Talk:UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira

Event number confusion

I would love to see a clarification regarding the event number. How is this UFC Fight Night 175? Every site seems to have a different view:

• Wikipedia -> UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira (also known as UFC Fight Night 175 or UFC on ESPN+ 29).
• Sherdog -> UFC Fight Night 171: Smith vs. Teixeira.
• MMAJunkie -> UFC on ESPN+ 29: Smith vs. Teixeira.
• Tapology -> UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira. (Not numbered)

• UFC.com -> UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira. (Not numbered)
• ESPN -> UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira. (Not numbered)

Last event before UFC 249 was UFC Fight Night 170 and since then no other event then UFC 249 has been made and broadcasted. So logically this is UFC Fight Night 171. Also, UFC 249 was not changed to UFC 250 or anything else just because it was initially cancelled, so by UFC logic itself this should be UFC Fight Night 171.

Roberthealien (talk) 09:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: Someone just changed it to 173 here on Wikipedia. And then back to 175. Its very confusing.

Roberthealien (talk) 09:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

UFC 249 was the first time the promotion did not jump a number in an event. Mostly due to the fact that they "postponed" it, though the first event was cancelled just like the other Fight Nights. I see you never updated mma articles before, so check previous UFC cancelled events and you'll see what I mean. I say we go by UFN 175 as it has always been. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I forgot to add that since this event will be broadcast by ESPN+ (therefore a standard Fight Night event), we should redirect the UFC Fight Night 175 page to it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 12:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

In answer to the earlier question - UFC on ESPN+ 29 is the same as UFC Fight Night 171. The Fight Night numbers date back prior to the ESPN era. But if it's ESPN+ 29, then it's Fight Night 171, not 175. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.121.234.62 (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

This article needs additional citations for verification

(also known as UFC Fight Night 175 and UFC on ESPN+ 33 

' ^ This information is inaccurate and no reliable sources presented to verify. There are verifiable reliable sources (such as MMAJunkie and Sherdog) supporting this information " UFC Fight Night 171 and UFC on ESPN+ 29". This issue had led good faith user @Fbdave: to a merge request. 'DO NOT REMOVE TAG until issue resolved per WP PoliciesRegice2020 (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Also, this article has no references stating that six events were canceled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Fbdave (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• There no confusion, Udar55 changed a source, but the source does not support the information for " UFC Fight Night 175 and UFC on ESPN+ 33". Only "UFC Fight Night 171 and UFC on ESPN+ 29" from the reliable sources for accurate information. Based on current facts the event remains as UFC Fight Night 171/ESPN+ 29 and it was only postponed to a later date + @Fbdave: tag cant be removed unless the issues are addressed. Someone keep removing it without resolving on talk page per policy. Regice2020 (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• MMA/UFC Experts editors should also consider removing (known as..) from lead on all UFC events. Regice2020 (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Regice2020 the known as and UFC names already have a disucssion which you have involved, pls do not split the discussion here - pls see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts of the proposal. this is no helpful. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge discussion

This event is the same as UFC Fight Night 177. Fbdave (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this merger discussion was majority oppose, thus the proposed merge will not take place. Ticelon (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

---

@Cassiopeia, Gsfelipe94, and Fbdave: After my previous attempt to merge was reverted, I have now created a new discussion where consensus can be established. I personally believe this article could and should be merged accordingly, even though the May 13 event itself was never previously scheduled. Technically, any future UFC Fight Night event headlined by Anthony Smith and Glover Teixeira is the same card because the fight has been rescheduled to headline that card. An explanation behind why the April 25 event was cancelled could be detailed in the first section of this page, supported by the background information behind the new card itself and its main event. It’s a simple matter of restoring the merge I previously attempted. All of the citations from the cancelled April 25 event page were used when doing so and I think there’s some unnecessary overlap here. Gsfelipe disagrees with me on this, which is fine and I understand why. However, explaining what happened to the April 25 event that Smith and Teixeira were supposed to originally headline can be easily done on this page as well, with a cancelled April 25 redirect to point future readers in the right direction. I was concise when trying to merge these articles myself, so article size shouldn’t be an issue either. — 29cwcst (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

