User talk:Ravensfire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Willdawg111 (talk | contribs) at 21:01, 15 January 2013 (→‎MMA tables). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My local time:
May 2024
Wednesday
12:30 pm CST
17:30 UTC

I will generally respond on this page inside the section which has been added unless you request otherwise. Please watch this page if you leave me a message, and remember to sign your post with ~~~~. Thanks!


Welcome!

Welcome message!
Hello, Ravensfire! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Levine2112 discuss 04:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

MMAwiki

Thanks for your reply, and don't worry, I'm not discouraged! That didn't come across at all from your reply on the talk page. I know that Bulbapedia is allowed to be linked from Wikipedia, with almost 23,000 articles, roughly what sort of number of articles, or number of active users would Wikipedia begin to consider it?

The vast majority of the pages so far have been more or less copied directly from Wikipedia, but we are aiming to expand each article considerably. Foolishly, I haven't added any sort of Creative Commons notice on each of the copied pages, I will absolutely get to that though. I'll add a notice on each of the talk pages as per WP:REUSE.

Thanks again for your help and kind words! Aqueously (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MMA results templates - format question

Hello, Ravensfire. You have new messages at Oskar Liljeblad's talk page.
Message added 19:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Re: templates

Hey! I checked out your adjustments and they look great. The only thing I would suggest is also centering the "vs" in the Semerzer/Peralta match. A no contest result won't happen with much frequency, but it makes it look better (like how you centered the rounds). Keep up the great work! Udar55 (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ravensfire. You have new messages at TreyGeek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MMA tables

Whatever we do with the table, we need to keep them short and to the point and easy to read. MMA fans aren't coming to wikipedia to get some detailed biography of a fighter or event. They want something quick and easy to follow. They want to be able to tell who fought, what event, who won, and how they won. There isn't any need to fluff it up with anything extra.
The other issue I have is repecting all diciplines and what they call submissions. If somebody wins by a Keylock, then there shouldn't be any issue putting Keylock/DWL if the person who won the fight is a catch wrestler. Willdawg111 (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly won't disagree with you on keeping tables succinct - the goal of Wikipedia is to present a summary of a topic with links, via references, to where people can get the full details. How that information should be resented can differ from person to person. As for the what terms to use, ultimately we need to leave that up to how it's described by secondary sources or we run afoul of WP:OR. If everyone agrees with a particular term, great. When there's a dispute, we've got to go with secondary sources. Even in scenarios where you know it's something, another person with a different background may know it's something else. Hence the need to use secondary sources. It makes it hard at times when you see what you consider the wrong term used, but that's how it has to work in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. Ravensfire (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily a wrong term. The Americana and Keylock are exactly the same submission. The DWL is the exact same submission except the CACC guys pull the elbow in toward the body to increase more pressue. I understand we don't want to use original research which is why I think there shouldn't be a problem with putting the name used by the source and putting an alternate name next to it. Its basically a compromise of not using original research with properly respecting the arts.
One of them I ran accross this weekend at the Strikeforce fight was a fight that was finished by Keylock. The fighter didn't tap right away and his arm was bent way over. They mistakingly called it a Kimura, but a Kimura uses opposite hand positions and goes underneath and not over top like a Keylock. Respecting original research I entered it as a shoulder lock. Keylocks and Kimuras are both types of shoulder locks, so it wouldn't be original research but it would allow us to me more accurate. I had somebody changing my work on me. I'm not going to try to give a JuJitsu lesson on Wikipedia, but personally I don't see what the issue with using a more appropriate name (as long as we are preserving the actual results of the sources). Willdawg111 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]