Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 6

Strawweight Notability

User Justinsane15 and I are having a disagreement as to whether or not several fighters who lack Wiki pages should be included on Strawweight (MMA) under "Notable strawweights in MMA". I contend that if he wishes to include them he should first create pages for them. That should be a bare minimum for inclusion on a notable list, not to mention it kind of defeats the point of the list as jumping off point to other articles. --Phospheros (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really want to turn this section into a different discussion, but now that I'm reminded of them, I strongly believe the lists of "notable fighters" in any weight division shouldn't even exist. They're all derived from original research, as it's impossible to objectively draw the line between who's especially notable enough to be on the list, and who's only notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. These kinds of lists were eradicated from another WikiProject a long time ago after being discussed here. —LOL ^T/_C 18:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I don't disagree, but in the interim listing fighters without wiki pages is even worse than original research, it's that plus a lack of verifiability that the person in question is even a fighter.--Phospheros (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wp:notability deals with this issue. Although, I do agree that having notability lists does border on original research. However, a fighter does not HAVE TO have a page to be notable. Should we remove all the bouts that have fighters with no wikipedia pages from the scheduled UFC and Strikeforce events?(Justinsane15 (talk) 03:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Those bouts are sourced it's not the same thing.--Phospheros (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems a little awkward to have a list of fighters who are given special attention but don't even have an article, but this doesn't fit under WP:REDNOT. I think the simplest solution is to just remove all lists of "Notable fighters" from weight division articles, which I intend to do soon if a good reason to keep them isn't given. —LOL ^T/_C 05:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I have no problem with a total removal, as it stands there only real purpose is a jumping off point for more articles in project MMA. Which linking to nonexistent articles fails to serve. --Phospheros (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Strikeforce: Feijao vs. Henderson disruptive edits

User:86.176.98.229 (talk | contribs) has been repeatedly changing the results of the main event from TKO to KO. Per our guidelines here, the results should be those listed at Sherdog: http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Dan-Henderson-195 which is listed as a TKO. This is my first 'edit war' as they say and I'd like a little input on what the proper steps to take at this point would be. I thought about putting this up on a noticeboard but was also worried that doing so over the addition of one letter was a little silly. The articles in question are:

• Strikeforce: Feijao vs. Henderson
• Rafael Cavalcante
• Dan Henderson

If someone can go through and make sure my change to TKO was warranted I would appreciate it. Thanks! ZephyrFox (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, your change was warranted since most reliable sources state that as the official result. These type of edits are quite common. Several random editors tend to change results to how they see a fight, particularly in the following days after an MMA event. If editors do not add a source to back up the changes, you can basically treat their changes as vandalism, because they aren't adding sources to back up their claim. Whenever that happens, point them out to WP:V "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Since they rarely are regular editors, the easiest way is to ask other editors to help you out with those articles during a few days. If a particular IP editor keeps doing edits like that, you can use one of the templates from here on the editor's talk page depending on the offense and after several warnings you can take it to the noticeboard. If that happens with multiple IP editors on a single article or with multiple vandalism from a single IP, you can request protection for that page here. But it's normally unneeded, as regular editors will assist you and random IP editors will rarely keep their edits after a few days. Since this particular editor doesn't even try to back up his claims, I'd suggest you to warn him first with one of the templates if he keeps doing them. He probably is a fan that doesn't really have much experience editing. Jfgslo (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I requested temp semi-protection for all three pages. Rafael Cavalcante was protected but the other pages have not been approved or denied yet. As it stands, all three pages currently have incorrect information on them. I'm getting close to, if not already over 3RR so if someone could revert those changes, I would appreciate it. Additionally, User:Eyriq86 reverted all the results on Rafael Cavalcante back to caps. ZephyrFox (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

How can we add a request to edit protect Dan Henderson's page? I hit the 3RR limit yesterday and have already had to reverse yet ANOTHER edit again today.... all from the same IP: 86.176.98.229. This guy is persistant and may have already gone passed the 3RR limit himself. Dan Henderson's page is officially an edit war and the IP won't respond or make any comments. We have some people who've made it a game now to revert changes on purpose away from the MoS using anonymous IP addresses rather than, I suspect, actually logging into their wiki accounts so that their wiki accounts won't be punished. Someone is extremely pissed off that we're trying to go by the MoS and is trying to subvert the entire wiki project, IMO. Please, it appears we're going to just have to start edit protecting fighter pages because I get tired of playing the edit war game with these anonymous IPs. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

For requesting protection, see WP:RFPP. For violations of 3RR, see WP:AN3. Since this is a single IP, I believe AN3 would be the better option. —LOL ^T/_C 20:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there anyone who has the time and the knowledge to file a AN3 for 86.176.98.229? I'm about to make my third revert to Dan Henderson's page today for this guy whose already been doing this over and over again. I don't know how to file a AN3, as I am relatively new here. I'll need help watching Henderson's page however because I've already made 3 reverts today and I simply don't want to be put on blast for violating the 3RR rules myself. Quite frankly, I'm too frustrated with this guy to keep reverting his changes as he declares "War on the MoS" (as I'm calling it). I don't mean to shove this problem on someone else but I'm just too inexperienced on Wikipedia to put together a proper AN3. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to help you out with this. However, the edits done today aren't from 86.176.98.229 but from 86.177.185.133. I'm sure that this is the same user, but the IP is not the same and it would take blocking a range. I think that page protection would be better here. Jfgslo (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Zuffa purchases Strikeforce

I think we should make note of this somewhere... this is insanely big news. The number 1 MMA organization in North America (Zuffa/UFC) just bought and now owns the number 2 MMA organization in North America (Strikeforce). This is insane news. Here's the link.Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The Zuffa article is probably a good place. —LOL ^T/_C 19:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Legend Fighting Championship / MMA rules page rewrite

On the Legend Fighting Championship wiki page it states: intentional fouls result in a one-point deduction from the judges’ scorecards. but on the Mixed martial arts rules wiki page it reads: Intentional fouls result in a two-point deduction from the judges’ scorecards Neither claim is sourced. Also does anyone else think the Mixed martial arts rules page could use a bit of a rewrite?--Phospheros (talk) 10:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked the Legends web site and couldn't find any indication of those special rules. According to the site the rules seem pretty much standard unified rules. So I removed that information from that page. I also removed Legends section from the Mixed martial arts rules page. I also removed Cage Rage rules from there because they are so close to the Unified rules anyway.

I agree that Mixed martial arts rules page could use a rewrite. The unified rules should be emphasized imo and list top tier organizations that use them. Then have a list only top tier organizations that have differing rules and list differences compared to unified rules, not the whole ruleset unless it's radically different. The page also seems out of date because DREAM and Strikeforce are not mentioned at all, except the part about the type of ring/cage. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Brendan Schaub

As I was working on a few MMA records, I got to Brendan Schaub's. I noticed that on his talk page, there was no banner stating he was a part of the MMA Wikiproject. I took the liberty of adding the banner to the page and classifying it as a "stub". Also curious to see if I have the classification correct. I believe "Stub" is the very first classification an article receives, correct? If I have this wrong, please let me know and I will be happy to correct. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 01:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed some topics

I hope no one minds, but I removed a few of the topics on this talk page that seemed legitimately resolved/closed. There are a few more I think we could probably do away with, ShoMMA (which has already had articles created for each event) seems to be closed unless anyone else has any concerns/objections that haven't been voiced, I vote we remove this topic. Also... the Eyriq86 disruptive edits topic I believe is closed for now. I finally got cranky and put up an ANI and admin Eye Serene put a block on him for a bit. I vote we remove this topic until such time that Eyriq86 becomes disruptive again. Finally, I wasn't aware if we should archive discussions or just remove them. I have no problem with anyone reverting my removal of the discussions if I did the wrong thing. Just trying to clean up a bit. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 02:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't manually delete topics. They are automatically archived by a bot after 60 days of no activity. Check the top info box for the archives.

I restored the discussions you removed. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It appears I still have a lot to learn about Wikipedia. I'll be sure not to do this again. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 15:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Bushido FC & K-1 Hero's

The Hero's page could really use some sourcing (it currently has none) specifically it states: Hero's Return in Bushido FC on 2008. [sic] The Bushido FC page also has no sourcing and states: The Bushido FC(Lithuania Bushido Federation) (LBF) is the largest, premiere Lithuania-based mixed martial arts promotion. The article was clearly written by a non-native english speaker and needs major copy editing.--Phospheros (talk) 11:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:K22UFC

Fyi, K22UFC (talk · contribs) has ignored both my messages[1][2] on his talk page and continues to re-insert flags.[3] I think somebody else should try to message him before I report him to ANI. For what it's worth, he also ignored the warning[4] for personal attacks,[5] as he told the issuer of the warning to "Get a life".[6] —LOL ^T/_C 18:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The guy constantly runs around reverting my changes to pages like Brendan Schaub and Lyoto Machida. Not content to just switch back changes, the guy also adds little comments in his Edit summaries. The latest one, after changing something on Machida's page was "You don't know MMA" after reverting one of my changes. I don't believe he really wants to have an actual discussion on MoS or anything else. I've refused to talk to him at all, because it appears he just wants to be argumentative when he doesn't get his way. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I just now came across this discussion after having left another message for the user to participate in the flag icon discussion above. SQGibbon (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

We've been ignored once again.[7] Do we agree that WP:ANI is the way to go? —LOL ^T/_C 19:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with any action. He finally came in here to talk about the Record table issues but reverted one of my changes where I added flag icons to the opponents (as no concensus has been reached yet to my knowledge) and removed them only to come here and complain that removing flag icons looks ugly. I don't know what kind of action you can take against an editor that doesn't seem to really know how to edit on Wikipedia and doesn't seem to check his own work before coming to complain about people doing exactly what he just did. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The welcome message on his talk page should cover the basics, but I doubt he read many of the linked articles. —LOL ^T/_C 20:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And here's strong evidence that he didn't even read the welcome message. —LOL ^T/_C 21:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Sherdog.com pound for pound

The Sherdog.com pound for pound wiki page was deleted, does anyone think we should add the P4P table into the Sherdog page? --Phospheros (talk) 02:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but pound-for-pound lists are always so subjective. No one ever agrees on who should be on the p4p lists, and the discussions always break down into arguments. Is there a reason we should be adding a list such as this in an Encyclopedia? Maybe if we catalogued every single p4p list they ever released, but even those can be found (for the most part) using a Google search and aren't relevant to MMA in the long run. Maybe I'm just playing Devil's Advocate, here, but I really think p4p rankings are useless. I'm far more interested in actual ranked fighters based on weight class vs. a pound-for-pound list. To summarize, I say no. I think p4p lists aren't relevant enough in MMA to warrant them being in an encyclopedia, and I can imagine what kind of discussions might happen on the Sherdog talk page if we include it. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 15:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't say I really disagree, that said boxing's Ring Magazine pound for pound has it's own page. The Ring list can also be easily found online. --Phospheros (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree with you either. However, why do we have to follow the boxing precedent? Also, why Sherdog's p4p list and not, say, MMAJunkie's or Inside MMA's? I say we see what others think regarding this. I'm not particularly opposed to adding it, I'm just not sold on the idea of adding it either and I'm kind of a "less is more" kind of guy. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 15:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dachknanddarice pretty much nailed the problem with pound for pound rankings. From experience, I am positive that no agreement will be reached satisfactorily because pound for pound ranking are subjective by nature, but also because it pretty much depends on how much an editor likes a publication that he expresses his support for a specific ranking, so it is a double subjective issue. In my opinion, this project does not need an article for Sherdog.com pound for pound because, by having it, we would be favoring a specific ranking/publication over others with no evidence that it is favored over other rankings by reliable sources. The fact that the boxing project has one, only shows the shortcomings of Wikipedia's content policy in regards to following it in some articles. I really doubt that it meets the WP:GNG. Jfgslo (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my post, I'm not saying we should recreate the Sherdog.com pound for pound wiki page. I was asking if we should add the info to the Sherdog wiki page. It's not favoritism to add it to the Sherdog page, it was favoritism/value judgment for it to have its own page. --Phospheros (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was the nom for the Sherdog P4P page. For those of you that are interested in the discussion that led to deletion, you can view it here. I agree that there are two separate issues here: (1) Should a separate page exist? and (2) Is the content encyclopedic? The page deletion answers the first question. Phospheros has raised the other. I agree with the others here that the content is not appropriate, even for the Sherdog article. Yes, the Ring magazine rankings exist on WP. But, one could just as easily argue that the page for People Magazine's 100 Most Beautiful People doesn't even include the actual list. I contend that this information is just as subjective as Sherdog's P4P rankings, and therefore no more worthy of inclusion. There is just no way to provide this information with a neutral POV. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"There is just no way to provide this information with a neutral POV." ..... This I believe speaks to the heart of the issue on why p4p lists and discussions shouldn't even be put on Wikipedia. I understood what you were asking for Phospheros, and I understand that putting the Sherdog list on Sherdog's article page isn't favoritism per se, but considering the controversial nature of p4p lists in general, and in specific Sherdog's (which quite frankly is practically full of Zuffa-only fighters), makes me believe there would be nothing but edit-warring, vandalism, and nasty discussions on the Sherdog talk page regarding the list itself. Something about p4p discussions always sends people into a vocal outburst, and I feel it might add some undue work for admins who would need to be involved in protecting the page, ANIs, and other infractions. Again, just my opinion. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"There is just no way to provide this information with a neutral POV." Nor is there a need to be, anymore than there's a need to on the Malcolm X wiki page where it says that "white people are devils" a neutral POV is necessary from the editor not the subject. --Phospheros (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, though, the subject is a list that is the sole creation of editors (that happen to work for Sherdog). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that there is no evidence of notability for Sherdog's pound-for-pound list to warrant the inclusion of the actual list. It is only one of many lists, it is subjective by nature, its usefulness is quite limited and it will probably cause unneeded edit wars. In my opinion, it could be mentioned in Sherdog's article that Sherdog, like many other publications, publishes a pound-for-pound list without including the list itself within the article. Other than that, I do not see any need to include the list in Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"it could be mentioned in Sherdog's article that Sherdog, like many other publications, publishes a pound-for-pound list without including the list itself within the article." I like this idea a lot. Again, my biggest argument with including the list itself is that it could lead to a lot of edit warring. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 15:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Pound for pound lists are subjective, meaningless, and change frequently so I see no reason to include these rankings anywhere or for any sport. However, I think that stating that a publication has such a list is OK as a one line addition to the publication's main article. Papaursa (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, the article now reads:

Sherdog was created by photographer Jeff Sherwood (Nicknamed "Sherdog") in 1997 and was later refined with the help of Garrett Poe. Sherdog features MMA news, individual records of fighters, reviews and previews of MMA events, interviews with fighters and referees, user forums, divisional and pound-for-pound fighter rankings, and original radio programs. --Phospheros (talk) 18:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyone interested in collaboration project?

As a part of helping myself become a better contributor/editor to Wikipedia, I'm interested in taking an existing article and improving it to a better class. Unfortunately, I am not able to do this alone. While my knowledge of MMA is (what I consider to be) somewhat extensive, my internet here at work does not allow me to travel outside of Wikipedia for referencing and such. And, due to having a wife and kid, editing from home is almost completely unlikely. What I'm looking to accomplish is to get more articles into higher quality such as the UFC 94 article which I think is excellent. Would it be worth adding more sections to other past UFC events such as an "Aftermath" section like in the UFC 94 article? I don't know, I'm just trying to make some of these articles better and kind of lost about how to do it or where to begin. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 21:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Answering you question, I believe that it may not be necessary to add more sections because UFC 94 is a particular case since it is the controversy and consequences that followed that give the article such good look, but I think it is a good idea to give some pointers on how an MMA event related article should look. Perhaps not all MMA event articles will be able to hold such a structure as UFC 94, but I think that it's worth a try. A Background section may be added to other articles without much problem. With the Event section, this is related to WP:Sports event and theoretically they should have a well-sourced prose. The Aftermath section is the one that most likely would be harder to measure since there are no guidelines related to that, but we could try to use common sense in its construction, taking the UFC 94 article as a base.

