but not for another? We are supposed to be establishing guidelines based on the consensus of the group, but what good are they if we choose to accept them sometimes or ignore them other times based on our personal opinions or objectives? Please don't take this the wrong way, all I am asking is for everybody to think about what they are doing and how it represents the group/project because ultimately, isn't that what it is supposed to be about. Willdawg111 (talk) 23:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

If you'd read through the AFD on Chivitchian, it wasn't MMA that made him notable, it was Judo. Not a good example. Getting good, clear guidelines on notability that admins can use on AFDs, even if you don't like them, will help with the consistency of the results. Ravensfire (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Quite honestly, the WikiProject was going fine until the early to mid part of the year. Since that time there has been an influx of new editors, mostly through various MMA forums, who are ignorant of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies as well as the discussions that have developed over the years within this WikiProject. These new editors (pointing to no one in particular because a number of them have been indefinitely blocked) come in, think that they know what is best and start dictating that things will go their way or they will be disruptive. That disruptiveness has resulted in the WikiProject getting extra attention from admins who are starting to not put up with the drama. There have been a number of calls to nuke the entire project space, which is something Wikipedia can do if the broader consensus is there. What these new editors should be doing, in my not so humble opinion, is to ask questions about why certain guidelines have developed and learn how to improve existing articles that do meet the existing notability guidelines.

Now, since you have asked about the above cases I'll see if I can explain. Chivitchian, looking at the AfD, was kept because of his Judo career/awards/accomplishments/whatever and not because of his MMA career. The other three fighters, lack 3 fights in a top-tier promotion (noting, again, that TUF fights do not count towards WP:NMMA per prior WikiProject consensus). Thus Lane was deleted and there is a mixed-bag of keeps/deletes for the other two fighters. AfDs are rarely a clear keep or clear delete. There are those who believe articles should be kept when they are deleted and those who think articles should be deleted when they are kept. That's just how things work out. If you were on the 'other' side of the result, move on to the next article or next task. That's all I can offer for now. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Now, this is where the argument about Chivichian breaks down. It was being argued that he met WP:NMMA. This guideline has nothing to do with Judo, that is the guideline for MMA, and MMA alone. You have also failed to legitimately explain why TUF fights do not count towards WP:NMMA, because when you read the criteria setup in this section, TUF fights meet those criteria. This isn't me coming here trying to say this is how we should do it. It is me reading the guidelines that everybody pointed out when I started editing. If there are guidelines laid out and people are told they should follow the guidelines but then turn about and say well, we didn't really mean for those guidelines to mean what we wrote. How are new editors supposed to know that. New editors are coming in, trying to follow the guidelines, just to have certain people say stuff that contradicts those guidelines. I just don't see how you can sit there and pretend like the new editors are the problem. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

A few people argued WP:NMMA but others completely ignored the MMA part of the article and pointed that he won a national title in Judo. It wasn't anything to do with MMA or TUF, it was Judo. Ravensfire (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I keep pulling out WP:ENTERTAINER for the WP:TUF guys. They should be judged partially on that. At theleast it should push them over the edge. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the average TUF competitor passes WP:ENTERTAINER. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows ... or other productions"? No. "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"? I guess it depends on how you define "large fan base" or "cult following", but for most of these guys, most likely not. "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment"? No. TUF competitions often won't pass Wikipedia:REALITYSTAR which is what they should be compared against instead of ENTERTAINER. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

