Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

Article alerts

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

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

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

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

2003 Interim Heavyweight Championship Grand Prix mentions

There are strange references and brackets for a fictional heavyweight title tournament on the Total Elimination 2003 and Final Conflict 2003 wikipedia pages. The title match between Nogueira and Cro Cop at Final Conflict 2003 was indeed for the interim heavyweight heavyweight championship, but there was no tournament of any sort. I removed the brackets and mention of this fictional grand prix, and we should watch out for anyone who attempts to add this utterly false, unverifiable information. Edwardtang (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

10th planet jiu-jitsu

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

UFC 81

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

Record tables

I think that the fighters record tables should be changed to this:

it includes a fighter non-mma stuff and looks better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollica93 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 May 2010

It's a no from me. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally like the MMABOX (Justinsane15 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

Professional record breakdown

11 matches	10 wins	1 loss
By knockout	5	0
By submission	3	1
By decision	2	0

It is way better —Preceding unsigned comment added by KEWLONION (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 29 articles to be referenced, a 3.3% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remco Pardoel

Though it might be of interest here fought @ UFCs 2 & 7 --Nate^t/_c 09:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about notability to put in some basic guidelines

Ok people, I know that a lot of discussion at WP:MMA don't get very far, as there aren't many of us who are regular contributors. However, I think it would be best to set some guidelines about what makes a fighter notable. I'm willing to hear you guys out about non-notability etc and change my views if a compelling argument can be met and compromise can be made.

I've been discussing this process with Papaursa at their talk page and that user replied to me with:

"I find that participating in the martial arts project is pretty time consuming. That said, I'd be willing to put my 2 cents in on MMA notability guidelines. I doubt I'll ever be much of a contributor to MMA articles (I'm not that big a fan), but establishing some guidelines seems like a worthwhile activity. It's clear you and I have different ideas about what makes someone a professional, so perhaps that's a good starting point for discussion. Also, what events are notable--UFC and PRIDE are, what about Strikeforce and WEC? Which European and Asian promotions qualify? Does MMA have to include groundwork? Most people think so, but others would argue any competion that involves multiple traditional martial arts, like sanda, would qualify. I also feel that the results of every event don't need their own article. Papaursa (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)"

Here's my opinion then:

Notable organisations

USA

• UFC - (participation on main card or undercard of numbered events, fight nights, UFC on Versus and TUF, considering WP:ATHLETE and the fact that any participation under the Zuffa banner is as high as it gets in MMA.
• WEC - as is.
• Strikeforce/ShoMMA - (the professionals if headlining or notable, e.g. Tyron Woodley, Rockhold etc, not the amateur bouts)
• Bellator - (participation in the tournament or a fairly high profile non-tournament match, whether that by via facing a highly rated/notable opponent, or being one of the higher billings on the card)

Canada

• MFC (if on the main card, no prelims as MFC isn't quite as notable as it could be; it has potential for growth)

England/UK

• Cage Rage - this was the elite of British MMA and while defunct, if one compiled performances under the Cage Rage banner, they would be notable
• Cage Warriors - now the number one in England, I think.
• BAMMA - a few more events and participants in the main card will be classed as notable.

Japan

• PRIDE
• Shooto Victory Road
• DREAM
• probably some others I'm forgetting

As for event results, I think the most notable ones (e.g. the US ones and DREAM warrant their own pages. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. WP:N clearly says routine sports coverage isn't notable and that's what the individual event articles are--just a list of results. Papaursa (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Fully professional"

• This is a topic where Paralympiakos and I clearly have disagreed. WP:Athlete uses the term "fully professional" and I take that to mean an athlete makes their living from competing. That's why most baseball minor leaguers are not notable and what separates a top-flight fighter from someone who wins $100 at a local karate competition. I grant that it's often hard, or impossible, to know exactly what someone is earning from fighting. However, lacking exact dollar amounts, it's reasonable to look at whether or not a person has another job. If so, they probably aren't "fully professional". If they appear to be supporting themselves solely off of their earnings from fighting, then they are "fully professional". Papaursa (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fighter notability