In short, Background, Event and Aftermath sections should be added to MMA event articles, along with the proper references, to improve their quality. That is my personal opinion. What do other editors think? Jfgslo (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I was using the UFC 94 article as an example, and likewise, the "Aftermath" portion as an example as well. But what do people think about adding some more background information regarding upcoming fights such as trash talking between fighters to establish grudge matches (like Rashad and Rampage had), information regarding possible number one contender fights (like Lil' Nog and Phil Davis tomorrow), information such as this is easily sourceable (MMA Junkie, Sherdog and the likes are always reporting this stuff) and it could possibly fit into the encyclopedia "theme". Many is the time I remember something like when Tito Ortiz was arrested during a domestic dispute with Jenna Jameson (just an example), but I noticed it wasn't written in Tito's wiki page, or maybe it's something that isn't easily found on the internet and we can add the information and the source so that other MMA fans visiting wiki can find these sources easily by looking at certain articles. I know Wikipedia is one of the first places I check for all things MMA. I'm just looking for way to improve some articles to bump up their status from start or stub class and don't really know what's the best way to go about it. Hence, why I was wondering if anyone wanted to collaborate on a page so I can be schooled on how the process works, what I need to do, or maybe we can learn the process together, etc. Dunno, just saw how many pages need to be upgraded in class and thought I could start doing so if I had an idea where to begin and how to get the process started. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I can try to help out with copyediting, templates and MoS, but my time is limited so I want to avoid writing prose. I don't have access to past fights, so I definitely can't write fight summaries. —LOL ^T/_C 19:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

@Dachknanddarice Is there any particular UFC event that you would like to improve at this moment? I suggest that we pick one UFC event and try to work on it to make it similar to the structure and quality of UFC 94 and, from that experience, we establish which parameters work, which don't and then we can establish a proper guideline for MMA events. For example, I'm not quite sure how adding much information about trash talking would be useful, but I cannot know until we start working with the sources and see how they treat it. Depending on how that turns out, we can decide what to do next. Jfgslo (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

History of mixed martial arts by region

Just a FYI the article is up for deletion. --Phospheros (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've checked the article and, unfortunately, I have to agree with the PROD nomination. There may be some information in the article that could be used in the history section of the article Mixed martial arts, but the sources are weak and aren't actual accounts of the history of MMA. Only two of them are useful for that purpose. It would require several articles like the one on German MMA to justify an individual article for all regions. I believe there are some books out there that cover this topic but, at this point in time, I see no reason to have a History of mixed martial arts by region article. Once the history section in the Mixed martial arts article is well developed, has more sources and more information, then it would be desirable to have an independent History of mixed martial arts article. But that is not the case, yet. At least that's my personal opinion. Jfgslo (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mikazuki Jujitsu

This style article is newly created and in need of a bit of help. There is a related thread at AN/I here. The creator, in the past few days, has shown signs that he might have WP:OWNership issues, so be on guard. Cheers, and happy editing. lifebaka++ 14:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This falls under project Martial arts not Mixed martial arts, I have changed the template on the talk page for the article in question. --Phospheros (talk) 16:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha'. Postin' over there. Cheers, and thanks for sending me to the right place. lifebaka++ 19:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Mixed martial arts & Vale tudo

The Legality of professional competitions section of the Mixed martial arts article could really use some improvement & sourcing, for instance the section on Brazil states:

Vale Tudo is Brazil's version of MMA, Vale Tudo holds the largest shows in the country with monthly competitions. Vale Tudo also precedes MMA, with Vale Tudo being established in the late 1800s. Brazil has had the second most UFC champion's after the United States. Brazil also is the birth place of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu the preeminent MMA style which was made popular by the Gracie family. In the early years of MMA, BJJ dominated all other styles, a fighter simply needed to be a master of BJJ in order to beat a striker or wrestler, but as the sport evolved it became much more difficult if not impossible for a pure BJJ fighter to defeat a striker or wrestler because of the wrestler/striker's learned knowledge of BJJ.

It should be pointed out that Vale Tudo in Brazil in modern usage refers to both old school No rules competition and modern MMA with rules in which it is still called Vale Tudo but is no longer anything goes. Also the Vale tudo wiki article itself is majorly lacking in sourcing and could also use a bit of a rewrite. --Phospheros (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. I think it will be somehow difficult to source them, though. Vale Tudo might be possible since I have seen some articles in English about its history. I'll try to look some info about it but I'm not confident that I will find what's needed. All the part about Mexico is original research, and therefore should not be there in the article. And the World Wide section is certainly lacking with no mention of Russia, Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and others.

About Vale Tudo modern usage, do you remember where did you read that? I'd be nice to make that differentiation but at least one reliable source must be added for that.

In order to focus our efforts, in your opinion, which part should be our main priority? Vale Tudo, legality in Brazil, worldwide legality, etc? Jfgslo (talk) 06:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't really read it anywhere in regard to Vale Tudo in modern usage, it's more a case of listening to Brazilian fighters and journalists give interviews. I googled but did not come up with anything of value:

http://zinganobjj.com/programs/ "MMA or "vale tudo" as it is called in it's birth country of Brazil"

http://www.bjj-asia.com/2008/11/alex-prates.html "MMA - or Vale Tudo as we call it there - has a long history in Brazil"

The least encyclopedic of all (a response in a thread) BJJ Vocabulary in Portuguese and English "vale tudo: MMA (people call MMA as vale tudo in Brazil)"

In the Vale Tudo wiki page under Renowned Brazilian Vale Tudo Organizations we list:

• Jungle Fight
• Bitetti Combat

Both are MMA orgs. so it gets a bit confusing without clarification of vale tudo's multiple usages.

As for the legality section, this is the best english link I could find on Brazil and it's not really what we need. http://www.tatame.com/2011/03/06/Brazilian-congressman-attacks-MMA-wants-to-ban-the-sport-from-TV

I also think the section on each country under legality should look like the American & Canadian sections, just a sourced statement of legality and not a short history/commentary of MMA in each country. It might be best to just delete the Mexico, Brazil, and World Wide sections until we can properly source them.

And finally the youth section of the mixed martial arts wiki article also requires major expansion, it currently only references a single article in a Canadian publication discussing the Western Canadian Martial Arts Championship's decision to allow ground and pound in youth competition. --Phospheros (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bot request for biographical articles.

I would like to make a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests to ask that a bot removes all flag icon templates from MMA biographical articles. Is that okay with other editors of this WikiProject? Jfgslo (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's fine with me, since consensus says we should remove them all, and because there's as many people putting flags back in as there are taking them out, it seems that a bot would be helpful in helping make this happen. There are a couple of things I'd like to make sure we consider.

• • 1) How will the bot know to pick the right articles? (Will it check all articles with the WP:MMA banner?)
  • 2) It needs to be robust enough to pick out flag icons specifially in the infoboxes and MMA record tables only, and not just remove them from the entire page. Also, to make sure it doesn't remove flag icons from the portion of the infobox that contains medals, etc. from Olympic performances or other achievements (if it's even part of the infobox)
  • 3) It needs to be sure it doesn't remove flags from Kickboxing records or Boxing records, as we don't know what the consensus is for these Wikiprojects.

There may be other things to consider but I can't think of them off the top of my head. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 00:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping we'd get an administrator's opinion on how to handle the recent edit war before going large-scale. In response to Dachkn:

1. It's easier to iterate through Category:Mixed martial artists by nationality and its subcategories.
2. I'm not sure where all flags for international competitions are used, but I think restricting the changes to sections that contain the word "Record" should suffice.
3. Before excluding other records from changes, I suggest going to WP:BOXING to see what they think about flags. The kickboxing wikiproject is inactive.

—LOL ^T/_C 02:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with LOL in that I'd rather see what an admin or other experienced and uninvolved editors have to say about it all first. Flags can be removed from infoboxes; it looks Olympic records use their own kind of box so that should be easy to avoid. And I would also like to see what the boxing folk think of all this too. I went through their archives once but couldn't find any kind of definitive discussion on the subject. Obviously it would be nice to have all these sports on the same page. SQGibbon (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If you want to request an opinion from an administrator, try placing a question with {{adminhelp}} on your talk page. Alternatively, you could post the request at WP:ANI, but it is my understanding that the board is for incidents, not to request opinions. I have no idea how to phrase the question with {{adminhelp}}, but perhaps someone else could try it. Jfgslo (talk) 05:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• I vote yes on the bot, I also agree we should ask for project boxing's take on the flag issue. --Phospheros (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I hope no one minds, but I've gone ahead and made this request on our behalf. Hopefully some WP:BOXING participants will come and express their opinions. As for admin, I'm not sure what's the best way to get a hold of any of them besides an ANI, but as was stated earlier, that is for incidents only. Maybe we should contact a few of the more active ones from ANI on their talk pages and ask them to come take a look at this? Dachknanddarice (T‖C)19:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the flags, is acceptable to me. GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'm happy to remove flags per MOS, but if there are "as many people putting flags back in as there are taking them out", then dividing editors into two groups and automatically undoing the edits of one half based on the "consensus" of the other half seems to be rather... unconsensual. It might be worth inviting the folk you disagree with back to the conference table, to try to establish a better compromise or consensus. bobrayner (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I've personally invited many people to participate in this discussion 1, 2, 3, 4, and several IPs. They might all be ignoring me at this point. Perhaps if you'd invite them they might actually participate? SQGibbon (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing styles

The style section of infobox's seems very arbitrary and I'm not sure how to go about sourcing a mix martial artists various fighting styles, in modern MMA everyone trains boxing, kickboxing, BJJ, and wrestling making it some what superfluous, perhaps we should develop criteria for inclusion. --Phospheros (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Style seems like the kind of thing that's just as susceptible to Original Research as genre is in music articles and influences/influenced in articles of artists in general. Unless the person states specifically that they use a certain style (in an interview, official homepage, etc.) then it shouldn't be included. SQGibbon (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it time to request a mediation of sorts?

Despite the fact that there is a consensus on removing the flag icons and not capitalizing a portion of the Method column on MMA record tables, the edit wars continue. I'm pretty sure everyone is getting rather tired of reverting each others' edits and I don't see an end to this regardless of consensus. Attempts to discuss the issue usually de-evolve into BITE-y comments, and even some the edit summaries become BITE-y regarding all of this. Even though there are no compelling reasons to keep the flag icons, there are still atleast a handful of editors and anonymous IPs that continue to revert these changes. Some of them seem to have been interested in discussing the issue, but give up after they're told their personal opinions of "how it looks" have no bearing on the consensus already given. I've even seen an editor ask how they can change consensus.

No matter which side you are on, the edit wars continue on multiple BLPs for fighters. Is it time to get an uninvolved admin into this for mediation? Should we consider an RfC on this issue? I feel like this issue is becoming a distraction, at least for me, to contributing more important things to fighter articles. I feel like we've come to a dead end with the discussions, and the edit warring continues round and round. It's pretty frustrating, and I would very much like to see an end to it all. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I messaged an uninvolved admin[8] recently but he hasn't been active for a while. I suppose mediation would be worth a try by now, even though the previous RfC didn't really attract any outside opinions or resolve anything. —LOL ^T/_C 16:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know how best to go from here. Anything you come up with I'll support. SQGibbon (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

An admin suggests WP:DR or WP:RFC.[9] —LOL ^T/_C 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Wanderlei Silva

Can I get someone else to watch Wanderlei Silva's page? Chuteboxestomps and I are already at 3RR regarding this page. He keeps adding the flag icons. I'm starting to think we need to just start using ANI to report all these disruptive editors. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 21:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think SQGibbon is doing the right thing of talking to the user. Chuteboxestomps hasn't reacted yet and perhaps didn't know about the arguments for removing the flags. Chuteboxestomps has never edited a talk page.--Razionale (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SQGibbon is a far better person than I am. I've been ignored before by people when I try to explain why we do or don't do things. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I left a note on the editor's talk page explaining the MOS view and the current consensus at MMA. In general it's best to try to engage other editors in discussion before even contemplating 3RR and ANI. Meanwhile, any movement on the mediation front? There's always the informal mediation cabal here which might be of some help though I've never personally dealt with them before. SQGibbon (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mixed martial arts & Hybrid martial arts timeline

In the Mixed martial arts wiki article, the "Timeline of major events" lists "Hybrid martial arts" as being from the "Ancient World", however the Hybrid martial arts article states:

The idea of hybridization or "mixing" of martial arts traditions originates in the 19th to early 20th century, when Asian traditions first came to the attention of European practitioners. Savate, a form of kickboxing developed by French sailors, may qualify as an early example. Another early example of cross-cultural hybridization in the martial arts is Bartitsu[1], created in 1899 as a combination of several forms of traditional jujutsu, Kodokan judo, English boxing, French savate and stick fighting.

Clearly 1899 and the 19th century fail to qualify as the "Ancient World". I'm going to change it unless there are examples that would date hybrid martial arts to the ancient world.--Phospheros (talk) 22:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Support. Good change. There's nothing "Ancient World" about the 19th and 20th centuries. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 23:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the timeline to read "Late 19th century" from "Ancient World". --Phospheros (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

MMA record table problems

I've been noticing recently that several editors like to put bouts in the record list before they are officially announced, for example, dos Santos vs. Velasquez. Since all fights not officially announced are speculation and rumor and, therefore, not encyclopedic, it is my opinion that it should be avoided altogether putting future fights until they are officially announced. With this in mind, I would like to change the "Record" section in this project to emphasize that future fights should not be added to the record until they are officially announced.

Another problem I've noticed is that Sherdog's record have a problem that is copy-pasted in several records: capitalization for non proper names, acronyms and initialisms. For example, Sherdog uses incorrectly "Submission (Shoulder Injury)" instead of "Submission (shoulder injury)" or "KO (Punch)" instead of "KO (punch)". The Wikipedia's Manual of Style for capital letters is quite clear that this is not accepted. I also want to add a text in the "Record" section to encourage editors to use the correct capitalization instead of copy-pasting the info from Sherdog.

Related to the previous point, several editors like to ignore the result stated in Sherdog's records without offering a reference to prove that the result in Sherdog is incorrect, or they simply don't like how the results are expressed in Sherdog. For example, with Mirko Filipović instead of "Submission (Punch)" editors insist on changing it to "Verbal Submission (Injury)", "Submission (Impaired Vision)" and even "TKO (Injury)". Once again, I want to add a text that specifically discourages editors from changing a result without backing it up with a reference.

I have also noticed that flag icons are abused in the record tables. As stated in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons), icons should not be overused, particularly not when the country is already mentioned in text. Just take a look at Mirko Filipović record table to see what I mean. I want to add a text in the "Record" section of this project where it is specifically stated that adding flag icons for anything different from opponents is forbidden, as well as changing the example record box to remove flag icons from the "Location" column.

And finally, I think it would be better to have a template for the record table instead of having to manually generate it because editors regularly break the format, add unnecessary parameters, change the order of columns and other things. Has anyone tried to create a template for this?