the folks here advised me about entertainer. I am currently awaiting a reponse as to if they do meet point one. I would argue since they are on many episodes if those count as shows. But I am still awaiting an answer. However, I still feel that all that matters is each person getting specific press about their efforts. That should count more than anything, especially in regards to WP:GNG PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of the TUF guys wouldn't really pass off as notable as an entertainer or realitystar, but some of them do. Since he was recently deleted, how about somebody like Julian Lane? He was a major character on almost every single episode. He started the whole "let me bang, bro". He was used in more previews and advertisements for the show than all of the other fighters put together. He is as well known as at least 90% of the reality starts if not more. Willdawg111 (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, I don't think anybody is trying to do articles on every single TUF competitor. There are a handful of guys that come off of every season who are definitely notable. If they have a total of 3 fights (including any other top tier fights), then they are notable. It's not like the site is going to be flooded with TUF guys. Out of this last season, there are probably 3-4 notable guys. Julian Lane (a lot of which is for his antics), Mike Ricci, Colton Smith, and maybe Michael Hill. Let's come to some middle ground, designate a few guys off of the seasons and allow articles on them, and if nobody brings up the other guys, then I guess they weren't important enough for an article. TUF has the notablity guidelines on its side to justify the articles, however since there is a divide among the group, how about a little diplomacy?Willdawg111 (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's story time, so have a seat. Once upon a time, there was no WP:NMMA. Back then, the only notability guidelines that applied to MMA fighters was the broader WP:ATHELETE. It states that for a sportsperson to be notable they must "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." There was a lot of talk and argument over the the phrase "professional competition at the highest level". To make a long, scattered discussion short, WP:MMANOT was written to help explain the WikiProject's stance at the time on what WP:ATHELETE means to MMA. The tiered system was developed to help delineate the "highest level" of competition within MMA. The question came up as to how TUF fights fit in. The agreement was that the fighters were "fighting for a UFC contract" through exhibition fights and thus the fights were not "competition at the highest level."

It would be akin to the Yankees having a tryout game where minor league an amateur players from around the nation play to earn a spot on the real team. In this hypothetical situation, these players aren't notable because they played in a tryout game. They would only become notable if they made it to the real team. The guys on TUF aren't competing within the UFC, they are competing to be in the UFC. Once they have fought in a top-tier promotion a few times, then they can claim to have fought at the highest level and deserve a Wikipedia article. Until then, their information is best suited for other sites.

The Julian Lane article, which you like to hold onto so hard, is about a person who hasn't competed at the highest level yet and may never do so. Only time will tell. You are suggesting he is notable for having drunken outbursts on national TV. Unfortunately, a lot of people have drunken outbursts on national TV. I personally don't think Lane will have an article until he works up the ranks, if he is able to do so. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

You can tell stories about how certain people agreed to something in the past, but its just a story. It wasn't writen into the guidelines, so it doesn't really matter. You wrote up this long explination basically saying that new editors are coming here and trying to dictate how things should be. Some of us newer editors are talking about working together, compromise, diplomacy. We are be responded to with this is how it is and you need to just follow along and do it the way we tell you to. It doesn't work like that. Everybody that is active is a contributor. There is no hierarchy or chain of command in the project and nor should there be. Even if a group of editors decided how something should be 2 years ago, doesn't mean the consesnsus can't change as new editors get involved. So are you down with diplomacy and working as a team or is it going to continue to be everybody drawing a line in the sand and the project self destructing?Willdawg111 (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Although he does not has an attractive amateur record, he is undefeated in his professional career and has fought for Bellator once. I think it's just a matter of patience, within one or two years the article may meet the guidelines. Poison Whiskey 15:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Willdawg111, why don't you start a discussion specifically on handling TUF events and how it affects notability. You've got the WP:REALITYSTAR guideline to give you some ideas. As that guidelines points out, meeting or not meeting the points listed there isn't definitive but they certainly help decide if a person is notable. Consensus can change but it's not just one person, it needs to be a new consensus. Ravensfire (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

There is already somebody working on that, PortlandOregon. He has been digging through those other guidelines more than I have. Personally, I am leaning toward wanting what we have right now scrapped and lay out an updated guideline that is precise and doesn't leave any room for argument. The person meets it or they don't. There is just too much subjectivity going on and people drawing the line in the sand. We need to be working together to make the project better not destroying it. The notability has become such a sore sport, that maybe its time to move forward with something new.Willdawg111 (talk) 07:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA notability

