Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Making World Series of Fighting a Second-Tier MMA Organization

Now three shows into its existence, the WSOF has two fighters in Sherdog's top ten rankings for June 17, 2013. Although technically that could qualify the promotion for top-tier status, I feel it would be more appropriate to designate then as second-tier for the time being with the option to give them a boost if they continue to sign and develop notable over the next year or so. I give strong Support to this idea and would like the rest of the community's imput. Luchuslu (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support Second Tier ONLY The relative youth of the organization and the fact that these organizations either take off like wildfire or atrophy in a 18 month period suggests in my mind that while they are a somewhat notable organization, they have yet to reach the pinnacle of the MMA orginzation piramid. I would note that there are other more well established promotions that are more deserving of Tier 1 status than WSoF from my reading. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support — WSOF in the second tier. Poison Whiskey 16:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support — makes sense. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm a bit skeptical of their long-term survival, even if they aren't overspending on purse money, but objectively they have a reasonable number of credible and/or well-known fighters (including two or so that could be considered top 10 fighters in their respective divisions), are one of the higher profile organizations out there, and critically, they have a tv deal with NBC Sports Network that apparently is not just a time-buy. While NBC Sports is still a second-tier cable network at best, being under the NBC Sports umbrella in general is a significant achievement. Anyway second-tier is fine in my opinion (certainly not Top Tier though). Beansy (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I think WSOF is off to a promising start. It's clearly not top tier.Mdtemp (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If there aren't any objections (and since a majority of active contributors have voted) I'll go ahead and move it to second-tier. Luchuslu (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Straw poll: the current format is less useful as an encyclopedia than the previous individualized format.

While mindful of WP:POLL, I feel that a rough survey is necessary to show the severely limited effectiveness of this "yearly" page when compared to the previous format, and am not aware of such a poll having been conducted previously. I hope that one of the two formats, or another to be proposed, will establish itself as a clear favorite. If there exists significant disagreement, discussion can hopefully lead to agreeable consensus. Following that consensus, I think a detailed reiteration of policy arguments that have been made previously is long overdue.

Strongly Agree - The current page as it stands is overly complex, poorly navigable, and near unreadable- and I see no way to easily remedy that. And yet, roughly half of the year still awaits addition. While many have acknowledged this problem in discussions that exist already on this page, little contribution has been made towards fixing that problem, in my personal opinion due to WP:FAIT. In reading previous discussions and their culmination to this point, WP:BURO factors most prominently to me: "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." The current format is a direct result of strictly enforced rules whose application in this instance has been significantly more detrimental to Wikipedia than alternatives, and because of immaturity and moderation it is thus difficult or impossible for contributors looking to improve the encyclopedia to be BOLD.HeyDecency (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree - Asking the same question over and over with the exact same reasons (Mobile compatibility, User desires, Uglyness, etc.) only further divides the community. Wikipedia is built on a simple premise, collecting and organizing information. A significant majority who want the status-quo-ante make the argument that no harm is being done. There is harm being done in littering the namespace with thousands of substandard articles that don't meed our basic guidelines and rules. Being that the last argument for this discussion started April 13th, this is much too soon to re-litigate the same arguments again. This attempt clearly is trying to get a easily vote stacked question put forth as gold pressed consensus. Even if we were to accept the premise, the shattering into many separate articles would not be an improvement for Wikipedia therefore the majority of WP:IAR does not hold up. Hasteur (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

As you said, the simple premise of Wikipedia is collecting and organizing information. Thus, the question above is directed purely at the usefulness of this page in that role- an intentionally limited scope. I am not aware of any such poll conducted previously, as I said, so I apologize if I'm duplicating information. This straw poll is not intended to solve or even address policy disputes, merely to collect how people feel about the usability of the page. HeyDecency (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

"Usefullness" argument has been disproved 4 times already. Would you like to come up with another good yarn? Hasteur (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm very interested to see how something so obviously subjective was able to be proven. Please link me to that discussion! HeyDecency (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree as the result of individual event articles would be the deletion of non-notable events. (Yes, UFC has events that are not notable as per Wikipedia's guidelines.) Suggestions for breaking up the yearly article have been proposed in the past, such as dividing the article up into (US) broadcast method (ie 2013 in UFC on Fox, 2013 in UFC on FX, etc). --TreyGeek (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Reasonable idea. I'm personally more partial to grouping fights by weight class. Either way, this poll is strictly about usability, as I replied to Hasteur above. Notability and other separate discussions should be exactly that- separate discussions. Trying to combine all of the debates that have been had into a singular thread is an obvious recipe for disaster that's nevertheless been baked many times previously. Hopefully having a more encapsulated approach will be more useful. HeyDecency (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Agree - The UFC 2013 page blows chunks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.248.249 (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

False dichotomy: Yes, this page "blows chunks". But the reason for that is the UFC community's reluctance to actually build an article that summarizes a year in the UFC. Instead, people are stuck on this format of a section per match in the hopes that they can individually break those sections in to articles. That's a really bad format.—Kww(talk) 01:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree - From a reader's perspective, the current format seems to have lost content, is difficult to update, rather large, and hard to navigate compared to the individual articles. The edit war over the format has also resulted seems to have resulted in the loss of information rather than the format. The edit war also seems to make it difficult to update as everything becomes contested. Notice the lack of non editors voting in this straw poll. From an editing point of view, if the above editors would quit warring and put the flags back onto the fight cards and start to contribute as a fan rather than edit to enforce policy then I would Disagree. All I want to do is check out an athlete's history before he goes into a fight (Today is a day before another non notable event), so in this aspect TreyGeek has a point. I'd say this would be the main use of these pages...to do research. BTW when I find something good to contribute (that is not likely to be deleted) then I will sign up for a screen name. Peace. 70.127.227.92 (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree The issue that bothers me is that the majority of editors who support omnibus articles have no interest in the subject, nor are they interested in editing, updating, and maintaining articles. That is left to the editors who are MMA fans and actually take pride in the coverage of UFC and MMA on Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

If you think articles like UFC on Fox: Johnson vs. Dodson and UFC 158 are something to take pride in compared to UFC 94 and UFC 140, there is a major problem in my opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree - This page looks to be made by people who think the UFC operates on yearly seasons (see KWW remark above) like the NFL or NBA. It's a ridiculous joke when Dunning-Kruger types (who can't even bother to read UFC) with a bit of e-power are allowed to run these articles into the ground. 174.31.163.200 (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree - I'm not saying this page should be deleted (I kind of feel like it could serve as a redundant back-up if nothing else, given all that's happened), but it's not nearly as useful as the individual page format, and it's downright bizarre that UFC 157 of all things does not have an individual page despite the staggering amount of mainstream press that event received. If another beyond-insane two-year edit war breaks out, count me out, but my opinion is that the single-event format is easier to navigate, more user friendly, reduced bandwidth usage, and UFC events usually were able to pass notability guidelines after proper effort was expended to find said sources (something that in my opinion should always be the first offered solution or request, as opposed to an automatic AfD nomination). I think most sane people would prefer a reasonable, low-drama solution this time around. Beansy (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any Wiki review board that investigates page quality? I can't imagine this garbage those worthless politicians put up after they deleted the UFC events pages could pass any sort of review. I've never seen worse editing, if you can even call it that, on any area of wiki. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I've moved this here per admin ruling. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)