Please share your comments and thoughts about these issues that I see with records in MMA biographies. Jfgslo (talk) 15:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and make changes to the record section to add additional instructions about how it should be used. Please check it out and share you comments to improve the text. Jfgslo (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Judging from this diff, Paralympiakos seems to have missed this section, so I'm copypasting one of his recent talk page comments[10] below. —LOL ^T/_C 19:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's not do this please. Even Sherdog has KO (Punches), for example. Using "(punches)" just looks ugly, so please quit it. It's clear that it's only you two who disagree with me and others. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We're discussing a matter of style, so "Sherdog has KO (Punches)" doesn't support your case. Claiming that something "just looks ugly" is completely subjective and just as convincing as an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. It's not clear that only us two who disagree; I think it's more accurate to say that too many users are accustomed to Sherdog's style even though in general, Wikipedia's MoS overrides others on Wikipedia articles. We can take it to WT:MOSCAPS if you'd like. —LOL ^T/_C 20:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

@Paralympiakos It's also clear that many editors simply ignore the manual of styles and guidelines. As LOL pointed out, your argument is merely an WP:IDONTLIKEIT instead of a valid reason why WP:CAPS, WP:ICON WP:MOS and other guidelines must be ignored. Your other argument is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum.) If a majority of editors do not use the correct style, that doesn't mean that it's appropriated for an encyclopedia or that it's the best way. If you don't like it, then go to the manual of style and give a good reason why it should be ignored. Jfgslo (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't care about any BS involved in stupid wikipedia "policies" and essays like IDONTLIKEIT. Frankly, it looks hideous and I don't care what a few people wrote with regards MOSCAPS and all the MOS nonsense. Stop changing it now, please. Do something normal like writing and contributing instead of getting involved in silly matters such as this. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not that simple, Paralympiakos. The Manual of Style rules aren't just there because someone was bored and wanted to boss others around. They have common sense reasons: for example we discourage the use of flag icons because images increase load time which can be significant for people on slow internet. (Remember dial-up? Lots of people still have it.) If you have a disagreement with MOS guidelines you can take it to WT:MOS, or if you disagree in particular with the way they are being interpreted here, you may open a request for comment. However, opposing guidelines simply because you believe they are "ugly" then being argumentative and borderline rude to others is not an mature way to conduct yourself. l'aquatique[talk] 00:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

To add to that, the MOS wasn't written by a "few" people. Just MOS:CAPS alone has been edited by 174 unique editors since it was forked half a decade ago, and WP:MOS has been edited by over 2,000 editors since its creation nine years ago.[11] Your persistence in arguing chiefly with personal opinion does not benefit this discussion, and your "I don't care" attitude opposes Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, WP:CONS, particularly when you are insulting them with terms such as "BS" and "stupid" against Wikipedia's code of conduct (WP:CIVIL). I would write more if so many articles weren't in such shambles in terms of style, as the MOS is part of WP:FACR. —LOL ^T/_C 01:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I am in favor of this new style due to reasons mentioned by Jfgslo and LOL. So far I see no reason why Paralympiakos' style should be favored instead. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Tuoppi. The MoS is broadly consensus-driven and its guidelines make sense. Not that it's particularly relevant, but I disagree with Paralympiakos' assertion that camel-case syntax is 'better looking' - if anything, I think it looks considerably worse than standard English syntax. The first letter of the term should be capitalised, and the rest should be lower-case as it would appear in most respectable sources. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia, but I am just now getting into making edits for MMA related articles. I was following Paralympiakos's style of MMA Records and updating other articles to reflect that style. Now I'm reading here that there are some issues with how it's being set up. I don't know all of the people involved in this, but it would be great if there were a page or somewhere where we could all get together and discuss what the MMA record box and records should look like and agree to it. Otherwise, contributers like myself will continually either follow outdated examples, or forever run into people who don't like the changes we're making. Believe it or not, some of us really think we're following a "set in stone" example of what things should look like when we make changes. I don't know if this kind of thing is achieveable, but there it is. I'm lost now in terms of how to update/maintain MMA records at this stage and don't really know who I should listen to regarding it. Sorry for the long rant, but I'm just looking for some sort of guidance regarding this. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 02:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This is the page and section to discuss what the record box should look like. The problem here is that most of the editors here (myself included) agree that MOS:CAPS should be followed and Paralympiakos main argument against the consensus style is "he doesn't like it", which isn't a valid reason. We have a set of guidelines to refer to in this case (the MOS) and there is no reason not to follow them. ZephyrFox (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the prompt response, being that I'm new here I suppose I'll perhaps wait until I see an example of what everyone is talking about in terms of changing the MMA Record box as I'm still a little confused about what's being argued here. (It looks like the argument is over capital letters or not and too many flag icons) Once we get this all ironed out, I'd love to see a small example of what people want to have done so that I can start changing record boxes to reflect that style. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the argument is mainly over capital letters, flag icons, and other stylistic details in record tables (not {{MMArecordbox}}); compare [12] and [13]. I appreciate your will to help standardize the tables.

Just a note to anybody who intends to do the same if the Manual of Style prevails: Jfgslo has helped me develop a couple of scripts to assist in changing tables in favour of the MoS. I intend to use them if the MoS prevails. Brief instructions for one of them are here. For the other, here is an example of how your skin.js should look. —LOL ^T/_C 20:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I haven't read the standard format for MMA records yet but there are a couple patterns I'm curious about: 1) For the location of where a fight takes place the flag icon AND the name of the country is on there. ex. Las Vegas, Nevada, United States. Doesn't the United States at the end seem redundant? Isn't that why the flag is there? I think it would be most ideal to use the flag icon of the country at first, then the city, then the state or province where applicable. Doesn't it make sense?

The standard for has always been Las Vegas, Nevada, having United States in there is definetly redundant and shouldn't be used.(Justinsane15 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

2) The flag icon fighters use to say where they're from... shouldn't it be where they're born? That's what is always used in the tale of the tape. It's very distracting to me when I see a guy like Krzysztof Soszynski with the Canadian flag just because he trains out of there or maybe currently lives there. I have plenty of other examples of this and some use where they're born, some use where they live now. It seems to me where they're born makes most sense. Thanks everyone.

Hey, thanks for joining the discussion. (1) I'm almost positive that country flags cannot replace words because that would pose a big problem when a bout takes place in a country whose flag isn't familiar to the reader. (2) Flags for birth place are strongly advised against. An argument can be found at WP:FLAGBIO; while they emphasize "a biographical article's introduction and/or infobox", the same argument can be applied to record tables. —LOL ^T/_C 23:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Flags in general are just plain bad- you're completely right about the issue of a flag being used to replace a country name entirely. Perhaps in the case of Las Vegas most people would recognize , but without checking- do you recognize this country?

In general, I oppose the use of flagicons. They add to server load (maybe not a lot, but it adds up, especially for people on slow connections), they're obnoxious to people using text browsers and screen readers, on and on. They have their uses, but I believe (and the MOS is relatively supportive of this position) that they should be curtailed when possible. l'aquatique[talk] 21:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Coming from someone who edits lots of other sports articles when I saw all the flag icons in infoboxes and tables I thought it was pretty impressive that so many MMA athletes fight for their country at the national level. Turns out that wasn't the case. Yet another reason to follow WP:ICON is to maintain consistency throughout Wikipedia with respect to what the flag icons are supposed to mean. SQGibbon (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Flag icons should be left in and so should capital letters. It used to always be like this but now all of a sudeen evereyone is ruining all the wiki pages. I don't understand how you guys think your way is better. It looks absolutely awful after you edit it this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K22UFC (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

U.S. states

I'm surprised nobody's brought this up yet, so I guess I will. I'm proposing that we make the United States a special case for the "Location" column by displaying U.S. states. Because there are so many U.S. cities that share their name with another U.S. city, such as Las Vegas, New Mexico, I think it's better to display the state and avoid any ambiguity. We can't rely on readers being able to hover over the link, especially when an article is printed. —LOL ^T/_C 21:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should not do this. I couldn't find a policy page about this, but I am under the impression that Wikipedia tries to avoid being biased towards any country and information should be presented from an international point of view. Also the US is not the only country with multiple cities of the same name. Either we have the state (or equivalent) for all countries or we don't have it for any country. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that we should make an exception for the U.S. cities, but I also think that adding the state in location makes it clearer. I particularly have encountered the problem that some cities have the same name, so, although they look similar, it is not the same to say "Hollywood, U.S." than "Hollywood, U.S.", Hollywood, U.S." or "Hollywood, U.S.", although the last one is not a city. And I remember having encountered a similar situation with some British cities. So, I have three counter proposals to suggest:

1. We include the full location for all countries e.g. "Shizuoka, Shizuoka Prefecture, Japan", "Amsterdam, North Holland, Netherlands", "Las Vegas, New Mexico, U.S.". The advantage of this is that it eliminates ambiguity, but it becomes a more difficult work for editors to add locations.
2. We include the full city title according to how it is named in Wikipedia e.g. "Shizuoka, Shizuoka, Japan", "Amsterdam, Netherlands", "Las Vegas, New Mexico, U.S.". This also eliminates ambiguity and it's easier for editors, but the format becomes broken since some cities will not have the state in the article title. To address that problem, I'm sure that most cities have a full redirect like New York City, New York, so, for the sake of standardization, we could include those redirects for cities that don't have the state named in the article title.
3. We name only the country in location. MMA events that have relevancy are already linked, so the full details, like location, are already there, and people can also check Sherdog information with the Sherdog link in all biographical articles if they are interested in minor events. I suggest this because locations aren't that necessary since the focus of the record table is not locations but fighter careers, so locations shouldn't take that much attention.

Personally, I favor the second one, but I also think that the third one is a good option. Jfgslo (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tuoppi: When we're dealing with geographical names, the MoS actually does give country-specific guidance; see WP:PLACE.

Jfgslo: If we were forced to use any of the three, then I would go for #2 with redirects displayed. #3 is definitely bad because we'd constantly have other users adding cities to the column. —LOL ^T/_C 18:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at that page (WP:PLACE) before posting, but I don't think it's not directly related to this issue because it doesn't deal with how locations should be presented in lists. Anyway, I think #2 is the best choice out of those. It removes ambiguity and it is not US centric. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Flags for nationality

A user has begun removing flags for nationality,[14] arguing that "In the case of these wrestlers, they are not wrestling for their countries but only themselves, therefore the flag icons do not belong."[15] Of course they're not exactly wrestlers, but is everybody okay with the removal? —LOL ^T/_C 03:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree in removing them from infoboxes. Removing flag icons from infobox is in accordance with MOS:ICON. In fact, there is a section called "Avoid flag icons in infoboxes". Let me quote:

• "As a rule of thumb, flag icons should not be used infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many. The guidelines for a number of common infoboxes (eg. Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person) explicitly ban the use of flag icons."

Removing them from the tables, on the other hand, is more of a gray area because it depends on one's perspective in the phrase from the guideline "they are useful in articles about international sporting events to show the representative nationality of players." While this really doesn't happen in American promotions, Pride and Dream did emphasize the nationality, going so far as to play the national anthems in championships bouts. But, despite this, I'm inclined to remove them because the editor's reasoning make sense. On the other hand, MMA fighters are also similar to boxers and boxers do represent their countries, like Manny Pacquiao, Joshua Clottey or Juan Manuel Márquez, so an argument in favor of flag icons in tables could be made as well.

As a side note, if there is a consensus to remove flag icons, I believe that for a long time we will be facing several IP editors who will add them again when they are removed. Jfgslo (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

As I understand MOS:ICON, flag icons are supposed to be used to indicate when an athlete is representing a specific country in national competitions. Using them to indicate nationality in general is not supported. Using them to indicate the location of a fight (as I see in some tables) definitely is not supported. For a good example of the use of flag icons look at the Lionel Messi article. No flag icons in the infobox and the only place they are used are the tables that record his national team goals. If MMA articles are going to break with WP consensus on this issue there really needs to be a good reason. It's also rather distracting to see flags peppered all over articles. I've stopped removing flags for now as I've asked several editors who disagree with me to join the discussion but unless a consensus to ignore WP:ICON is reached then the default is to accept WP:ICON and remove the flag icons. As for the Pride and Dream point from above, was this an actual national competition? I mean were there national bodies involved in choosing who represents their countries in competition or was this just a promoter adding the nationalistic music and such on his own? I think the difference makes a big difference. SQGibbon (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually shouldn't those flag icons in the Messi article be removed also, because the text right next to them says the country? The MOS:ICON example on how they should be used has icons like that though. Actually that confuses me, why many times locations are accompanied with a flag icon, but they shouldn't be there in locations in MMA records.

I don't mind if flag icons are removed though. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The way I read MOS:ICON is that including the country name and icon is required but that you may omit the country name if it has already been used nearby. As for the World Nine-ball Champions article that is an interesting example. I guess because it is an international championship the players could be seen as representing their countries but I have to admit that I don't quite follow the reasoning. But that would qualify as a legitimate grey area. As for the location flags, it took a minute, but going through the history of the two articles the location flags were added after the article was linked to from MOS:ICON. One of the dangers of not linking to a specific diff when linking to an example. SQGibbon (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@SQGibbon Actually, the problem is that that MOS:ICON does not specify national competitions. The only thing it's specified for sportspeople is that flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality and that when are used in a table, flags should clearly indicate that the flags represent representative nationality, not legal nationality. In the case of boxing, it is representative nationality, so the same applies here. Boxers that did not compete at Olympic level still represent their countries and this can easily be verified in the ratings of the different boxing organizations. You will note that MOS:ICON does not specify that nationality must be determined by national competitions or national bodies, only gives some examples using sport governing bodies. It is this lack of specificity that allows different interpretations of the text and the over usage of flag icons. Pride and Dream are promotions, not governing bodies, but both used nationalities in a sporting sense so it could be argued that fighters had representative nationality despite the lack of a governing body. The closer to a governing body in MMA was the World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts. As MMA is right now, it's closer to the NFL than to the FIFA, but that doesn't mean that reliable sources do not distinguish the athletes nationalities, so it could also be argued that reliable sources show the representative nationality.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with your reasonings, particularly with the similarities to professional wrestling promotions, and I also don't think that flag icons are necessary in record tables, but I do believe that the consensus must be as solid as possible because several editors like the aesthetic of flag icons and most likely they will try to re-add them if the consensus is not solid over such a gray area topic. Tuoppi gm gives an excellent example of these gray area issues and why I believe we should try to address all possible arguments when building the consensus. Jfgslo (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think MOS:ICON does make it pretty clear that it's only national competitions that determine the use of flag icons. Take the line "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." What this says is that even if we have a reliable source indicating what someone's citizenship is (or is it where they're born? Another quagmire if we allow for flag icons) that's not good enough. What matters is the nation they've represented by being part of the national squad/team (e.g., football Worldcup) or by "representative nationality" like Olympic boxing (as opposed to a World Heavyweight Boxing title). I know nothing about Pride and Dream but are the athletes from the same country all part of the same team and that nation's team receives points for wins which go toward a final standing based on team performance? Without that I don't think it's a legitimate example of "representative nationality" and more just a way to drum up nationalistic excitement among fans. Also, I think the boxing project is wrong to include flags the way they do. A quick search through the project and its archives indicates that consensus was never reached on that issue but I don't think they've discussed it at this level of detail either.