If people are willing to be open minded and work together on it. I have an idea of coming up with a point system for MMA notability. Something that once we work out the details, there is no argument about MMA notability. For example, a fighter would need a thousand points to be notable. UFC main card would be worth 1,000. UFC undercard,Pride would be worth 500. Bellator,TUF would be worth 250. Maybe 50-100 for other organizations. I need some time to try to lay out an initial plan that can be discussed. Before I bother, is that something that people are open minded enough to take a look at and seriously discuss?Willdawg111 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Insominia is kicking my butt right now, so I actually got something started. It's on the bottom of my talk page right now. I wouldn't mind a few preliminary suggestions, just please don't change anything on it, leave the comments at the bottom of my talk page. Once I have had a chance to get a little bit of feedback and tweek it a little bit, I am going to need somebody to point me in the fight direction to bring this before the entire group so we can get a consensus and actually make the changes if the consensus agrees. Willdawg111 (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea in principle, the problem is getting people to agree on it. A lot of contributors feel that without three UFC of Pride bouts, a fighter is not worthy of a wiki page. I disagree, but am in the minority on this issue. Luchuslu (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm for this as well, as the tier system has been misinterpreted on multiple deletion nominations. I'm getting tired of seeing "fails WP:MMANOT or WP:NMMA". NMMA was created due to the bastardisation of what MMANOT was supposed to be. There is literally no point in having multiple tiers, if anything but the first tier has zero impact on notability. I'm in support of this sort of principle, or the one mentioned above that has three tiers and actually counts the 2nd/3rd tiers in establishing notability. I'd vote yes on something like the two proposals put forward. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Non-starter. You're more interested in flushing the current guidelines and getting your prefered version added than fixing what we currently have. Hasteur (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense and completely negative for no reason. The proposal above (as well as the three tier system) are improvements on the current system; not a scrapping of what we already have. I was around when the original MMANOT was created and the way it looks now is completely illogical and against what it was set out to do. If you wish to disagree with me, then please address the point in the second tier if it seems to have no impact. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Para, if you dislike that WP:NMMA/WP:MMANOT don't explicitly give fights with second tier promotions any impact on notability then why not propose to amend the guidelines to state that X number of fights with a second tier promotion can count for one of the required fights with a top-tier promotion? --TreyGeek (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here's a more defined reason why not. A point system is explicitly gamable. All it takes is hitting the magic number of points, and boom WikiLawyers now have explicit ground to stand on as opposed to the generalities that WP prefers in terms of judging notability and inclusion. Hasteur (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to have a system that is firm. There is too much arguing back and forth. Look at the deletion talk pages, people are split on whether or not it meets guidelines. People are using their personal opinions to make decisions rather than following guidelines. We need something concrete so that people can't inject their own personal objectives into it.Willdawg111 (talk) 06:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that people will always inject their own personal opinions and objectives into AfDs. Right? No matter how concrete the rules seem to one person, others will attempt to WP:WIKILAWYER it or just plain state WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Quite honestly, I'd be afraid a point system would be more complex and more vulnerable to WP:LAWERING. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

We have people right now going into the deletion discussions claiming that TUF fights don't count, but if you read the guidelines, they clearly pass. I was hoping that they were doing it because of lack of knowledge about how sanctioning and promoting fights work. I thought setting up the point system and laying things out in more detail would help elminiate issues because of people's lack of knowledge. Now, if people are doing it to fulfill a personal agenda, which is what I think you are trying to claim they are, then of course it wouldn't help. Willdawg111 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the tier system is ok. But like others pointed out, it would be good to include second-tier bouts on the guideline (WP:NMMA). Because the way it is now, the second-tier organizations (WP:MMATIER) are only symbolic. Poison Whiskey 15:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you feel about allowing X number of second-tier fights count as a first-tier fight? If you like that idea, what would be your preferred value for X? --TreyGeek (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 in UFC

I have created the article, and it's waiting for review: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2013 in UFC. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work and the timing is great if the UFC articles are going to be yearly now. One thing, your UFC 157 box has "red corner" and "blue corner" in it. Udar55 (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

UFC 158

We scored a major knock down in being able to keep UFC 158, but the deletionists managed to get back up and put a deletion review on it. We could use some guys over there to get the final barrage and the TKO. Killswitch Engage (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)