Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gaethje defies laws of gravity (and Colorado)[edit]

Nevermind that he's a dominant, undefeated champion on American TV, but now he's been suspended for a backflip. A harmless and well-executed gymnastics move, deemed unsportsmanlike. This goes beyond sports (where it seems to be unprecedented), and into the realm of stodginess vs fun. He's essentially this generation and gender's Cyndi Lauper. CNN isn't aboard with that (yet), but it's a featured story in the MMA media. Is this finally a notability tipping point? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, March 16, 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason by Bellator's events are listed in a big article by year?[edit]

Is it because we don't have as much content for an individual article for each event, or we don't have enough editors to put the work in, or is there another reason? Just wondering. I don't really have the time to spare to create individual articles at the moment but may do in the near future if there's no reason not to. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 10:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Somebody here probably remember the details and where to find the discussion but I believe it came down to that some of the individual events were not themselves notable (lack of secondary reliable sources covering the events in significant detail) so it was better to include them all together year-by-year. Otherwise many of the individual events were in danger of being deleted (and I believe some were deleted as not being notable). This approach allowed us to keep all that information somewhere. SQGibbon (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. I was one of the main editors on individual Bellator pages back in the day. When a certain editor had an issue with MMA, they went through and nominated every page for deletion. A big discussion was made and the resolution was to do them in yearly formats. Udar55 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
See the WP:NEVENTS events notability page for why this was done. Basically, most of the individual event articles were nothing more than a summary of the results. Having an article for the entire year (think season) easily meets notability criteria. Articles for a single event (game) with nothing more than the results and a bare minimum of prose will fail notability. Events that have something significant happen that gets wide mention beyond sport-specific sources are potential candidates for their own article, but I would suggest discussing it here or on the season talk page first. Ravensfire (talk) 17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding rankings to the fight card/results table on UFC event pages[edit]

A conversation was started a few weeks ago on the Talk Page for UFC 205 about including fighter rank on the fight card table(s). A handful of people chimed in there, with an almost unanimous majority in favor of including this information.

The arguments in favor of including it have included:

  • It is notable, verifiable, and relevant for the reader.
  • It will help understanding where each fighter stood before a bout.
  • I don't see why it should be actively excluded.
  • Visually they look appealing.
  • It gives historical context and would prove useful to readers in "mapping" fighters' careers.
  • If rankings are utilized in determining who fights whom, it seems reasonable to include them in the table.

One commenter stated: "I have no problem with the inclusion of rankings." His only objection was that "it really is too late to begin now." I disagree that it is ever "too late" for anything in Wikipedia, so I don't consider this an objection or a vote against, as he explicitly said he didn't have a problem with including them.

Only one person really expressed support of excluding this information. Statements in favor of actively keeping this information out of the tables included:

  • This information hasn't been included on these pages before.
  • Rankings have no use whatsoever to matchmaking.
  • Rankings are volatile and change every single week.
  • "Other media" don't always include rankings, and other sports organizations (such as the NFL) don't even utilize a ranking system.

All of the above objections have been addressed on the mentioned talk page. The basic refutation boils down to the fact that none of these objections constitute a reasoning as to why such information should be actively excluded. This could easily be seen by adding the following clause to the end of each objection: "therefore, such information should be kept out of Wikipedia articles about past UFC events."

The only objection with any seeming weight is the claim that rankings have nothing to do with matchmaking, and that since the fight card is really just bare details about matchups, it does not make sense to include them. However, if it were really the case that rankings and matchmaking are in no way related, then bouts would not be so consistently well-aligned with rank. The reality is that rankings are nothing more than a numerical representation of everything that goes into consideration for matchmaking. So this too is an invalid reasoning.