Finally, how do we determine consensus here? As far as I can tell the only argument in support of keeping the flag icons is that some people like the way they look whereas the counter arguments use various points taken from MOS:ICON as well as not liking the way they look. If this were an AfD discussion I'm pretty sure I know how an admin would determine consensus but that doesn't necessarily apply here. SQGibbon (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We determine consensus precisely as we have done here, we arrive to a general agreement of the participants in a discussion. The purpose of this particular discussion is to address all those points that may be raised against this proposal. For example, editors may argue that other sport-related project do use flag icons, like boxing, and therefore they are acceptable for this one. So far, your argument is pretty solid and convincing and I agree with it since you have shown that there is no real reason to keep the usage of flag icons. It would help if more editors expressed their opinions to make it a strong consensus. Since you mentioned AfD, you should be aware that sometimes a consensus gets trumped if the reasons expressed on it are not valid or based in Wikipedia policies, and sometimes the contrary happens when no valid reason is given to keep an article but a strong consensus forms against the deletion. Theoretically, a consensus with no valid reasons should not be considered as an acceptable determination, but in an AfD it depends on the opinion of an administrator, which is why there is another process called deletion review when editors can express their disagreement if they have a valid reason. Therefore, it is my opinion that we should strengthen this consensus with more opinions and solid arguments, as you have done so far.

There is another sport that may be raised as an opinion in favor of flag icons. With the Formula One World Drivers' Championship, despite that it is not a national competition and that athletes from the same country are not part of the same team, the related articles use flag icons for drivers and teams, as seen here. How is the Formula One World Drivers' Championship different from the UFC?

A question to other editors in this discussion. Is it fair to say that LOL, Tuoppi gm, SQGibbon and me are in favor of removing flag icons? Jfgslo (talk) 17:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

My point about AfD was exactly the point you made -- regardless of which side has the majority opinion the admin would close based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. Anyway, the F1 situation is interesting. The discussion rages on over there see here for a comment made today on their talk page and for a lengthy (and bitter) argument see here (initially just about infoboxes but it seems to reflect a wider range of issues). It is true that at F1 competitions they play the national anthem of the winning driver (but not the where the team is based/licensed) but again it's clearly not a national competition as points are never awarded to nations but only to teams (constructors) and the individual drivers. Most of the people in support of their use of flag icons seem to agree that it is in contradiction to MoS but want to use it anyway because of how F1 seems to act like the nationality of the driver is important (even if it's only for show). I have to admit that I disagree with that line of reasoning as it does have the effect of watering down the meaning of flag icons. Looking at a small range of sports and comparing how team sports are treated vs. individual sports, it appears that the general practice on Wikipedia is to associate athletes in individual sports with a nationality (and thus a flag icon) but not so for individual athletes in team sports. Personally I don't see the difference -- in tennis a player sometimes represents a country and at other times doesn't but putting the flag icon in every tournament result seems to indicate that it's always about which country wins and less about the individual. Glancing through various archives for these sports I see a strong sense of national pride being argued for while not addressing issues like consistency across Wikipedia. My point is that at the very general level consensus was reached in the form of MOS:ICON whereas in specific sports (especially it seems individual sports) consensus contradicts the MOS. That's just an observation; general practice in other projects is not a good argument for contradicting MOS in another project. Anyway, I guess at this point it might be helpful if someone were to summarize the arguments and see how it goes from there. If consensus is reached then perhaps it can be added to the text at the top of this discussion page for future reference. SQGibbon (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I know they were originally used for national competitions. However I do not nor have i ever had a problem with the flag icons for MMA Athletes. As a matter of fact i have never given it a thought. I think it is a good idea. I believe some users are making it into a big issue and being too technical about this. Solidmemory (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the aesthetic value is one that's never going to achieve unanimous support. I for one find the overuse of flag icons to be distracting and ugly. When I look at a table I want to see the results and not have my eyes constantly drawn to the flags. But aesthetic concerns rarely make for a compelling argument. As for being "too technical", the Wikipedia Manual of Style exists for many reasons: consistency, readability, bandwidth concerns, neutrality, and so on. Ignoring the MoS potentially creates problems in all these areas. This flag icon issue being an example with at least respect to consistency (across Wikipedia) and bandwidth concerns. If there are no compelling reasons to keep the flags (e.g., improve readability) then they should go. "Making it into a big issue" goes both ways -- those who want to keep them and those who want to get rid of them so we should fall back on what the MoS states. SQGibbon (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I missed this conversation entirely and unfortunately reverted (probably SQGibbon's) someone's changes and re-added the country flags for the opponent. Now that I have had a chance to read this conversation, I'd like to agree with SQGibbon's eloquent statement above. I don't care one way or the other, I just want to go by whatever the MoS says we should do. When the concensus has been reached, let me know one way or the other so I can start adding or removing the flag icons. In the meantime, I won't touch them for opponents. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This is K22. You guys must be blind if you think it looks better without the flag icons and with TKO (punches). It looks awful. Why cant you guys see this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K22UFC (talk • contribs) 20:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's funny that you reverted a change I made where you removed the flag icons from the opponents that I had put back in and then come in here and complain that removing flag icons looks ugly. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As suggested by SQGibbon, I will attempt to summarize the arguments so far:

• As pointed out by SQGibbon, per MOS:ICON, the consensus in Wikipedia is that flag icons aren't meant to be used to emphasize nationality without good reason.
• The interpretation on the text of the Manual of Style is that flag icons for sportspeople should only be used in a sporting sense, that is, only when they are representing a national squad/team or for representative nationality in a competition, not legal nationality. A sport governing body is the one to determine.
• Since there is no sport governing body in MMA, MMA fighters do not represent their countries in a sporting sense, and, as such, flag icons do not serve an encyclopedic purpose. SQGibbon's main argument is that, since MMA has no governing body and it's mainly composed of individual promotions, representative nationality does not apply as fighters are not representing a nation in an international competition sanctioned by an international or national sport governing body and in those few instances where anthems are used in MMA, they are used only for show and do not constitute a valid example of representative nationality.
• Some examples were given of other WikiProjects which ignored Wikipedia's guidelines in favor of the usage of flag icons in articles overseen by them. A quick analysis showed that there was no real consensus to overrule Wikipedia's guidelines, editors decided to ignore them because the entity related to that sport seemed to emphasize nationalities of the athletes or they simply ignored the guidelines for aesthetic purposes. Because of this, it is believed that they are unreliable in regards to flag icon usage and, therefore, they do not represent a good source for arguments in favor of keeping flags for nationality in this discussion.
• Arguments in favor of keeping flag icons usage for nationality are all related to aesthetics and, therefore, they are not valid arguments since none of them cite Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, or some other reason different from aesthetics.

• Editors who have expressed their support in favor of removing flag icons for nationality: LOL, SQGibbon, Jfgslo, Tuoppi gm, GoodDay.
• Editors who have expressed their support in favor of keeping flag icons for nationality: Paralympiakos, Solidmemory, K22UFC, Falcons8455, Ppt1973, Justinsane15, IWGP, WölffReik, Moosh88, DaveMir, Devotedness, GavinBrash, Eidetic Man, Niluop.
• Editors who are abstaining from this discussion: Dachknanddarice

It is my opinion that, since no valid arguments have been given in favor of keeping flag icons for nationality and ignoring Wikipedia's related guideline (MOS:ICON) and a majority of editors in this discussion have expressed their support towards SQGibbon's argument, the current text in this guideline should be changed to reflect this new consensus. I suggest that we wait two more days for more editors to express their opinions before changing the current text. Jfgslo (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I came late to the party again. I want it known that I like the idea of having flag icons on the record table. I'm pretty sure I've made that clear before like on the RFC/U for Paralympiakos, but that I'm willing to go with whatever the consensus is. Since the consensus is to remove all flag icons, that is what I'm going with. It does not mean that I support the removal of them. I simply don't have an arguement for keeping them since the MoS states we should discourage using them. Like others have stated, I like the way it looks... but I simply cannot think of an arguement for keeping them. Therefore, I'm abstaining from either side. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I had no idea about this "consensus" on the flag icons until I noticed them showing up on various biographies. Yeah, obviously it looks ugly. But I think the reasoning to remove them is because they don't represent the countries (they represent themselves) therefore the flag icons should be removed. But I'd say that they may not represent their country directly but it shows their nationality. Shouldn't that be taken into consideration? And a lot of this fighters in a way represent their country and have some national pride. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mont3818 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a spot in the infobox for nationality and of course a fighter's nationality can be discussed in the main body of the article. The flags were originally intended to show which nationality a sportsperson represents in national competition and the decision here (along with other reasons) is that we should stick to that. Of course many of them have national pride but that's not what the flags are supposed to demonstrate. Read MOS:FLAG for a longer discussion about the topic and for the general Wikipedia consensus. SQGibbon (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I love to edit MMA wikipedia aricles all the time because of how much I love this sport. I would like to say that I think the flags should be next to the person. Before every fight they announce what country they are from and it seems that it is a huge part of MMA. I don't think it matters if someone is saying they arent representing their country or not, they should still have their countries flag next to them. When I see where someone is from I don't automatically go, "Oh, so he is representing Brazil, looks like I should cheer for the guy from the US." No, I think oh cool he is from Brazil and thats it. I love fighters from all over the world. I'm not cheering for someone just because they are representing my country. I think not only do the flags next to them look better, but they also are always shown on the tale of the tape before the fights start. Now, if the consensus says there shouldn't be flags then I say we try and get it to where flags should be used because I feel that they are needed. Falcons8455 (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Are they needed or do you just prefer them? Wikipedia guidelines discourage the use of flag icons in the way we've been using them in MMA articles so unless there is a compelling reason to include them we should follow the guidelines (just like we do for writing references, punctuation, formatting, article organization, etc.). Aesthetics is not a compelling argument as many people find this particular use of flag icons ugly and sometimes confusing (if you know what the flags are supposed to mean then you might think that that's how they're being used in these articles when in fact they aren't being used in that way). SQGibbon (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

They are needed. Every MMA event I've ever seen always states what country they come from. It doesn't matter if the fighter says thats who they are representing or not. I think putting the flag icons where they are in the record box is just some more useful information. Why get rid of good information? I'm always interested in where someone is from. Like look at the UFC 129 card. Its basically Canada vs. USA. That isn't a coincidence. This issue is a big deal. People always will look at where someone is from and thats who they root for. I don't think it would make much sense to go around and getting rid of all the flags. It just offers more information that in my opinion, and im sure others, think is a great tid bit of information. And i find it funny that I'm always looking at a fighters record box and I'm like "Hes fought all brazilians or look at all the different fighters from around the world he faced." I'm a nerd and look at stuff like that. Overall I think it is a small bit of information that would just be dumb to get rid of. I understand its not in the consensus but I really do think it should be in it. Falcons8455 (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

That all MMA events indicate where a fighter comes from is interesting but in no way does that compel us at Wikipedia to follow suit. If an outside source presents information in a way that we find useful then we can certainly do the same but we are in no way required to do so. Also, I don't quite get how putting flag icons in the record box is "useful" information. Why not put fighting styles, or ages, or handedness (right/left), reach, weight, height and so on? The table needs to list the most relevant facts and not overload readers with stuff that while interesting does not quickly get to the point. Flag icons do not help readers understand the result of a fight. The opponent, the location, the length of the fight, and the decision are all relevant to that specific fight -- where someone was born is not. The rest of your argument seems to come from a fan's perspective which while understandable is not really the point of Wikipedia. I would find it surprising if as a fan that Wikipedia would be your first or even third destination for information about a fighter. There are much better resources out there for fans. Wikipedia is not here to be a fan resource even though it can serve that purpose. Instead we just try to provide encyclopedic information for general readers. Finally, it's not always clear what a person's nationality is but by putting a flag icon in we are asserting something as fact. In the case where someone has multiple nationalities which icon do you use? All of them? It's easy to deal with that issue in the main body of an article (Person A was born in country A to a citizen of country B and a citizen of Country C but grew up in country D where she/he became a citizen but now lives and works in country D which is where she/he is working and most identifies with) but flag icons ignore what can be complicated issues. That said, the purpose of flag icons is to indicate which nationality a person represents in an official manner (like being a member of the Spanish football team) which is easily verifiable and objective. Even when that person changes to a different national team it's clear that this has happened and the flag can be updated as needed. When dealing with people in a non-sports related way it gets messy and can lead to all sorts of nationalistic battles over which flag should be used to represent someone. There's enough opinion pushing going on in these MMA articles, do we really need bring in issues of national pride as well? SQGibbon (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The flags provide a great deal of information if you know how to read 'em. It can tell you in a glimpse of an eye if someone has fought overseas, or only in his region. For example Geronimo dos Santos. When his fight with Barnett came up, i got a pretty good picture from his whereabouts just by seeing the flags.

Saying that a flag should only be used if you represent your country, would mean you have to remove all the flags from association football club articles, since their players play for a club and not a country. Nobody is editing those, bec it would be insane. Boxing records also have the flags.

Look at a tale of the tape from an ufc event. They allways display a flag (born in). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loxoman (talk • contribs) 05:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure, flags provide information but as I said above (and on your talk page) there's lots of interesting and useful information that we're already leaving out. If we packed in every single thing that someone might find useful or interesting then the tables would get out of control quickly. Instead we only include that information which is relevant to the outcome of those fights: winner, round, time, method of win, and event. Where someone was born might provide you additional insight into the professional careers of the fighters involved but tells you nothing of a particular bout. Also I'm not sure what point you're getting at with association football, when players represent their clubs the flag icons are not used, when they represent their nations in international competition then the flag icons are used in those specific tables. I'm sure there are some football articles that don't respect that guideline but the players I just spot-checked bear this out (Leo Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Wayne Rooney to choose three of the better known players in the world right now who are all of different nationalities). That UFC events include flag icons is also interesting but there is absolutely no reason why we have to do everything exactly the same as they do and I'm positive that their manual of style differs from Wikipedia's in many, many more ways than just that. SQGibbon (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Since UFC events use the flag icons I don't see a reason to change all the fighters pages and take the icons out. True we don't have to do everything exactly the same as they do but you could ask that question the other way. Why not show it the way the events do? I think we should keep the flag icons because they are used just like the tale of the tape is used. In MMA it seems that the flags are used almost always so wikipedia not using it would be very confusing. Flags are used MUCH more than most other big sports and I still think it should be used in the record boxes. I'm a huge editor in all MMA type articles and try to make all of them the best they could possibly be and this is an essential piece to making them as good as possible in my opinion. I'm sure any MMA fan agrees with me. I'm not sure if you are a MMA fan or not but I feel that all fans of mixed martial arts would think the flags are definitly neccessary in the record boxes. It just gives it the tale of the tape feeling. Falcons8455 (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You ask "Why not show it the way events do?" OK, but ignoring the flag issue we still don't show it the way UFC does in its tale of the tape. We don't include the age, height, weight, or reach. One possible reason we don't include those items is that they are not relevant to the outcome of a fight. They are relevant to the fighters themselves (and should be included in their articles) but not to the specific results of a bout. How does the fact that one fighter comes from South Korea affect the result of the match? Either he won, lost, or drew, whether he's from South Korea or Australia in no way affects that result. So if I understand your argument your claim is that UFC includes a flag therefore so should we and that they are "definitely necessary". The second part I'm confused about, why is it "necessary" to include a flag? The result is necessary. The name of the opponent is necessary. In order to distinguish one fight from another the date and location are necessary. How the fight ended and in what round are not strictly necessary but at least they have a direct connection to the result of the fight being recorded. A person's place of birth is not necessary just as their hair color isn't. If by "necessity" you mean only because UFC includes it in their tale of the tape then why isn't all the other information necessary as well? SQGibbon (talk) 01:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. They are needed.Ppt1973 (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I also agree, flags are definetly needed.(Justinsane15 (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC))

