Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CrazyAces489 (talk | contribs) at 05:58, 27 December 2015 (→‎Fighter notability proposal). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Shortcut

WikiProject Boxing / flagicons

Greetings MMA'ers and MMA'ists! Would it be considered canvassing if I RfC'ed you fine people to weigh in at WikiProject Boxing regarding the dreaded flagicons debate? I don't think this counts as canvassing because I am fully refraining from contacting individual members from this lengthy WikiProject MMA discussion, and I also believe there is a strong cross-project exchange of ideas to be had. In fact, I am currently writing up an MOS for boxing, which has been long overdue. I see that MOS MMA has shunned the use of flags for about four years now, so this has inspired me to go all-out and get the same applied to boxing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't notice this until 10 days later. I will take a look later tonight. To your point of the conversation being dreaded, yea, it wasn't easy. I was on the "losing" side of the debate but i think it helped me to mentally re-frame things from thinking of it as "people for or against flags being used" to "people being for flags, having a conversation with people being for a cleaner/less cluttered wikipedia". Also keep people focused on a single issue. If i remember correctly, we were tackling a number of hot issues all at once. Like I said i'll catch up later tonight and see if i can weigh in. Also last thing, i honestly don't think it's canvassing if you are looking to get more people involved from all sides. Kevlar (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighter notability proposal

I would like to propose that the notability criteria for MMA fighters be changed slightly--from having 3 top tier fights to having 2 top tier wins. This would require that to be notable fighters must have shown the ability to compete at the highest level instead of just being signed to fill up fight cards. Fighting for a top tier championship would still show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like this change, but perhaps we could also add the criteria that any world top 10 fighter (say, by Sherdog) would also be considered notable. That would bring this criteria in line with the criteria for boxers and kickboxers. Papaursa (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to go with Papaursa's suggestion. It makes even more sense when you look at his comment at my proposal for the notability of MMA orgs. Here is the proposal as I now see it.

Proposed Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they 

   1. Have won at least two (2) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or
   2. Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization; or 
   3. Have been ranked in the world top 10 by Sherdog (other rankings can be added after discussion at WT:MMA).

Mdtemp (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse This means notability will go to those who have shown the ability to successfully compete at the highest level and brings the notability criteria more in line with other fighting sports. Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is very exclusive and underepresents MMA when comparing to other sports such as the NFL, NBA or MLB where people are assumed notable if they played in just 1 game! 05:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they 

   1. Have been in two (2) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization,  such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or
   2. Have fought for the highest title of a second or top-tier MMA organization; or 
   3. Have been ranked in the world top 10 by Sherdog (other rankings can be added after discussion at WT:MMA).
   4.  Have been in four (4) professional fights for a second-tier MMA organization CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

organization notability proposal

I would like to propose that the number of top 10 ranked fighters required for an organization to be considered top tier be increased from 3 to 6. The original number was chosen when there were 7 active top tier organizations, now there are only 2. It seems like for a new organization to be added to the top tier it should have a top 10 fighter in most of the 8 divisions currently ranked.Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This change seems reasonable to me. I'll admit I'm not sure exactly what the number should be (1 per division wouldn't seem unreasonable, but allowing some wiggle room is fine), but I do think 3 is too generous. If my suggestion of allowing top 10 fighters to be considered notable (see above discussion) is taken, then raising this number wouldn't really hurt truly accomplished fighters regardless of what promotion they're in. This change would ensure that top tier organizations are truly that, and not just fortunate to have a few excellent fighters. Papaursa (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time for Gaethje article?

He's coming up on two years as WSOF champ. He has more title defenses than the Bellator, ONE or UFC lightweight champs. Aside from the other Wikipedia-recognized guys he's beaten, he is the high-water mark of Nick Newell's career. There's certainly no lack of in-depth coverage out there. I'm too lazy to do it myself, but somebody isn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I didn't know this existed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

If I understand WP:GNG correctly, he could be considered notable as he is the subject of articles from bloodyelbow.com, mmajunkie.com, bleacherreport.com, and bjpenn.com. True he does not meet WP:MMABIO that doesn't matter if he meets WP:GNG. Kevlar (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming fights in the record tables

I have seen recently that our policy is against it. What is the rationale? I find it very convenient.--Dixtosa (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the record table is intended for things that have happened in the past. It is perfectly fine to mention somewhere in the article that there is an unexpected fight coming up, but not in the table. I did create a separate template a while back for upcoming fights, but it didn't catch hold. Kevlar (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically it - older discussions can be found here and here. The main problem was that actual fights (not events) are subject to change up to the moment fighters enter the ring. Back in the day there were entries, months in advance, that were mere speculation. Even in text, future events should be backed up by a reliable reference.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts&oldid=696961399"