• If a fighter is fully professional, then he qualifies as notable under the current WP:ATH. I think that's really the primary (if not sole) criteria. I'd say it doesn't matter what organization he fights for--if he can make a living fighting locally, that qualifies. People who have fought for a world title of any notable organization would also qualify, at least to me, but it seems unlikely anyone could do that and not be "fully professional". I think that the arguments of saying "he fought notable opponents" or "he didn't fight anyone good" are irrelevant. Papaursa (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We made it a year since the last time this discussion came up[1]. I agree with many of the things Papaursa suggests. The challenge is getting both a consensus and someone to writeup the guidelines. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It sure would be nice to get input from some more people. If we can reach a consensus, I might be willing to do a rough draft of notability guidelines. If we don't get more feedback, I might even go with what we have (something is better than nothing). Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears there may be a push to start using WP:NSPORT for notability guidelines as opposed to WP:ATHLETE. WP:NSPORT does not specifically cover MMA or other types of fighters, but does seem to suggest using WP:GNG as a basic criteria. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

MMA notability page

OK, I took the bull by the horns and created User:Papaursa/MMA notability as a draft of MMA notability guidelines. Please take a look at it and feel free to make comments/changes. I didn't want to put it out as a main page without giving people a chance to see it first. I tried to make some reasonably objective criteria for fighter notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the discussion of your draft. Good work, also. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines have been put into WIkipedia's mainspace and the page is titled MMA notability. There are currently no shorthand links to it. At least we now have a standard reference we can point to. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to put this thing to a vote- then work on cleaning up what we have, then some of us can move on to getting ONE format for the MMA Boxes (as listed above) There are at least 4 different templates on notable fighters. David.snipes (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to David Snipes, if you go through my recent contributions from the last week, you'll notice me standardising the record tables. I'm aiming to go from bad tables like the ones at, say Jason Miller a week ago, to the table at the same page NOW (after my work). Little slow though considering each table takes ages and there are over a thousand MMA fighters. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to start discussing record tables, I point to the current Jason Miller (fighter) page as one that is cluttered, resulting most (6/10) of the cells word wrapping. IMO, flags next to locations are redundant and should be removed (and they also go against the guidelines on the use of flags last I checked). I also personally believe that the record column is not terribly needed and removing it would help alleviate the clutter. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Without a doubt it takes forever, and I'm not saying that it dosn't happen- but we need a bottom line- the table needs to look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waylon_Lowe and not like Fedor's table or so and so's table. I wish we could get a bot with it.

Might not be a bad idea for us to come to a final choice- then make a list of all the fighters - then have us go through and fix them or remove them, or on that note- Pick an event, then go through and fix all the fighters on that card- say go through Pride 1, fix all them, Paralympiakos picks UFC 17, fixes those- and we check them off a list as we go, sure the later ones become easier- but there we go.

Another thing we need to do is get with the other projects and get ONE table- If Patrick Berry's K-1 table looks different than his MMA box, we got issues. David.snipes (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely against removal of tables. The thing is though, whats the difference between the Waylon Lowe table and Fedor table? All I can see the font size and central alignment of certain rows. Atm, anyway, I'm going through the majority of lightweight fighters first, sorting them out so that they look like that of Jim Wallhead, with the neutral date function, rather than 2010-08-08, which looks horrible to me as an Englishman. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin McCully

Hey guys, I'm having to revert vandalism from the Justin McCully article on what seems like nearly a daily basis. Apparently, there is quite a bit of humor in adding to the article that his nickname is "American Fedor." These edits usually go without reversion because only a mixed martial arts fan would see it and assume it's incorrect. As a result, by the time I revert it, the bad edit has usually stood for hours or even days. If even a couple other people watchlist that article, it would probably help out a bunch. Thanks. Chicken Wing (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching it- if the vandalism continues we can report it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. (Justinsane15 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Notable MMA organizations