Anonymous IPs aside, there seems to be a lot more people opposed to this change than for it. Being that the biggest reason most of these people oppose the change is because "It looks better", maybe we should get a non-involved admin type or someone who can perform a mediation to try and get this resolved. It's clear in MOS:FLAG that we should discourage the use of flags when they are clearly not needed, as has been argued here, but regardless, it seems to be an unpopular opinion. I just find it hard to say we have a "consensus" now that it seems there isn't one, or that the consensus seems to be on the other side now. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify something in case it needs clarifying, "consensus" is not about what position has the most votes, see WP:VOTE for more on that. Of course it's also helpful to read WP:CONSENSUS (of special interest to this debate is WP:CONLIMITED). Consensus is about the quality of an argument not the number of people who prefer a certain position. My position is that since the use of flags being discussed here clearly runs counter to Wikipedia guidelines then the people who want to include them need to provide compelling reason to ignore guidelines. Without such a compelling reason then the default should be to stick with the guidelines. Are "because it looks better" or "because UFC does it" compelling reasons to ignore community-wide consensus driven guidelines? In any case, I agree that another outside opinion might be helpful (though I should say that I was an outside opinion when I first became involved). SQGibbon (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I apparently did need that clarification, and I appreciate you giving it to me. I will strike through my comment that says consensus has changed, as clearly I was not correct. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Flags should be kept because the various MMA orgs use them, many fighters often come out with their countries flag, and during MMA matches, especially in the USA, the fans will chant USA! USA! USA! to show support to the American fighter. Furthermore, it provides a nice visual element which also lets the reader know what country a particular fighter hails from without the said user having to click on the fighters name to find that info.--Moosh88 (talk) 02:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The "various MMA orgs use them", "many fighters often come out with their countries flag", "the fans" and "lets the reader know what country a particular fighter hails from without the said user having to click on the fighters name to find that info" arguments have already been used and countered; see Falcons8455's comments and SQGibbon's responses to them. Furthermore, "fans chanting" is not a reason to include flags; if it were, then we could take any sport that shouldn't have flags, wait until some fans for that sport chant a country's name, and then people would argue that the chant warrants flags for every participant in the sport. Stating that it is "a nice visual element" is completely subjective. Thank you for giving your 2¢ on this "pointless discussion". :) —LOL ^T/_C 08:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I would support the use of flags in records chart, but not an infobox. I placed a similar comment on a fighter's page without being aware of the discussion taking place here. I will restate with slight adjustments.

The UFC is an international sporting event. The use of flags is standard in the presentation of every fight in UFC. They are shown prior to every fight and the country of origin is included in most results. I believe it is ingrained in the sport culture and this gives good reason to include them, as an exception to MOS:FLAG. I suspect willing editors that wish to contribute their UFC expertise to our page content would expect to see them. It can also, incidentally, help to keep track of a fighter's identity. Niluop (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

If you read at the beginning of this topic, you can check that I put forward similar arguments originally. But the UFC, as big as it is, it's a promotion, not a sports-governing body. In that sense, it is more similar to a wrestling promotion. There is no such a thing as a "score" for nations, that is, while fighters are presented with their flags on TV, they are not fighting in representation of their countries in a competition. Not even the national anthem of their countries is present. I argued that the anthem in championship fights, as seen in JMMA promotions, could be taken as a sign of representative nationality. But even something like that is merely for show. Even other organizations which regularly use flags and anthems in their events, like Formula 1, do not show representative nationality in a sporting sense. It is only when a sport governing body exists that representative nationality can be present, such as in the Olympic games, and in MMA there is no such a thing yet. The UFC is similar to the NFL, a big an internationally thriving organization that shows the best quality but that does not mean that they have representative nationality in their competitions. Using another analogy, the UFC is like the NBA (the most successful basketball organization), but not the FIBA (a sport governing body.) So, there is still no indication that flag icons in MMA articles can be used in a non-sporting sense and I don't think that MMA is integrated deep enough in the sport culture (it is still not covered in detail by mainstream media and reliable sources do not emphasize competitors' nationalities) to make an exception. Jfgslo (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the fighters are not representing their nation in the sporting sense. I may be missing something here, but I don't view the playing of the national anthem as relevant, and I'm not sure that would be required even if the fighters were representing their nation. As far as coverage, I've observed the mainstream sports news sites create a new tab specifically for the UFC, and the country of origin is usually included as a qualifier in the results discussion. Niluop (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

That is precisely the point I wanted to make with anthems. Even if they were used, even if the UFC pushed nationality in their fights, that would still not be representative nationality. A good example of that is how the UFC portrayed Cain Velasquez in his fight against Brock Lesnar. Country of origin (or legal nationality) is not the same as representative nationality. Flags for sports-people in general are discouraged without an encyclopedic reason and, if fighters are not representing nations in a sporting sense in a competition, there is essentially no reason to add them. They may look nice in the eyes of some, but aesthetics are not a valid criteria for inclusion. You could make a case for how reliable sources represent them but even if they indicate fighters' citizenship that's not the same as representative nationality since the fighter is fighting for himself, not as a representative of a national team/squad/federation. And this is only regarding organizations like the UFC that may choose to emphasize nationality. That would mean that only UFC/Dream/Pride fights in a fighter's record could use flags while the rest of the record couldn't since other organizations do not emphasize nationality. Jfgslo (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You make some excellent points Jfgslo. I do think the icons help to convey information more efficiently and improve readability, but also agree with your sentiments. Niluop (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I just don't understand how MMA can't have flags but Boxing can. You said well this is a different project so it doesnt have to be the same. Well I think two sports so similiar should be the same. You can't bring up all these rules about when you can use flags when they are being used incorrectly everywhere. I know you will say well just because they are used incorrectly everywhere else doesnt mean we have to use them incorrectly here. Yeah, but why make a change when Boxing has been around for so long and I don't see a change yet. It just looks ugly (yes I said it). I am a huge contributor in creating and editing MMA articles and one of the reasons I do that is because I am constantly looking at the record boxes. One of the reasons I go to wikipedia instead of sherdog to look at record boxes is the flags. It may sound stupid but its true. It just looks much better. And to bring up all the different rules about when you can and cannot use flags is a complete joke. Should I go over to the boxing project and request the flags should be taken down because of the flag rules? I don't even watch boxing so maybe I should. Wait no I don't want to take out my frustation on others. I just don't get this one bit. Falcons8455 (talk) 06:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That one project (boxing) is ignoring the Wikipedia Manual of Style with regard to flag icons doesn't mean that all the other projects should do the same. I know you were being factitious but if you were to open up a discussion at WP:BOXING about removing inappropriate flag icons I would join in. I personally have a lot of projects on my plate and don't really want to start a new one (especially while this one continues to be so contentious) but I would certainly help out if someone got that ball rolling. Yes, we can bring up Wikipedia guidelines on flag usage because there are plenty of projects on Wikipedia that do follow them, for instance football (soccer). I would guess that it's a much larger project than WP:MMA. We can also bring up these guidelines because they were achieved through a years-long process involving the entirety of the Wikipedia project, i.e., it has project-wide consensus (in fact just recently the language was made more strict than it was before, again through project-wide consensus). You claim that not having flags looks ugly, fine, but I hope you would agree that aesthetic judgments being entirely subjective do not make for a compelling argument (I think the flags are ugly and distracting, so whose aesthetic opinion should we follow?) Finally, do you not agree that Wikipedia should have a Manual of Style? I would hope that everyone here would agree that it's best for articles to have a similar look and operate under a certain set of standards. If you agree with this then following the guidelines with respect to flag icons only makes sense. If you think that particular guideline is misguided then you are free to bring it up for discussion at the Manual of Style of talk page and who knows, you may be able to get it changed. SQGibbon (talk) 00:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish somebody would put the flags back. I like seeing flags next to the fighter's name. It matters, even in MMA or boxing where it is an individual sport. They put the flags on the "tale of the tape" section of boxing and MMA before a fight. It's stupid that you guys are now removing them. What for? I like seeing if fighters are fighting others from their country or if they are fighting diverse opponents around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.178.17 (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

We've explained the reasons why we are removing them at great length above. Is there a particular line of argument that you don't agree with or understand? If so I'd be more than happy to go into greater detail on it. SQGibbon (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Project page update

I have rewritten the project page to reflect the consensus regarding flags for nationality and city names in the location column. Please check it out and let me know if I omitted something or if there is something that needs to be changed. Jfgslo (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problems. Nice job. SQGibbon (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons should be left in and so should capital letters. It used to always be like this but now all of a sudeen evereyone is ruining all the wiki pages. I don't understand how you guys think your way is better. It looks absolutely awful after you edit it this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K22UFC (talk • contribs) 15:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The reasons why are explained in exhaustive detail above -- if there's a specific line of argument you don't agree with or think is wrong I'd be more than happy to address it. As for the aesthetic argument, you have to realize that not everyone has the same tastes as you. Personally I think using flag icons like this makes the page look gaudy and like what happens when you give a child a book of peel-off stickers who then goes around plastering those stickers everywhere. While it's cute and funny when a child does this, it's just plain ugly and unprofessional when adults do it to an encyclopedia. With the capitalization it Just makes No grammatical Sense. It's the Sort of capitalization Usually Used only with book Titles. Using It elsewhere gives the Impression that something Important is being stated Or that Some Kind Of formal Title is being used. The fact that none of that is being implied means it just looks unprofessional and quite frankly makes us look like our grasp of the English language is less then stellar (apologies to everyone for making my point So crassly Above). Please don't take any of that as an insult, my point was merely to illustrate that we all have differing aesthetic ideas and as such appeals to aesthetics don't make for a very good argument. Instead what the discussion should come down to is Wikipedia policy and guidelines and whether this is a compelling situation where we should ignore them. Because some people think it looks better or because UFC does it does not seem to be a compelling case. SQGibbon (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Amount of detail in method column

I recently encountered an anonymous user 189.5.159.86 (talk · contribs) who (among other things) has been selectively reducing the amount of the detail in the method column, such as changing "shoulder injury" to "injury"[16] and "cut on the shin" to "cut"[17]. I can imagine why one would wish to do this; Sherdog sometimes omits such detail, sometimes includes them, and it's somewhat awkward this way. However, is this what we want? I don't believe any Wikipedian has the authority to decide how much detail should go into the method column. Of course, Sherdog is clearly inconsistent and synching with them would make us inconsistent as well, but they're the best source we have as far as I know. On one extreme, we can just follow the UFC's methodology by omitting everything besides decision/submission/(T)KO, but I have a hunch that the overwhelming majority of us would oppose that. —LOL ^T/_C 03:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is disruptive editing. It is almost the same as when editors change the result of a fight to how they perceive it. In my opinion, even if he does it in good faith, those edits aren't helpful and I don't see a need to trim the length of those details since they do not interfere with the column. But it may be useful in order to have the consistency that Sherdog and all the other publications with fighter records lack. However, when a fight is only reference with Sherdog's record, we risk omitting an important detail and deforming the information so I'd rather keep all details in order to have consistency with the sources. Jfgslo (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to stick to the Sherdog record, the statbox lists records as being from Sherdog: "Mixed martial arts record from Sherdog". It's too open to personal interpretation otherwise, and it makes verifiability difficult. --Phospheros (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. The user has hopped to 189.5.181.53 (talk · contribs) and seems to continue ignoring all of their talk page messages. No admins have done anything about my ANI report, so I may need some help undoing their edits in accordance with the consensus. —LOL ^T/_C 23:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(Moved comment about flags above) —LOL ^T/_C 16:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Weight classes in different organizations

Any ideas on what we can do to avoid confusion such as this? I don't recall Wanderlei ever fighting professionally at 185 prior to his bout against Bisping. —LOL ^T/_C 18:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

There is no way around that. New fans are not aware of Pride weight classes, only the unified rules classes. My only suggestion is to revert back the edit and mention in the summary that Pride middleweight is not the same as unified rules middleweight, or perhaps adding "Middleweight debut (unified rules)" instead of "Middleweight debut". Jfgslo (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I added "Unified Rules" in parentheses (though I'm getting mixed results for the capitalization of the term). I guess such a note would have to be used sparingly. —LOL ^T/_C 20:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Conventions for Notes column

With so many users adding to the Notes column, I think we should have some stylistic guidelines and a list of what is sufficient for the column specifically. I'm pretty sure the inclusion of title fights and fight bonuses have become standard, so I doubt we need to discuss that. Anyway, I'd like to have some opinions on:

1. Whether or not to use {{small}}
2. Whether to write "For <organization> <division> title contendership" or "<organization> <division> title eliminator"
3. Whether to write "Fight of the Night" or "Won Fight of the Night honors"
4. Inclusion of yearly awards such as "Sherdog 2010 Fight of the Year"
5. Inclusion of point deductions
6. Inclusion of failed drug tests for either fighter

I think "Won Fight of the Night honors" is quite redundant; it should be fairly obvious that just "Fight of the Night" means the same thing. As for yearly awards, I notice that many fighters have an Awards/Accomplishments section; if we want to keep those, then putting yearly awards in the notes column is redundant. I don't have any strong opinions on the rest of the points. —LOL ^T/_C 19:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC) P.S. If this section gets a lot of activity, then we may wish to split each point into its own section.

About number 2. I think we shouldn't put those in the notes section. The reason being that every fight is essentially a title eliminator and guaranteed title shots are not necessarily guaranteed even if someone wins a fight that is for the contendership. Only time a note like this should be added is when there is a clear tournament format. --Tuoppi gm (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

1. It is not particularly important to use this template. I'm in favor of omitting it altogether along with <small>.
2. I'm with Tuoppi gm. We should not include that information.
3. I favor "Fight of the Night".
4. Since yearly awards are given by several publications/organizations but not by a panel of journalists from different publications (like the Ballon d'Or), the value of them is subjective at best and we certainly shouldn't give priority to some awards over others. They are okay in an awards section, but not in a fighter's record. So, in my opinion, we should not include any type of awards that are not widely recognized by a majority of publications. When such an award is notable enough to have its own article, then we can consider adding it in a fighter's record.
5. Point deductions should not be included since it is only used to justify that some fighter was unable to win because he lost points. They are part of the rules in a regular match, so there is no reason to emphasize them.
6. In my opinion they should be included since several times they end up changing the result of a fight, like Nick Diaz vs. Takanori Gomi. Jfgslo (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Demian Maia

Does anyone know the black belt degree of Demian Maia? The internet is no help to me.--Razionale (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There's an IP address that increased the Dan level again without bothering to provide a source[18]. I undid. Anyone supporting or opposing?--Razionale (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:V supports your actions. Thanks for maintaining the page. —LOL ^T/_C 22:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Kickboxing reactivation

Wikipedia:WikiProject Kickboxing is currently inactive. I would like to make some improvements to its outdated guidelines but I dare not since I am not an expert at kickboxing and I believe that there needs to be a consensus for that anyway. For that, I have contacted the last active members of that project but I still haven't received any answer. Another editor suggested me that, besides Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts, I should post this request here as well as in WT:SPORT, so I would like to discuss if anyone would be interested in reactivating that WikiProject or if it would be better to integrate it to WP:WPMA or perhaps even here. Jfgslo (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I barely know anything about kickboxing, but I can certainly try to help with formatting issues and write scripts to aid in completing large-scale tasks such as standardizing tables. It seems you've received responses from two members of the kickboxing wikiproject since the creation of this section, so I'm interested in what happens next. —LOL ^T/_C 03:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Royce Gracie vs. Harold Howard result

Opinions at Talk:Royce Gracie#No contest against Harold Howard? would be appreciated. —LOL ^T/_C 03:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox martial artist

User PashaTarsius is changing "|reach" to "|reach_in" and "|weight" to "|weight_lb" on fighter wiki pages, this creates a problem as adding a reference causes the auto conversion to error out, a problem not present when using {{convert}} He's also changing "Years active" (example) "2001–present" to "2001 – present" the template still has it as "2001–present" (no spaces).--Phospheros (talk) 05:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The optional parameters height_footnote, weight_footnote, and reach_footnote were created (though not documented yet) to solve the reference problem. As for the dash spacing, I've informed the user of WP:ENDASH. —LOL ^T/_C 12:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Flag icon discussion at the Manual of Style talk page

Hey everyone, the debate is now also taking place at MoS Talk page here. Hopefully we'll get some more people involved from the larger Wikipedia community. I encourage everyone to speak up over there as well. Regardless of the outcome of the discussion I'm sure it's pretty clear that the language used in the Manual of Style needs to be made clearer so that we don't have to battle this crap out ever again. SQGibbon (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Petition to have flagicons returned to fighter pages

It seems clear that many people would rather have fighters' nationalities represented with flagicons. Only a few would rather not have them.