It has been quite some time since any new commentary has been added in that discussion. I figured it would be appropriate to post here to hopefully gain more input and reach a consensus on this. --Wikisian (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This is quite the revisionism to fit your POV. Several people are against it, and for more reasons than you've listed.TBMNY (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
And generally I would be one of them. The biggest issue is there rankings are in a state of flux and articles should never be a snapshot in time. Just too many pages have to be updated overtime the rankings changed. That is why you don't find them with other sports. One acceptable compromise would be to have the information on the List of Current UFC fighters which is almost guaranteed to be regularly updated.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Peter Rehse how did you come to the conclusion that "articles should never be a snapshot in time"? For that matter, how could historical information (i.e. agreed upon facts about the past) not be "snapshots in time"? Of course new information could always come to light, meaning articles about historical events always have the potential to be updated...but why in the world would we change historical rankings? Again, this is like suggesting we need to change 1990 crime stats in every article that mentions them because they're no longer the same. As stated on the Talk Page before, not only does this make no sense, it flies in the face of the current practice regarding the "(c)" designating champions. Why are those "c's" not changed on every article every time a championship changes hands? And if having to do so is a reason to keep such information out of the articles, why are we not excluding those c's? --Wikisian (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I actually misread things a bit. We are talking about the fight card so a ranking at the time of the fight would not be as problematic as individual fighter's pages which for some reason I was thinking of. Those fight records would get very complicated very quickly. I don't think the ranking on a fight card is that necessary since you are not fighting for a ranking but not that worked up about it either way.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
TBMNY Again anyone can read the page. I basically copied direct quotes from each person who posted in that section, covering each reason given. Definitely feel free to make a list here of each of these "several" people I left out, and these "far more reasons" that I've left out. --Wikisian (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Wow, the least unbiased presentation of an argument I've ever seen.
Here's a better presentation of two of the many unanswered arguments against inclusion.
1. There's a nearly infinite amount of information that could be added to this table that someone will insist is useful or belongs. In order to prevent this table from becoming bloated we need to make sure everything that is here is really necessary. Not just cool or interesting or useful but necessary for understanding the results of the fight.
2. From what I can tell (and I know very little about UFC) these fights are not determined 100% by the rankings. In other words, these fights are not tournaments where the participants are seeded and #1 always fights #8 and so on. But it's also not the case that the fights are matched up randomly. From what I've heard now ranking does matter with fight matchups (though there was an interesting and nuanced exception to that in the page under discussion) but not in a formal way. I speculated, and this wasn't really dealt with in detail, that things like popularity, amount of time that has passed since someone has fought, injury, maybe even geographical considerations (hometown favorite), are all taken into consideration when scheduling fights. So it's not 100% random and it's not 100% formula but somewhere in between. I don't know if it's even possible to determine what percentage that specific ranking has in determining fights (if it's only general placement in the rankings that is considered then the argument for inclusion is even weaker) but can we be sure that it's more than all the other factors? And preferably more than all the other factors combined? If not then it seems more like unnecessary, though interesting and not entirely irrelevant, information. SQGibbon (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The flyweight challenger this weekend, Tim Elliot, won a pure tournament for his shot, but still went into that shot unranked. Today, he's 15th, mainly because the four fights he won to earn the shot are considered exhibition bouts, despite their purpose. Meanwhile, Ian McCall is 2-3 in his last five, hasn't fought in almost two years and is 7th. Nuanced indeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, December 6, 2016 (UTC)
Not sure how it is biased when I basically quoted each person who commented. Further, I specifically dealt with your #2 issue both here, and on the other Talk Page. Again, rankings are nothing more than a numerical representation of everything that is relevant in determining how a fighter matches up against all others. Sure, there are factors outside of matchups that also come into play when scheduling bouts. But obviously all of those things that are particular to the individual (like the ones you listed) are going to be there regardless of who the opponent is. So for the purposes of matchups, they would seem to be irrelevant.