People have been adding organizations/promotions to the notability page without any discussion. I'm not saying whether or not these organizations should be listed, however additions are supposed to be discussed here first. The purpose of the notability criteria is to represent consensus, not an individual opinion. I have left the notability page as it is, but others may want to see if they agree with the additions. I believe organizations listed should represent the top of the profession--akin to Major League Baseball. Papaursa (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are so few active members that follow the project page that achieving consensus on anything is difficult, that said I agree that just adding names without at least attempting to discuss them makes the list itself worthless. Phospheros (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue with listing organizations that, as you say, are akin to Major League Baseball is that there is no objective criteria for deciding this. Dana White believes that the UFC is the only notable organization in the world, and frequently makes comparisons to the UFC being like the NFL. Obviously, this is not an unbiased viewpoint, but he points to the fact that the UFC is the only organization that has pushed to legalize MMA in every state and is growing the sport in multiple countries around the globe. So, while an organization like Strikeforce may have some great fighters and puts on some interesting cards, by this criteria there is a huge difference between the UFC and other promotions. Of course, Strikeforce can turn around and say that they are notable for having signed the top heavyweight (and maybe pound for pound) fighter in the world. Bellator can claim that they are one of the few, if not the only major promotion that determines all of their champions in a tournament format. Japanese organizations like Dream and Shooto can say that, unlike the UFC, they put on fights with fighters competing at flyweight, all the way up to super-heavyweight, on the same card. Wikipedians can certainly speculate as to what the major promotions are, but it doesn't seem sensible to expect a short-list that everyone agrees on to arise because "top of the profession" is not an objective criteria. It would be more sensible to score each promotion on a scale across multiple dimensions like those outlined on this page. Not every characteristic would have to be weighted the same. The notable organizations would be those that have a score above a certain threshold. Get consensus on what the criteria are, how those criteria should be weighted, the ratings on these criteria for each promotion, and the threshold for notability - after that, it's simple math to see which organizations rise to the top. In order to challenge how an organization is ranked, it wouldn't be sufficient to just say that a group is "ranked too low" - the person would have to get consensus in order to reexamine some part of the formula.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I like this suggestion, although the devil is clearly in the details. If you'd like to take a shot at getting things started, please go ahead. Perhaps I should change my analogy to golf. It's clear the PGA is the top tour in the world, but there are top competitors on a number of the other circuits. If there was an independent world ranking system we could use that to determine which organizations the best fighters fight for and claim those are the notable organizations. Just a thought. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This look promising for fighter rankings, unfortunately the got-to source Sherdog is horribly our of date. --Nate^t/_c 08:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I found two sets of world rankings that are current, seem to be independent, and are transparent. Both rely on the votes of a panel whose members are clearly identified. The two are at http://www.independentworldmmarankings.com/ and http://www.mmamemories.com/2010/06/04/june-2010-mens-independent-world-mma-rankings.html. I think these seem like a good starting point for determining organizational notability. Any comments? By the way, I was thinking of only using the men's rankings since that is where the bulk of the sport's popularity is. Papaursa (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon a closer look these seem to be the same rankings, which gives them more credibility since several sites are using the same rankings. I went through the list of 70 fighters listed (top 10 in 7 weight divisions) and looked at Sherdog to see which organization sponsored their last MMA fight. Here are the results: UFC 34, WEC 15, Strikeforce 12, Shooto 3, Dream 3, Sengoku 2, Bellator 1. I believe this gives us an objective criteria to determine which organizations are truly notable--the ones where the top fighters fight. I propose these be the only active organizations we consider top-tier. I will wait a few days to see if there are any comments on this. If not, I will amend the notability guidelines to reflect this. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What about defunct organizations such as Pride? --TreyGeek (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pride is the easy one in that it was notable for many reasons and then was merge to the UFC. For others you could still use the oldest (June 2009) and go by looking @ where their ex-fighters are, eg Cage Rage has several ex guys in that ranking. Historic Rankings for a given year from multiple sources are available so we could use the rankings for the year the promotion folded as a guide. --Nate^t/_c 12:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On a side note that count also neatly splits the orgs into tiers; UFC is tier 1 WEC & Strikeforce are tier 2 and the other are tier 3, you could also say undercards are a tier lower than the main cards. Not use if its useful but you could use it with the fight counts some how. All this is a bit too rule based but in some ways but it would be a handy guide. --Nate^t/_c 12:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to keep things simple--not looking at where on the card someone fought, weight division differences, or how many fights they fought with each organization. I wanted to know where the top fighters are fighting now. For example, the heaviest classes are dominated by UFC and Strikeforce, while WEC predominates in the lightest classes. Nor was I looking to create a lot of tiers--that might seem reasonable, but I was trying to get a simple yet objective criteria. If an organization has a top 10 fighter in any weight class, it's notable--otherwise it's not. I don't think that sets the bar too high, just 1 top 10 fighter in any class, yet it shines a light on where the top fighters fight. In a nutshell--if you're an organization and don't have any top-flight fighters, then you're still a minor league. Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

By that token, was EliteXC ever notable? How does Moosin have a page? Or King of the Cage? Heck, I don't think Dream even counts anymore. I think the MMA section is more worried about being EXclusive more than INclusive. I'd rather have a page on a borderline notable like Bobby Southworth, than have every card look like the undercard of Feder vs Werdum David.snipes (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