• WölffReik (talk)
• Delinquent1904 (talk)
• BEDofRAZORS666 (talk)
• Ppt1973 (talk)
• Justinsane15 (talk)
• User:Paralympiakos (talk)
• User:Marty Rockatansky (talk)
• User:Falcons8455 (talk)
• Thaddeus Venture (talk)
• jsmith006 (talk)

This is not a vote WP:VOTE because Wikipedia is not a democracy WP:DEMOCRACY. What we do is discuss issues and try to reach a consensus view. There is a very long discussion at the top of the page detailing the reasons why we should not be using flag icons in the MMA articles and so far the only rebuttals that I can see is that some people think it looks better to use them and that UFC does it. Several of us do not think that these are good enough reasons to go against Wikipedia project-wide consensus with respect to the use of flag icons in articles (main space and infoboxes). You can read about the Wikipedia guideline concerning flag usage here. SQGibbon (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there is any doubt that clearly the consensus of users who actually contribute by adding sources and by writing new articles/pages is to include the flag icons. Seems silly that one or two users seem to be more concerned with policing the articles rather than contributing anything of significance. The autocratic rules being enforced are petty, as WP:MOS is only a guideline.Ppt1973 (talk) 18:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are attacking with your "actually contribute(s)" line, but everyone who agreed to follow Wikipedia consensus and guidelines were active editors who contribute a lot to the MMA project and/or Wikipedia at large. Everyone contributes differently; Wikipedia in no way makes the claim that one editor's opinion is worth more than another just because of the kinds of edits that editor makes. If you can point out the policy or guideline that makes such a distinction it would be interesting, though irrelevant to the issue at hand. Similarly the reason Wikipedia has a Manual of Style is so that articles have the same look and feel throughout the entirety of the project. Maintaining that look and feel throughout the project is not an insignificant contribution but is actually quite important given the number of people involved with and the amount of time devoted to establishing the Manual of Style. Finally, yes MOS:FLAGS is "only a guideline" but that doesn't mean it's optional or can be ignored/changed willy-nilly. Here's a quote from the policy page about consensus WP:CONLIMITED "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." My feeling has always been that those people who want to include flag icons in these articles need to make a compelling argument as to why we should ignore Wikipedia-wide consensus and add the flag icons and that without such a compelling reason the default of following the guidelines should be followed. Turns out that, according to policy, you need to convince the community at large as well. SQGibbon (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no CONSENSUS for removing them. There are two or three people demanding the removal. There are more people wanting flag icons. THAT'S CONSENSUS. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus was established above as you can see if you read the discussion. After that consensus was reached then people came out of the woodwork and began voting to include the flag icons again. However, consensus is not a majority vote, which guideline I linked to in my response above. On Wikipedia consensus is everyone working together to come to an agreement while maintaining the goals of the Wikipedia project. So again I ask, what argument do you have that is so compelling that we should violate Wikipedia consensus on flags MOS:FLAGS and include flag icons in these articles? Saying it looks better is obviously subjective (and not something everyone agrees with) and thus not compelling. Stating that UFC includes flags is also not compelling (UFC includes all sorts of things that we don't and we do things they don't). SQGibbon (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL, this discussion, in its present form, ongoing since February, clearly shows a consensus. Crazy.Ppt1973 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Nowadays I mostly contribute on muay thai, boxing and motorcycle racing but I remember this discussion here 2 years ago, seems like its still going on. Back then the argument was against that UFC didn't have flags next to their fighter profiles and threfore MMA fighters didnt represent countries. Fact is pretty much any sporting event from Olympics to individual athletes have a flags next to their names. Here's just a few examples from different sports but you should look around yourself.

• 2011 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season
• 2011 World Rally Championship season
• Manchester United F.C.
• Los Angeles Lakers
• 2010–11 Detroit Red Wings season
• Roger Federer
• Motocross World Championship
• 2011 Formula One season

I dont get it why someone wants to make such a big deal out of it. Fact is its not a violation and its used throughout wikipedia. One more argument, looking at Jon Jones record and he fought Moyses Gabin, lets say i wanna know where is this guy from, the guy has no article here, and the name sounds french, but he's actually American, having a US flag next to him I'd know right away.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You wouldn't say that adding flag icons in infoboxes and records tables does not violate MOS:FLAGS? Whether it's justified is one thing, but it seems pretty clear that it goes against that guideline. And yes, there are plenty of examples of articles that violate the guideline (and every single other guideline and policy used on Wikipedia) but that doesn't mean that we should violate the style guide whenever we want. We can't fix Wikipedia all at once. All that said there are a couple of problems with your examples, with football teams the flag icons are supposed to indicate the national team that a player plays for (whether it's only being used in this manner is something I haven't looked into closely but given that most top level EPL players play for their national teams then I would guess it's fine). This is part of the style guide for football project and is how flags are supposed to be used according to the MoS. Olympic athletes are another one where flags should be used since those are people who officially represent their countries. MMA people do not officially represent their nations. As for you example of Moyses Gabin and the Jon Jones article, I'm a little curious as to why where the guy was born is so important? Why wouldn't you want to know his record? Or his fighting style? Where he practices? And so on? There's all sorts of interesting things that are at least as important if not more important to know about him. So why are you fixating on his place of birth, which, to my mind, is far less significant than the other stuff I mentioned? These tables are supposed to be a record of the fights, where the fighters were born is entirely irrelevant to the outcome of these fights. SQGibbon (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

And to just make the point clear about the Man U example, just above the table of players is this text "Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." which again follows the MoS. Further Owen Hargreaves plays for the England national side but was born in Canada (to English and Welsh parents so he was able to play in any of those countries). His listing in that table uses the England flag which again matches up with MOS:FLAGS (as in not being about where a sports person is born but what national side he represents). SQGibbon (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I might have had couple hits in the head in between but, dude now i think i remember you, "MMA people do not officially represent their nations" you were the same guy talking about this stuff more than 2 years ago? Pounding on violation of MOS:FLAGS, making it sound like a felony.

It was most definitely not I. You can look through my contribution history and see that I was barely participating at all on Wikipedia two years ago and that my first ever edit to this discussion page was two months ago (at the top of the page). SQGibbon (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It says you been here 5 years, 4 months, and 27 days. You do sound familiar thou.

Yes, I've had an account that long but I didn't become active till like 1.5 years ago and in any case my comment above from two months ago is the first time I've commented on this talk page. If I sound familiar it's probably just because I'm using the exact same argument everyone does in my situation which is basically to quote the relevant Wikipedia guidelines. SQGibbon (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"These tables are supposed to be a record of the fights, where the fighters were born is entirely irrelevant to the outcome of these fights."

Disagree. My example of Gabin was given that a simple flag icon next to the name adds a bit of information about the fighter, specially the ones without articles. Maybe not for you but for me it is an important. Besides that it adds color and shows how worldwide the sport has gone.cheers.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you disagree that that where a person is born has no relevance to the outcome of the fight? If not then please tell me how someone being born in Brazil figures into the decision.

To fight a brazilian opponent is like fighting a Thai in muayhtai. Its a reputation and adds credibility.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like original research or opinion. If there were some official ranking from a reliable source then that might be useful and worthy of inclusion but your own ideas about reputation based not on the specific fighters themselves but on where they were born (and not even where they live and train now) has no place anywhere in these articles. SQGibbon (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Further, how is the country of birth less important than the fighter's record? Why aren't you arguing for that to be included?

In boxing they use that format. I dont see anything wrong with that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact why a flag over any other bit of personal information about the fighters?

I don't get your point.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The point I was leading to is that there is all sorts of personal information that a user might find interesting like arm reach, fighting style, handedness (right or left), height, how much they can bench press, and so on. If we include flag icons indicating where someone was born then surely these other points (and more) should be included since they actually tell us something important about the specific fighter (and not just where they happened to be born). But of course if we include all that information then the tables would be too large to be useful. Instead we should stick with only the most relevant details about the results of the fights and not go down the road of rendering the tables useless from data overload. SQGibbon (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your claim seems arbitrary. These tables are records of fights and not personal information about the fighters. If there isn't an article for a fighter telling us where he was born then the best solution is to create that article.

Easy for you to say. How many MMA articles have you created? Theres never gonna be an article for every fighter.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I haven't created any and don't plan on doing so but MMA is not really my interest on Wikipedia. But if a fighter doesn't have an article then why does his country of birth matter more than all the other stuff I listed above? And if a fighter is not well-known enough to have an article then how do you know where he was born? Obviously for every fighter who doesn't have an article but does have a flag icon beside his name there needs to be a citation establishing that fact from a reliable source. In fact because of WP:BLP we need to remove all such flags until sources are supplied establishing the country of birth regardless of what anyone thinks about about flag icons in general. SQGibbon (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, "adding color" in my opinion makes the article look garish and unprofessional, kind of like what happens when you give a small child a book of peel-off stickers who then goes around plastering them everywhere. I get that some people like the aesthetics of the flags but you have to get that some people don't and that in any case arguing that it looks good or bad is not a compelling argument for either side. SQGibbon (talk) 03:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Compelling or not but at some point you gotta listen your fellow editors. For me the flags are necessary because they add information.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

What information do you contend the flags add, Marty? --John (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Show the nationality and country where they from.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Won't the words tell me that? --John (talk) 07:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought we are talking about fight records not infoboxes or any of that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If the information is important, it would be better to use words for it. --John (talk) 08:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand, you wanna spell out the name of the country after every fighter name on the fight record, just a simple flag icon does all that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, I do listen very closely to my fellow editors but the problem is that as of yet no one has supplied a compelling reason to go against Wikipedia consensus on this. MOS:FLAGS and WP:CONLIMITED make it clear that the default behavior for MMA articles should be to not include flag icons in results tables and infoboxes and that this should not be changed without first achieving consensus with the project at large. The "burden of proof", according to these guidelines and policy, is on those people who want to include flag icons. If the guidelines allowed flag icons then we would not be having this debate even though I would still think that flag icons are ugly and make Wikipedia look unprofessional. The case needs to be made that there should be an exception to MOS:FLAGS before flags are added to these articles. SQGibbon (talk) 07:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think its ugly thats your problem, page examples i gave you what contain flag icons are featured star and GA articles by wikipedia standards.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that's my point. The issue of aesthetics is completely irrelevant to this discussion. SQGibbon (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of this may be redudant but since nobody from the boxing project replied to our request...

WP:Boxing I have looked over the discussion history for the boxing project page. While there has not been a boxing discussion as long as the one at this talk page (most of their discussions have been regarding which flag icon to use for British fighters), the consensus has been to use flag icons in the info box (see:Mike Tyson). Interestingly, when arguing which flag to use, the consenus has been to use BoxRec (similar to our Sherdog).(Justinsane15 (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC))

Boxing project has been inactive since Vintagekits got banned and Eastside retired. Not much discussion going on, just a few people work on their individual things. Also part of it because Boxrec is so comprehensive and they have their own wiki kinda section. Kinda work I'm used to, with muay thai/K-1, work on figher/event pages, make sure everything links up and is updated and referenced. We don't get these kinda 2 year long arguments on secondary important things.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• To those who are actively trying to remove the flag icons, get over it. They don't hurt anything, and some people obviously like them, and it's not as though they don't add any information (visual cues contain tons of information for us. Human beings are visual creatures, as the expression goes). Quit trying to tell others what they can and can't do.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 10:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ya'll should do yourselves a favour & keep away from the flagicons, particulary if there's any British MMA fighters. GoodDay (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS

Hey Gibbons show me where it says the use of flags is not permitted in wikipedia articles in sports statistics boxes what the fight record box is. I'm not talking about the flag use in infobox. You are saying that according to MOS:Flags the use of flag icons is not permitted in record boxes is simply untrue. It discourages the overuse in Infobox, they even list exceptions but it doesnt ban the use of flags icons throughout the articles what seems to me that you are trying to enforce here. MOS:FLAGS does not say a single word that flags are not permitted in record box.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to scroll down a little farther. I'll quote the appropriate parts (emphasis from the original source):

"Inappropriate use

Do not emphasize nationality without good reason

Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride. Flags are visually striking, and placing a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things. For example, with an English flag next to him, Paul McCartney looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles"; without the flag next to him, he looks like an "English singer-songwriter from Liverpool who was in the Beatles". Emphasizing the importance of a person's citizenship or nationality above their other qualities risks violating Wikipedia's "Neutral point of view" policy.

Do not use flags to indicate locations of birth, residence, or death

Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship and/or nationality. Many people born abroad due to traveling parents never become citizens of the countries in which they were born and do not claim such a nationality. For example, actor Bruce Willis was born on a U.S. military base in Germany, so putting a German flag in his infobox, for any reason, might lead the casual reader to assume he is or was a German citizen. Similarly, many people die on foreign soil due to war, vacation accidents, etc., and many people emigrate, without any effect on their actual citizenship or nationality."

If you scroll down more you get this

"Use of flags for sportspeople

Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality.

Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that the flags represent representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise."

And so on. SQGibbon (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

None of this says its inappropriate to have a flag next to the name in a record box. It indicates the nationality of an athlete in a sporting sense.

'Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense' - we are talking about sport statistics what is a sporting sense. A flag icon indicating a nationality of an athlete in a sporting sense is completely by the rules. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You didn't finish the quote "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." MMA fighters do not officially represent any nation (as opposed to Olympic athletes, for example). Also "Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death,..." I really don't see how it can be any clearer. We are not to use flags to indicate where someone is born (which is what these MMA tables do) and we are only to use them when the fighters officially represent a country which criterion MMA fighters do not meet. Either way you look at it the result is the same. Look at the Manchester United article and you'll see that when flag icons are used besides the players' names it is only to indicate the national teams they play for and not where they were born (see especially the example of Owen Hargreaves who was born in Canada but plays for England so the England flag is used). MMA fighters are not on officially recognized national teams nor do they officially represent their nations in sporting events therefore flag icons are inappropriate to use. SQGibbon (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

So thats your next argument, that fighters are not representatives of countries. I took picture of Malaipet two weeks ago, Thai flag around his shoulders does not represent the country? A national anthem gets played before the World title fights, if thats not a representation of country i don't know what is. Every professional athlete is a representative of a country, from the World Strongest Man competition to ping pong. Face it MOS:FLAGS does not say that you can not use a flag icon next to a professional athlete in a sporting sense. Having a flag next to the name in the sport statistics record books is used in every sport, even in non olympic individual sports. Its part of the statistics and its not inappropriate by any rules.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not my "next argument", it's always been the argument; MMA fighters do not officially represent any nationalities in competition. Please tell me what official organizations exist in MMA that certify that a person is not competing for themselves but only for their country? In soccer/football there is FIFA, in basketball FIBA, and of course the Olympics. These are national/international organizations and when an athlete is competing in international competitions it is through these organizations and they officially represent their countries. Or look at boxing, a boxer can represent his country in Olympic boxing but when he turns pro and fights for various titles he is no longer representing his country, he represents himself and his interests. USA Boxing does not care at all if a professional boxer wins a title outside of international competition nor does the US earn a gold medal when that happens. There is a clear distinction between fighting for your country and fighting for yourself. Flag icons on Wikipedia are only supposed to be used when someone is officially fighting for their country. The fact that other books and websites use flags beside fighters' names means absolutely nothing. They have their style guides and Wikipedia has its style guide. There is absolutely no reason the MMA project should abandon the Wikipedia style guide in favor of someone else's just as there is no reason those organizations should abandon their's for Wikipedia's.