As for your #1 point, if information just has to be "necessary" for understanding the "results" of the fight, then there is no need for the "(c)" designating champions. And for that matter, if there is room for a "(c)" next to names, I fail to see how a number would make the table "bloated". Every name on the card could have a ranking and it would not even begin to crowd the table (visually or content-wise). We're basically talking about nothing more than a superscript. --Wikisian (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
(c) is incredibly relevant to the result of the fight. It shows who is the champion and if that person retained the belt or the other person won it. You can't be seriously comparing the two.TBMNY (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
"Relevant" ≠ "necessary". --Wikisian (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not even sure what your argument is. Denoting the champion is relevant AND necessary. You're just trying to be a contrarian.TBMNY (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Not at all. First it was argued that rank should be excluded because it has "no use whatsoever to matchmaking." Now it seems to be the argument that it should be excluded because it is not "necessary for understanding the results of the fight." Neither of these objections excludes the "(c)" for championship status. Championship status doesn't determine a matchup any less than all the other factors that rank encapsulates (as, championship status for all intents and purposes is a rank). Again, if rank really did have "no use whatsoever to matchmaking," we would not see virtually every fight taking place between similarly ranked opponents. (Again, I would think it goes without saying that there are always exceptions to this, but not only do pretty much all of those cases have clear and obvious reasons—e.g. Conor McGregor was already a champion, just at a different weightclass (i.e. he was a highly ranked fighter); Tim Elliott won a tournament of world champions specifically designated to determine a title challenger—even if there was no obvious reason, they would still be exceptions.)
And "(c)" is also no more "necessary" than any other rank for understanding the results of the fight. Suppose a new division gets created and the UFC actually makes two opponents fight for the new title (as opposed to just handing it to someone who is highly ranked in some other division or organization...something that has happened in the past and only buttresses the case of the relevance of rank). What would the fight card table look like? There would need to be a note mentioning the fight was for Xweight Championship, and the winner would be clearly designated with the order of the names (e.g. Fighter A def Fighter B). That is all that is needed for understanding the results. The reader knows the fight was for the championship, and knows who won. Those are the results of the fight. Who the champion was before that is irrelevant for the "results" of a fight and is only "just cool or interesting or useful," but not necessary. (As, clearly a championship fight would still have to be included in the table even if there was no champion going into the bout.)
The "(c)" is no more or less "necessary" or relevant to the fight card table than any other rank, and it takes up no less space on the name line. Including the rank of fighters who have attained one is just as useful and relevant, and in no way would make the table "bloated". --Wikisian (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
It absolutely is more necessary and relevant. You're sounding crazy right now in attempt to make your point. Champions directly have to do with the fights. The belts are on the line, and when they're not, (c) is already not denoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBMNY (talkcontribs) 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Both fighters "directly have to do with the fights." (And this is true regardless of whether either of them is a champion.) I'm not sure what purpose that observation serves. What we're talking about is (1) matchmaking, and (2) necessity for understanding the results of the fight. Being a champion is a rank, and it plays into the making of a matchup essentially the same way as any other rank would (i.e. the opponents are going to be of similar caliber, which is reflected by a similar ranking). And who the champion is before a championship bout has absolutely no bearing on who the champion is after the bout. It is simply incorrect to suggest that knowing the pre-fight champion is "necessary" for understanding the results of a fight. It is not. All one needs to know is that it is a championship bout, who won, when they won, and how they won. Any other information is simply "just cool or interesting or useful," but not necessary. --Wikisian (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Your argument is so absurd that it's not even worthy of arguing anymore. If anyone legitimately has a good argument, I'd be happy to debate, but the current argument is not worth it.TBMNY (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been some time, and it appears no one else has offered any objection. Gsfelipe94 and TBMNY appear to be the only ones who have voiced affirmatively against including this information. Psycho-Krillin, Imhungry4444, and InedibleHulk agreed with inclusion, and Alexander Gustafsson stated he had no problem with including it. SQGibbon seems to be of the mind that rankings should only be included if they are utilized more than all other factors (and preferably more than all other factors combined) in determining matchups. And Peter Rehse essentially stated he is neutral.