<aybe its me, but it seems like fairly easy to tell what should and should not be included. UFC , WEC , Strikeforce , Shooto , Dream , Sengoku , Bellator are all world-known and fairly obvious. others in say Europe can be added if they start exporting fighters overseas. Other than that- I would take each one on a case by case basis. I added the USA-MMA organization to the template, and I feel it is notable due to the level of fighters they bring in, the attendances they pull, and the upcoming HBO documentary. I have not added Cage Rulers, due to them not running shows that are notable, and once I get verifiable evidence on Ring Rulers, I will make a case for notability there as well. Considering Moosin has a page . . . .

One thing that needs to happen is any red-linked organization in the box needs to be removed ASAP. If the editor that placed them has not made a page for them, then no way are they notable. David.snipes (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at it more from a fighter notability side and re-reading it is a little "if,then,else" ish.

For active/new orgs this works well, my only issue is that it is US focused with a nod to Japan. From a quick look ALL the panel are US based, so would not be expected to know the MMA scene in other countries as well, this coupled with the UFC being the top of the sport so fighters from smaller orgs anywhere in the world gravitate towards it means that orgs of similar size to Bellator or Stikeforce with UFC prospects, will be less likely to get in.

Before people start deleting red links, here's one thing to consider. For the box "Professional mixed martial arts organizations," we could only include those organizations that already have a page and meet consensus for notability. A separate page can be created called "List of mixed martial arts organizations" that is meant to be more comprehensive. I personally see value in having a list of organizations that contains promotions that don't currently have a page, as well as defunct promotions, because it gives a nice snapshot of the industry as it currently exists, as well as highlights pages that should be created, but perhaps haven't been yet. Too many small organizations are included in the box, for sure, but that doesn't mean we have to get rid of them from WP entirely. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is that you'll get IPs adding every tiny "Bloodshed" or "Mayhem" organisation (by that, I mean the smallest of promotions, even more so than the likes of Brutaal or Palace Fights.) Paralympiakos (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you rather see them here though, rather than in the box? It also doesn't seem like it would be too hard to come up with an inclusion criteria for the list. If a promotion holds professional rather than amateur fights, features more than just regional fighters, follows the unified rules, holds multiple cards in a year, has a linkable website, and is licensed by state governing bodies than I would have no problem with its inclusion. Certainly, seasoned editors could clean-up the list periodically to make sure that all organizations meet these criteria. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And again, my issue: Let me give you 3 examples; 1} USA-MMA Does 3-5K attendance (far more than the UFC did when it was in south LA, Had fighters like Ken Shamrock, Ricco Rodreguez, and about half the Bellator 7 and 18 undercard has fought on its shows- Does it qualify? I would say with its rate of growth and fighters, yes. 2} Cage Kings - Averages 3K fans in 4 states runs 6 shows a year- no notable fighters other than 4 TUF-level fighters (Mike Wessel etc) Does it qualify? i would say no. 3} Ring Rulers - Averages 2-4K fans in 6 states, runs 25 shows a year- Will Campuzano being the largest star to ever appear on its shows- about 90% amateur talent, Does it qualify? I would say so just on attendance over 52K in 2009 - in 6 states. David.snipes (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have taken all the comments made so far and tried to incorporate them into the notability page. I put organizations into 2 tiers--the organizations with highly ranked fighters and everyone else. I wanted to be inclusive as far as organizations go, due to the volatility of the business. However, I wanted to be clear that not all organizations are equal and to make it clear where the notable fighters are. When you look at the criteria for athletes and traditional martial artists the bar can be set fairly high--Olympics and world championship competitions. I don't think it's unreasonable to have similar conditions for MMA fighters--compete against the best. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pound-for-pound problem

Some time ago "Pound-for-pound" was changed to redirect to "Ring Magazine pound for pound" this is a problem as lots of MMA pages link to it. --Phospheros (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a HUGE Problem with pound for pound rankings- and Feel they really have no place in MMA (considering its really only merging two lists for any rankings) Boxing is a whole other world. I do not feel rankings have ANY place in wikipedia - other than historical basis (from 1999 to his loss in 2003 he was considered the number 1 super-heavyweight in the world -SOURCE) and pound for pound rankings even less so. David.snipes (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)