Since there is no national or international organization that sanctions international competitions within MMA then the criterion quoted above "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." is not met. Since MMA fighters do not officially represent any nations then the line "Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death,..." comes into effect indicating that we are not to use flags (we have eliminated any official national representation so all that's left is place of birth which this line forbids us from doing). "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense" means that unless a sporting sense can be justified, flags should not be used. "Sporting sense" is then clarified with "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." which again leads us back to some kind of official organization that officially designates what country a fighter represents. But since no such organization exists in MMA then there is no way for a flag to be used in a sporting sense. Look at the article for footballer Leo Messi. He is from Argentina and plays for that national side but plays his club football in Barcelona. The Argentina flag is only ever used in that article when he has played for his national team and no flags are used in statistics for his club. The same for Wayne Rooney, and so on. SQGibbon (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You like to go all over the place. keep it short and straight up, answer this - Playing the national anthem before the world title fight is not a representation of the country in your mind?Marty Rockatansky (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

They play the national anthem before every baseball game, but that doesn't mean that the Minnesota Twins represent the United States. gnfnrf (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Not talking about team sports here, but just an individual fighter representing the country.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I like to think I'm thorough, but anyway ... no, playing the national anthem before a world championship means nothing. Every basketball game, football game, baseball game, and so on plays the national anthem before those events and in no way are those players representing their individual countries in competition (they play the US national anthem when Dirk Nowitski plays in the Dallas Mavericks' uniform but he plays for the German national team. Does the playing of the US national anthem now mean he is playing for the US national team?). So answer me this, what national/international organization officially proclaims that an MMA athlete is representing a specific country (and what evidence is there that those countries officially claim the athlete is representing them?). In short, anyone can play any national anthem before or after any event they want but that in no way means that anyone officially represents those countries or that those countries claim that those individuals represent them. SQGibbon (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Playing the national anthem for a single individual athlete is the recognition of the country he/she represents.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is recognition of where that athlete is from. Show me where the UFC claims that MMA fighters officially represent their countries and based on what authority? Even better, show me where those countries claim that MMA fighters officially represent them. If you're an Olympic athlete then the country you play for does officially claim that you represent them. Is there any such thing for MMA athletes? SQGibbon (talk) 05:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about, a country has to officially claim that you can represent them??? You are a citizen of the country, a professional athlete, competing in an international event, in individual sport is itself the representation. What more 'official' are you looking for? Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

From United States Olympic Committee "Under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, the Committee is chartered under Title 36 of the United States Code. Despite this federal mandate it receives no continuous financial assistance from the U.S. government." And while it might be true that not all National Olympic Committees were created by their respective governments (I haven't looked into them all) they clearly all claim that Olympic athletes represent them even if it's not as formal as in the US. So again, where does any country claim in any capacity that MMA athletes represent them and where does the UFC claim that any MMA athletes officially represent their countries? SQGibbon (talk) 06:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Further, if where the guideline states "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" it is meant that being born somewhere is the same as representing that country then why is that text even part of the guideline? What could it possibly mean? Under what condition then would flags be disallowed? Add to that it then contradicts "Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death,..." and "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense" would also make no sense. If "being born in" is the same as "representative nationality" then why does the guideline even bring it up at all? SQGibbon (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Did an inquiry and got a response that according to MOS:FLAGS the use of flags in such a table is in line with accepted practice. So you can't throw this MOS:Flag thing around anymore. What we are left is within this project wise decision. So if all other MMA project contributors decide that they don't want flags in record boxes, fine i'm gonna be cool with that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That was one person. But if you want to move the debate over there then I'm fine with that. It's been my position that contradicting MOS:FLAG needs community-wide agreement anyway so let's move the discussion and see what the entire community has to say on the subject. SQGibbon (talk) 06:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You wanna move it over there go ahead. But as of now its not against wikipedia rules unlike what you've been claiming about.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started up the conversation over there. I should point out that Mjroots (the editor who apparently agreed with your position) is an editor just like you and I and has no more power to interpret the "rules" of Wikipedia than you or I do nor does Mjroot have any more authority in these matter than we do. Mjroots will express his/her opinion and make whatever arguments there are to be made and if it turns out that my interpretation of the guideline does not match the rest of the community then so be it. While we wait for that it wouldn't hurt you to read WP:NOTVOTE (these issues are not solved by vote by consensus in line with Wikipedia's goals). SQGibbon (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, until then according to MOS:FLAGS using flag icons is not against wikipedia rules. Unlike what you've been claiming. They probably gonna say we have to settle this within this project. Sooner or later there has to be some kinda voting, you seem to be worried about it and i can see why. 8 of MMA project members started this and you are not even actively contributing on MMA pages, saying that you don't even have interest in this sport. I don't get it.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it's going to come down to a straight vote -- that's a rare thing on Wikipedia. Hopefully outside eyes will find a way through this mess. My interest is in the entire Wikipedia project and I get involved wherever I happen to come across problems. If you look through my contributions you'll see I've dealt with issues of Georgian royalty, televangelists in Taiwan, avant garde music, and much more. I get sucked into things pretty easily. (The benefit to the MMA project is that now I have a lot of MMA articles in my watchlist so I actively revert a lot of vandalism on these articles.) SQGibbon (talk) 08:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't like vandalism either, I'm used to work on my things, in wide variety of sports, I like records and stats, never crossed my mind that flags on record pages were considered vandalism.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Flags in records tables was never considered vandalism. This is strictly a content/style dispute with everyone acting in good faith in order to improve MMA articles and the encyclopedia as a whole. Vandalism is when someone acts in bad faith to deface Wikipedia. If someone acts on their own in spite of community consensus those actions can be considered disruptive and can lead to blocks but that's still different than vandalism. It might not seem like an important distinction but it is because I still like to believe that reasonable people can come to reasonable conclusions on issues as contentious as this one has turned out to be. SQGibbon (talk) 08:37, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the flag debate will never end. It's been going on for years (I can pull up all of the links to the previous debates if desired). In my opinion, the flags should not be displayed due to verifiability issues. The flag, when used appropriately, displays the country that the fighter represents for that particular fight. For example, Efrain Escudero could choose to represent Mexico at one fight and then the United States at his next fight. In such a case, the correct flag would need to be displayed next to his name based on what country he is representing in a sporting sense for each fight. Assuming everyone agrees with this point, the problem becomes you need to provide a source that shows the flag being displayed is correct because WP:VERIFY is a basic policy required for all Wikipedia articles. If you can't provide a source showing the reason for a flag for a particular fight then, IMO, you can't display the flag. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

yeah Trey i remember you, the point i made was that flag use in sports record boxes does not violate wikipedia rules like MosFlag or any other, if the decision is made MMA project wise of not using the flags in record boxes, totally cool with it and i respect that.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 02:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I will admit that the use of flags in record boxes is a very gray area. While MOS:FLAG is a guideline and not a policy, WP:VERIFY is a policy. If the project is going to use flags in record boxes to represent a fighter's nationality in a sporting sense, then those flags should be sourced. Especially for the potentially controversial fighters: Efrain Escudero, Phillipe "The Filipino Assassin" Nover, Nam Phan, Tito Ortiz, Krzysztof "The Polish Experiment" Soszynski just to name a few. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

What happened to UFC 137: UK?

Is this card still happening? I assume if it does it will now only be a fight night card; partly due to being sandwiched between 2 big PPV's, and partly down to the fact that Bisping is tied up with Mayhem and Hardy with Lytle... neither will be able to compete on the card, so a Fight Night 26 card in Liverpool headlined by something like Hathaway vs. Hendricks is probably the best bet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CyborgSeadog (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The Rating/Grading System

Can someone please explain this better. I just noticed on the AMA Fight Club page a "Start" Comment.

Thank you.

Vdm2011 (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality scale --Phospheros (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Aaahh I see. So I just have to keep improving it then. Who rates the pages? --vdm2011 (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Who can assess articles? : In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, the "GA" and "FA" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Individual WikiProjects may also have more formal procedures for rating an article, and please note that the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes.--Phospheros (talk) 16:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Great Than you. I hope soon my Article will make it there, at least "GA"! Vdm2011 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Lists of "especially notable" or "accomplished" fighters

Similar to what I mentioned in a previous discussion, letting Wikipedia editors define the criteria for being an "especially notable" (a concept that is stronger than WP:N) or "accomplished" fighter—as seen at UFC#Accomplished fighters, Strikeforce#Notable Strikeforce mixed martial artists, and other articles of promotions—is a breach of WP:NOR. Are there any good reasons why we haven't removed these lists yet? —LOL ^T/_C 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This topic has come up before on this page and at the Strikeforce talk page. The consensus in the past is that to avoid WP:OR and other issues, the fighters listed in these sections should be fighters notable within that organization with clear guidelines as to who fits in this group. Both the UFC and the Strikeforce page have clauses at the start of the list signifying who should be listed ("These fighters have won a UFC Championship title, tournament or an Ultimate Fighter season." and "These fighters have won a Strikeforce Championship title or tournament." respectively). This, IMO, makes it non-ambiguous who should be listed and avoids controversy. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I believe the purpose of the discussions is flawed because it's already original research to define what it means to be an "accomplished fighter", and Wikipedia already defines what it means to be "notable". An old consensus to violate official policy doesn't give us any leverage. Besides, champions and TUF winners already have their own pages (i.e., List of UFC champions, The Ultimate Fighter, List of Strikeforce champions), and a list of headliners for even just large events would contain fighters who haven't made a very large impact on their organization (e.g., Matt Hamill, Brandon Vera). —LOL ^T/_C 17:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with LOL's arguments. Establishing a criteria for notable/accomplished fighters from a MMA organization that is not published in secondary sources is still original research and it is not acceptable per Wikipedia policy. Outside of current and former champions, I do not see how including other fighters under a criteria invented here would be acceptable. I would change the title of those sections to former champions and instead of listing them all in the main articles, I would add a link to the list of champions articles. Jfgslo (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fighter rankings

If were going to continue to allow rankings (we've had a discussion on them in the past) in the leads of fighter pages we really should require some basic criteria, otherwise small sites add themselves as a form of advertising, as anyone can start a blog then post there rankings. How about requiring the ranking site in question to be sufficiently notable enough to have a Wikipedia page?--Phospheros (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I always thought that a Wikipedia article was a prerequisite. —LOL ^T/_C 17:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

As of yet no criteria has been established though generally only rankings from Sherdog, Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, MMAFighting.com (AOL), and USA Today tend to be used. The one exception might be MMAWeekly which is also used some what frequently. --Phospheros (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that MMAFighting.com and MMAWeekly are often used as reliable sources, but since they aren't notable enough (notability isn't inherited) to have their own articles yet, I don't think we should publish their rankings now. At any rate, I'm thinking that with so many websites introducing their own MMA rankings, article leads are becoming bloated; would anyone be in favour of moving the rankings to a collapsible section of the infobox? After all, it's not a ranking for which a fighter becomes famous; it's generally their championships, victories, etc. An additional benefit would be the ability to quickly remove any publication that is later deemed unworthy of inclusion in the infobox. —LOL ^T/_C 19:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly fond of the idea of adding rankings directly in the infobox as I believe that it would cause more problems than benefits with the constant changing of them. As an arbitrary criteria for adding rankings in the lead section, how about this: "When adding a fighter position in a MMA ranking, only add it if he is a current top ten in his/her weight class and only if the publisher of the ranking has its own article in Wikipedia, as that is a presumption that the ranking is notable enough to merit being mentioned. Do not add more than two rankings as that gives undue weight to them." Jfgslo (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Judo in mixed martial arts

Do we really need individual wiki pages for each discipline? It's not like the Common disciplines section of the Mixed martial arts#Judo article is overflowing with information.--Phospheros (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree, you don't see a Boxing in mixed martial arts, or Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu in mixed martial arts. It just isn't necessary, and it would almost undoubtedly lead to repeated information. Jdcollins13 (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. This kind of articles is not needed and can be treated perfectly well as a section in mixed martial arts and/or judo. In fact, it seems that the content of this article was split from the judo article for no reason. Feel free to PROD it since all content is not particularly well referenced. Jfgslo (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

List of male mixed martial artists

This list really needs an overhaul, many of the fighters listed don't even have wiki pages, fighter nicknames are used randomly, promotions without wiki pages are listed, basically it has numerous problems. Why even have such a page when Categories already exist? --Phospheros (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

One of the advantages of lists over categories is that lists can include redlinks. These are usually used to indicate elements that should have a page, but don't yet. Lists can also provide contextual information about the element in the list itself. Unfortunately, in this case, some of that element is a country via flagicons, but lets not derail this discussion too into an argument about MOSFLAGS. The page probably could use some work, though. Fighters who are not notable shouldn't be on it at all, and there should be some consistency in what extra info is included. gnfnrf (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I understand it, per Wikipedia:Red link, it is preferable to avoid red links until an article is created and instead it's best to keep track of missing articles in a WikiProject. So, I would be in favor of removing all fighters that do not have yet their own article and move those that need an article in the to do list of this WikiProject. Jfgslo (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Even without redlinks, a list article can include fighters (unlinked) that are notable but do not have pages yet. Just because we haven't made a page for the fighter individually doesn't mean we can't track basic info about them in a list style article.gnfnrf (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Birthdate format in infobox

I noticed that some of the birth dates in the infoboxes are formatted different. For example, instead of being formatted like this (1978-10-02) October 2, 1978, they are formatted like this (1978-10-02) October 2, 1978 which makes the birthday appear as 2 October 1978, which is typically seen in European fighters infoboxes. The first format make the birth date appear as October 2, 1978, which is how it typically appears in the U.S. I was just wondering if this was a change that had taken place to make things easier or what happened. Not a big deal but thought I'd ask before changing anything. Thanks. (MgTurtle (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

Infoboxes should use the following template for birthdates: {{Birth date and age|YYYY|MM|DD}}. Doing so will display the date on the page based on your date display preferences (and there is some default that Wikipedia imposes for IPs and those who haven't set that preference). If the Infobox isn't using that template, then it should be changed to do so. Perhaps another task for the bot I'm working on? --TreyGeek (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Judging from MOS:DATE, it seems that the convention is to use the date format that is most relevant to the subject of the article if one exists. —LOL ^T/_C 23:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, using the "Birth date and age" template, just like the Infobox help says, avoids that confusion. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just noticed MgTurtle is using / referring to the template. I didn't look at the markup, just what was being displayed. *sigh* I'll strike out what I said before and start over. (Next time someone slap me around when I'm being stupid like that! ;)

I'm guessing that MgTurtle is in Europe or other location that prefers to the "day Month year" format. Reason is, both templates he used in his comment display the same to me ("Month day, year"). There are two parameters for the template that can specify the order: mf=yes which MgTurtle used in the first example which forces the "US" style dates and df=yes which forces the "European" style dates; not using either parameter causes the dates to be displayed based on your preferences(???). (Forgive this 'ignorant' American's references to date styles.)