• Support - The events was the same just change of date which is common. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - They were never the same event, so they can't be merged. I'll list major arguments for it:

1. The April 25 event was scheduled for Lincoln, Nebraska and expected to be headlined by a LHW bout between Anthony Smith vs. Glover Teixeira. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was cancelled by the UFC on April 20 as stated on the source. Note: UFC 249 was postponed and remained the same event despite changing location/date. In this case, it was cancelled.
2. On April 24, the UFC announced that it would book a entirely new event for a previously non scheduled date of May 13. No main event was announced and as mentioned, it was an entirely new event, not a relocated one.
3. On May 2, the organization announced the entire card for this event, now including the same bout that was rescheduled alongisde other fighters/bouts from other cancelled events. Note: only the bout itself was rescheduled, not the event.

The title for the cancelled event makes no confusion with the other event that actually take place. It's not about size of the article or anything like that. They are different events and should be separated for future navigation. When you come into the List of UFC events, you will not see it among the cancelled events if the merge happens, so it would not be precise (just like having an article listed of a cancelled event that was never planned for that date and was relocated). Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

References

@Gsfelipe94: Fair enough Gsfelipe and I understand, but does every UFC event require an article? For the sake of future navigation, I could provide a detailed short list of all cancelled UFC events on that page instead. I personally feel as though the cancelled April 25 event is an outlier because it doesn't follow the same naming convention as other cancelled UFC event articles. Even if they are/were separate events, this is why I personally believe it should be merged with UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe they do. That cancelled event has more info than some previous events. Regarding the naming convention, it has a problem because the standard name would be the same for the new article. If they broadcast the May 13 event on ESPN, then it would be OK to name it as a Fight Night and the other one as "on ESPN" (like UFC Fight Night: Overeem vs. Harris and UFC on ESPN: Overeem vs. Harris). By the way, that's another example why we should keep both articles. At least in tables, it still has "Smith vs. Teixeira" as a naming, but when people open it they are able to see the info for that cancelled event and a link for the other event that shares the same headliner. People did not want to merge those two articles, I believe this situation falls into the same logic. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

In spite of all the valid points you've raised, does Cassiopeia still agree with me nevertheless? The pages will obviously remain separate if this is no longer the case. Also, how would you feel about moving the titles of all other cancelled UFC events instead? — 29cwcst (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the other articles should keep their titles because there is no conflict with other events. This one is special just because of it. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: Thoughts? — 29cwcst (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

29cwcst give a few days as I have limited free time time this year as compared to last year and need to reread the article and sources to look into details a little more before comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassiopeia (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. The different events. But rename for consistency: Cancelled UFC event on April 25, 2020 to UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira (cancelled event). 94.179.245.243 (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
• Other than wanting to keep the pages separate, renaming the article doesn't really solve the problem because it still wouldn't share the same naming convention as previous UFC event articles. For instance, the aforementioned UFC Fight Night: Overeem vs. Harris event page isn't titled UFC Fight Night: Overeem vs. Harris (cancelled event), like you believe should be done here. In regards to consistency, I think a better idea would see us rename all cancelled events accordingly, with only UFC 151 and UFC 176 keeping their respective titles. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The Harris/Overeem event that was cancelled was an ESPN+ card, while the one that took place is an ESPN event, therefore the titles are different. Regarding naming, I believe we should keep the main event as a way for people to find it easier. This case is special for reasons previously mentioned. People still find it as the title is hidden in text (just like a (figther) next to a name or something else to separate people with same names). Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's to separate fighters from other people with the same name. It applies to everybody who shares the same name, regardless of who they are or what they do. As for cancelled UFC events, the headliner title would still serve as a redirect for every one of those articles. Had the May 13 event ultimately taken place on ESPN instead of ESPN+, then we obviously wouldn't have this problem. Additionally, we shouldn't have to disguise page titles if doing so is unnecessary. How about turning the cancelled April 9, 2020 event article into a page for the cancelled UFC Fight Night event on August 15, which was originally planned for 3Arena in Dublin, Ireland? — 29cwcst (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The UFC booked UFC 252 for August 15 instead. There's some info regarding the original plans of a Fight Night event in Dublin written there. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I know, but it was originally a UFC Fight Night event and not a pay-per-view event, or "fix event" as you've previously called them. Despite sharing the same date, does it not deserve an article of its own? — 29cwcst (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