Is anyone else available to weigh in on this? This would seem to be a perfect topic for this WikiProject, as it concerns a house style and affects an entire class of articles within the scope of this project.

This section may have gotten filled with text a bit too quickly, and could be off-putting for new eyes. Should we attempt to advertise a simple poll to get more input? --Wikisian (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Leave the rankings out. They're very arbitrarily assigned and often mean nothing. It's going to be too much trouble for whatever imagined positives involved. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia and polls do not mix (WP:POLL is a good essay on the topic). We reach consensus via discussion and an adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In situations like this, if you really think that both sides have made valid arguments in line with with Wikipedia guidelines (personally I don't see that the "include" side has) then there is no consensus and things stand the way they were. Another option for you, in lieu of more discussion here, is a Request for Comment where people from outside the Wiki MMA project are solicited to give their opinions on the matter. Given it is such a small detail I can't imagine too many people would care to weigh in but at the end of the process an uninvolved editor (typically an admin) will make a ruling based on the observed "consensus" (the side whose arguments are most in line with Wikipedia practice and not on the numbers (though numbers aren't entirely irrelevant)). SQGibbon (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Does anyone in particular need to make that request, like a designated representative of this project? --Wikisian (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Mixed martial arts Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Conor McGregor[edit]

Hello, there is currently a discussion ongoing at Conor McGregor's talk page in regards to the inclusion of certain material. Given the article is relevant to this project, I thought I'd leave a notification here as more input is required. Thank you ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Styles[edit]

So according to WP:MMA/MOS, the styles parameter really aren't supposed to be used except in the cases where said fighter competed professionally in the respected martial art. This has never been remotely followed, and I wanted to bring it to people's attention for one of two possible reasons.

1. So that we do a massive article cleanup of the rampant misuse of the parameter.
OR
2. So that we can reconsider this guideline.

I have no particular opinion either way, but one of these things needs to be done. Any thoughts?

TBMNY (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I was pinged so here I am. I am a semi-active editor in MMA articles. I first arrived when there was a call to the general Wikipedia community to help resolve some previous issues years ago. Because of this I have tons of MMA articles in my watchlist. My role today in editing MMA articles is to keep them compliant with the greater Wikipedia guidelines and policies as well as the ones in the WP:MMA. This is a round-about way of saying that I enforce the rules with regard to the style parameter whenever I happen to come across it. I really do. I might be the only one but there it is. Because I only look at MMA articles that happen to pop up in my watchlist or in recent changes I do not actively seek out MMA articles and keep/make them compliant.
Having said all that, and noting that I don't really care about MMA at all and only care about this Wiki project because of all the effort I've put into it, I agree with the current rules about the style parameter. It's one of those things that is incredibly susceptible to editor opinion (which I'm guessing is what TBMNY is seeing) and bloat. Leave each article to its own without any rules on the matter and eventually every fighter will have every style listed.
At the minimum we need a reliable source for each style if we are to expand the rule.
Personally, because of its limited usefulness as it currently stands, I would actually like to see us get rid of it. A fighter's style is sooooooooo much better dealt with in the main body of the article. Fighting style(s) in the infobox lacks that clear objective quality of things like won/loss record and name and just becomes a magnet for conflict. SQGibbon (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
1. sounds good, I think the guideline is solid as it is and objective enough. It's just been disregarded. The way the parameter's being used now, listing everything that a fighter has even dabbled in, is of no use to anybody, and of course it fails to meet any citation requirements.
I propose a mass cleanup, and deleting the style= line from articles where it is not applicable, rather than blanking the parameter; this would hopefully cut down on people resurrecting it. I'll help out with the grunt work. --SubSeven (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the eventual removal. Pretty much what SQGibbon said. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm starting to lean that way too. It's just too clusterfucky right now. In theory it's useful, but in practice, it hasn't worked out so well. TBMNY (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)