No, because there was no main event announced, let alone a single fight. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting. A different event that was cancelled for April 25 can remain because its fight card and headliner had been scheduled already, yet a different event that was planned for August 15 cannot because no bouts were announced. The different event that was planned for August 15 will not appear on the list, but the April 25 event will. Presumably, your argument would be that UFC 252 is a pay-per-view event, therefore any information regarding the different August 15 event could be explained or detailed there. That's what I previously tried to do with UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira and the cancelled April 25 event! People could read about the cancelled fight card on the May 13 page, which was created after the April 25 event was cancelled. Why is an exception being made for a pay-per-view event that, coincidentally, shares the same date with a different event originally planned for another location? Your reasoning is starting to confuse me now. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The April 25 event was completely booked, official and everything else, then cancelled. August 15 was just like several other ocasions (including the one were discussing on the other article) in which the UFC planned a location and then changed it. Doesn't necessarily mean that the event was cancelled. We can take hours looking into all previous events and find situations like that. So yeah, they are not the same thing. Anyway:

1. A different event that was cancelled for April 25 can remain because its fight card and headliner had been scheduled already, yet a different event that was planned for August 15 cannot because no bouts were announced.- As I said before, the fight card was not rescheduled. The event was cancelled and a new one was booked. Eventually they booked the same fight to headline it.
2. Presumably, your argument would be that UFC 252 is a pay-per-view event, therefore any information regarding the different August 15 event could be explained or detailed there. - If it was another Fight Night or ESPN event, the information would be displayed there just like all the other events that were relocated due to the pandemic. That's what I'm saying. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, technically the event was rescheduled for the created date of May 13 after the April 25 was cancelled. None of the fight cards rescheduled for pre-existing dates (May 9, May 16, June 6, June 13, June 20, June 27 and July 11) were or are the same as before because certain bouts from the various cancelled cards were/have now been scheduled for them. The new event on August 15 was revealed to be a pay-per-view event (UFC 252) and the original event has NOT been rescheduled. If the original August 15 event had been rescheduled, then it would have remained on that date and UFC 252 would be taking place on a different date instead. The event that took place and was created for the May 13 date IS another Fight Night or ESPN event, where the demise of the April 25 event could be outlined as additional background information. Do you still believe every UFC event requires an article? I still believe these two articles can and should be merged, at least until something of this nature happens again in the future. — 29cwcst (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I've lined up most of what I had to say to this. You should bring more people into the discussion. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

We're still waiting on Cassiopeia, but I'll try pinging Fbdave individually. — 29cwcst (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fbdave: What's your opinion on a potential merge between UFC Fight Night: Smith vs. Teixeira and Cancelled UFC event on April 25, 2020? — 29cwcst (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll ping some of the users from the WikiProject talk page that discussed most recent subjects and have been active. I do believe that if a merge is agreed, the table should still feature the event (even if it is a short cut to part of the final article). @Bastun, Ppt1973, Cepiolot, Deancarmeli, Lukejordan02, Kevlar, Discographer, Dancter, Psycho-Krillin, Dimspace, Rockchalk717, and Udar55:. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Though these fights have the same name, as mentioned above, they're not the same event. --Discographer (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, not the same event, not the same card (although the same main event), not the same location. I would make sense to merge if it were a postponed event (which is not the case).Psycho-Krillin (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Gsfelipe94: Well, it looks like we've achieved something of a consensus here. All that remains now is to close the discussion so, would somebody who opposed this merger proposal care to do the honours? — 29cwcst (talk) 11:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

There's more people to give their insight. We should give them enough time. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree Gsfelipe, although I also think the time has come for me to move on because any potential merge is looking pretty unlikely at this point. Good luck, take care and all the best. — 29cwcst (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

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