The question becomes, do we want to force a date style to one format or another across all fighter articles, not force any format to use the default setting, or use the appropriate date style for where the fighter is from or is based out of? Personally, I'd lean toward using the default just to avoid any issues. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm in the U.S. and a woman. My point was the the month, day, year style is what was used in American fighters' infoboxes and that is how we normally write it. In the European fighters' infoboxes, the template of day, month, and then year was used. I noticed that many of the American fighters had the European style template and was wondering if there was a change in the templates. I guess that it's preference toward one style of writing the date over the other way. I guess it's just preference and it just looks different because of the way I'm used to seeing the date.(MgTurtle (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC))

Ultimate Glory in deletion

I wanted to put this up here for you guys. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Glory 11: A Decade of Fights. We at K-1/muaythai side of things have been dealing with this dude User:LibStar for over a month. He seems to be on a personal mission of attacking martial arts articles for setting them up for deletion and now he seems to be carrying over to MMA as well. Nominating Ultimate Glory as a non-notable org is pretty ridiculous if you ask me. He's pretty sneaky thou, sets things up for deletion without notifying proper projects, has no interest nor any knowledge of martial arts. It would be fun to see how far is he gonna get by upsetting buncha MMA guys. Theres much more people here than in muaythai. Anyway good luck.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 05:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you guys gonna do anything about that or what??? Now Pride Critical Countdown 2004, Pride Critical Countdown 2005 in deletion by the same user.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? I personally couldn't find much in the way of any sources on any of those events. Personally, I would have to agree with the deletion. The articles cite no sources and I really couldn't find any. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, you agree with deleting Pride pages? Trust me he'll get to UFC one day, if thats what you think mma is all about.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The articles in question contain no sources, thus doesn't meet the threshold for WP:Verifiability. They contain very little prose or context about the article's contents, it is simply a list of match results, thus is a borderline violation of WP:NOT#STATS. If someone could show a list of sources (I don't care whether they are second or third party sources) for the events, like was done for Impact FC1, I could support keeping the articles. If someone could add in some background about the event, why it is notable (something more than it's a event promoted by Pride), and why it matters in the scheme of MMA I would be more inclined to support keeping the articles. And yes, there are a number of UFC event and fighter pages that I wouldn't mind seeing deleted for the same reasons. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"n-time champion"

Are title defences and interim title unifications counted towards one's number of championships? User:TomSpartan218 believes that Randy Couture is a 10-time UFC champion because Matt Hughes calls himself a 9-time champion on his website, but on Tom's talk page I showed that Time and Sherdog contradict his claims. —LOL ^T/_C 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

IMO, the phrase refers to the "n-times" the person has won a championship. Winning a championship is different from defending a championship. I also think this issue with User:TomSpartan218 can be quickly and easily resolved by requiring him to cite a reliable source, other than a primary source (Matt Hughes' website is a primary source I think), that verifies what the value for 'n' is. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to make sure that title defences and interim title unifications are not counted in general because I can imagine occasional mistakes by journalists and future edit wars where a consensus would help. —LOL ^T/_C 01:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that TreyGeek is correct. In order to accept a statement that describes a fighter as a "n-times champion" there must be at least two reliable secondary sources independent of the fighter. Otherwise, any kind of statement in that regard should be removed because all material must meet WP:V. Interpreting title defenses and unifications as proof that a fighter is a "n-times" champion is WP:OR. Jfgslo (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think most people would agree with you, LOL, that title defenses and interim unifications don't add another title reign for a person. If the situation were to come up where a person could cite a reliable source that has an incorrect 'n-time' champion number (maybe the reporter typo'ed the number?), there would be multiple sources that would show the correct number. Personally, I don't see this as being a big deal other than dealing with possible trolls. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Steve14orhs & Addition of UFC Fighter Profile links

Some of you may have noticed Steve14orhs (talk · contribs) adding UFC Fighter profile links to fighter articles, moving them to the top of the external links section, and adding them to Infoboxes. I thought it was odd he was only adding UFC profile URLs to pages and making no other edits. I think he may be violating WP:COI and here's my line of thought/investigation. If someone things I'm wearing a tinfoil hat a little too hard, please tell me before I potentially take it to an admin noticeboard. The user's Wikiepdia username is "Steve14orhs". A Google search find a, now inactive, Twitter account with the same name. However, the Twitpic account is still active. The real name and picture on that Twitpic account matches exactly to an active Twitter account which claims to be a person with "New Media-UFC". From this, I am assuming that this user is using Wikipedia and its fighter articles to promote UFC profile pages (and thus the UFC website). This would be a WP:COI in my opinion and the edits can be reverted at will. What are ya'lls thoughts? --TreyGeek (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

We may want to keep an eye on this user and MMA25MMA (talk · contribs). MMA25MMA is a new account created two minutes after Steve made his last edit (as of now). MMA25MMA then made several edits identical to Steve's edits. Possible case of WP:Sockpuppetry, at least in a WP:DUCK sense. There've been no edits from either in the last 30 minutes, so maybe they'll stop .... maybe. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've got it. I was about to warn the editor of a possible coi just before you did. I've seen this behavior many, many times in the past and it's always turned out to be someone spamming Wikipedia. Your extra research pretty much nails it (thought the behavior was enough by itself). And obviously MMA25MMA is strongly connected and most likely is the same person. I always prefer to warn people and attempt to engage them in conversation before involving admins but whatever action you want to take I'll support. SQGibbon (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: MMA25MMA is actively editing again. I left a note on their page and invited them to this discussion. We can give it some more time to see how if/how they'll respond before taking the next step. SQGibbon (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, I'm not the same as steve140rhs, I just saw that Steve's additions were getting deleted and tended to agree with him. I'm a big MMA fan and the biggest brand in MMA is UFC. Some of the fighters don't have links to their UFC profiles, so where would be an appropriate place to put them? Regards, MMA25MMA

I don't think the Wikipedia guidelines would agree with adding UFC links to every UFC fighter's article. You can read up on the guidelines here. Links to UFC fighter profile pages go against several points in the guideline including:

• "Very large pages, such as pages containing rich media files"
• "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
• "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent"

As for MMA25MMA not being the same editor as Steve14orhs, for your sake I hope not. Otherwise, that can result in an automatic block of editing privileges for both accounts (and I've seen the IP range of the user blocked in some situations). There are many other, more productive, ways of improving articles about MMA fighters than simply adding a link to the UFC profile. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• * Sherdog has a link to their site on every single fighters page. When I want the most accurate information on a UFC fighter, I go to the UFC's website. So why is it alright for sherdog to have a link, when you can go straight to the source of the company that employs the fighters?

(edit conflict)If UFC links are to be added to the External Links sections then common practice indicates that they should not be moved ahead of the link to the subject's official site. You can see at the UFC article that the first external link is to the UFC website. Articles on MMA fighters are not just limited to their activities when fighting but also their personal lives, where they were born, schools they went to, and so on. It's an article about a person who is notable because of their UFC connection and not an article about a UFC fighter. Common sense and common practice indicates that the official site goes first and everything else listed afterward. SQGibbon (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My opinion on Sherdog being on every fighter page: Sherdog is the defacto source for an MMA fighter's record history. Sherdog is unaffiliated with any MMA promotion. Therefore, when UFC fires one of its fighters the UFC profile may disappear but the Sherdog profile doesn't. I also have personal doubts that the UFC's website contains the most accurate information about an MMA fighter; afterall, the purpose of UFC.com is to promote UFC and put itself in a good light, not in portraying complete honesty and accuracy. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• To accuse the UFC of lying on their website is not only serious, but it could also be considered libelous. If you have some sort of proof, I would like to see it. If I put a link in the external links section that is not at the top, is there going to be a problem with that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMA25MMA (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• And what about the footnotes section, is that off limits?

Its an interesting comment to come from someone who is in no way affiliated with UFC. If the UFC wants to accuse me of libel their lawyers can bring it. I'll say again, I believe that the purpose of the UFC.com website is to promote UFC and its fighters, not to provide unbias, totally correct information about a fighter, their personal history (including activities with other organizations). In addition, UFC.com, in my opinion, is a bloated site filled with too much flash and graphics causing it to be way too slow to load, even from a high speed university Internet connection. Having said that, the UFC has no problems reorganizing its site such that fighter profile links that work today, may not work tomorrow (UFC Fighter Profile Links Broken). The UFC also has no problems removing the profile of a fighter who is no longer under contract with the promotion. In both cases, a link to the UFC fighter page will become broken and would require someone removing them. I'm not interested in patrolling the pages to make sure the links still work. Therefore, in my opinion, links to UFC fighter profiles are undesirable on Wikipedia articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Here is what you need to look at, every athlete from every other sport has a link in the external links section that goes directly to their profile on the league or company's website that employs them. Now, I'm pretty sure the UFC employs everyone that I have added links to. MMA is different than every other sport because? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMA25MMA (talk • contribs) 20:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I wasn't trying to stir anything up, I guess I just wasn't as well educated on Wikipedia policies as you all are. Anyways, that's my fault. On another note, mma25mma is not me, although I know who it is having run across this person at a couple of events. I assure you that I will not be adding any links in the future. One last thing and just hear me out and try to look at this with an open mind. I looked up countless of MLB players and NBA players and the one thing they all had in common was that there was a link to their profile page on their respective leagues websites. So all I'm saying is that you might want to think about adding something to your policy regarding fighters UFC profiles. Sorry for the trouble and forgive me if I don't sign this comment properly, but I will try.Steve14orhs (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)steve14orhs

FYI, a sockpuppet investigation has been started and can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Steve14orhs. As for the claims articles for NLB, NBA, and other athletes have similar links, I point to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the MMA project decides that adding promotion profile links to articles is okay, fair enough. It just appears, at the moment, spamming all of the UFC fighter articles with them isn't supported (looking at this discussion or lack of support for them). --TreyGeek (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the project already allows it for the EL section of articles I just noticed. Still no excuse for WP:COI and WP:Sockpuppet violations (assuming those are actually happening). --TreyGeek (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, you will not see me adding any more links because I see your point on it being a conflict of interest. Whether you believe me or not, I'm not MMA25MMA, so if I were you I would reach out to him/her, because I'm not aware if that person created the other accounts. Once again, that's completely up to you. Steve14orhs (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)steve14orhs

If anyone cares the sockpuppet investigation is closed and admins blocked 10 accounts related to it. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

PRIDE events clean up

Going back through the PRIDE events, I noticed they are in major need of clean up. I've started with PRIDE 34 and started going back. Basically, I'm removing dead/redundant links and making the pages conform more to the Wiki MMA Project standard. If anyone wants to join in, feel free. Udar55 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Creation proposal for MMABot

Looking through the talk page history I see there have been a few times a desire for a bot to help with editing the 1500+ pages for this project. I did not find any solution other than WP:AWB which may not be useful for a number of our tasks, such as standardizing fight record tables. As I mentioned above, I have a little time on my hands this summer, so I am willing to create the bot and go through the process of getting it approved by Wikipedia. One of the first things to determine is what all this bot needs to do. I've created a user and talkpage for the future bot. For those of you who are interested in this bot, please go to it's talk page where I've seeded it with a discussion on specific tasks for the bot to perform. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

One thing for a bot to do after consensus is reached is to either finally use the Wrestling parameter, in which case the bot would move all "NCAA Division I Wrestling" from the rank section to the wrestling section or if the parameter is judged unneeded, the bot would move any instance of wrestling over to the Rank parameter and we can eliminate the wrestling parameter as an option from Infobox martial artist.--Phospheros (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest to standardize ranks in infobox, but I have a question before that. Is there any sort of consensus regarding how they should be presented? I have seen that several editors have the habit of adding belt colors prior to the ranks, like in Royce Gracie. I do not see that supported here or in Template:Infobox martial artist/doc. My opinion is that those belt colors are completely unnecessary. Also, styles could be standardized. Several times the content in rank and style is unreferenced so it might be a good idea to add a function to the bot that removes anything that is not referenced, but I think there is no consensus regarding that either. It would be useful though, because I have seen that, for example, Josh Barnett had as style Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, which of course is not supported by reliable sources, and now he has boxing as his style, which is news to me, so I would be in favor of having a bot removing anything in those fields that is not referenced. Jfgslo (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought we should eliminate the Style section as it's inherently unsourceable and constitutes original research. MMA is called that for a reason, heavy emphasis on the mixed, even if we just kept it as generic as just striker vs grappler, the fact is a grappler will strike when it's in his interest to do so and vice versa for a striker. Thus I think the categorization is inherently flawed. Rank is fine and your correct a better job needs to be done on sourcing but that is true of the MMA wiki project as a whole.--Phospheros (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

My intention was the bot, for the first go round, would be to fix the record tables. Again, anyone can look at the bot's talk page for what I have listed out so far for it to accomplish. I'll also be updating that page with the progress I've made on developing the bot itself. Infoboxes would be one thing I would consider adding to the bot. Based on the procedure for getting a bot approved to do real editing work I don't know if it should be in the initial version or a future version. Either way, this discussion is good. That said......

I agree that the list of fighting styles gets out of hand as I'm not sure any of the articles has them sourced. (I was especially amused at the near edit wars over Kimbo Slice's "street fighting" style.) Colors for belts, I think the colored icon is used the same reason for the proliferation of flags. Speaking of which, I think anyone who cares about the MOS would agree that flags should be removed from Infoboxes. One thing to keep in mind, bot-wise, is wholesale removal of stuff (styles, unsourced ranks, etc) could be potentially controversial and/or not considered to be "maintenance edits." This could result in the bot approval committee to say not to these options (they could also say yes, it's up to them and I won't know more until the approval process starts). It's something to keep in mind as this gets discussed more. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the bot and record tables, you pretty much covered the basics. I would suggest to add a function to standardize locations, to remove any flags used for locations, to add a standard format of City, State, Country and to removed any repeated link within the locations per WP:REPEATLINK. Also, since the color for belts is not supported by anything, I would suggest to add a function to remove them from infoboxes. Same with flags in infoboxes. The only contention with flags is in MMA record tables for nationality of fighters, so I think that you can still add a function to remove all other flags without entering in controversy. Another one would be to standardize event names. Many Pride and Dream events use unsupported stylizations, minor events regularly are merely copy pasted from Sherdog without taking care of punctuation (using - instead of : for example). I would suggest to add a function that leaves only the link to the event article title in Wikipedia and removed anything extra after a | is used and in minor events to change - for :.

As for the fighting style issue, I'm with you in removing them altogether, but I suggest that a new section is opened in order to avoid confusions and to get a clear consensus to either remove them or to establish some kind of guideline on how they should be handled. Jfgslo (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For those of you who aren't watching the page, I've made some good progress on coding the bot to standardize the MMA record tables. You can see my notes at the bot's talk page. I'm going to work on the two requests for standardizing the Infoboxes (removal of flag and belt color icons). After that I'll have completed everything I can think of to do and that I can (easily) do. If you have additional ideas you can mention them here or on the bot's talk page. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have completed the bot with all of the tasks and suggestions I have received here and on the bot's talk page. It is working in the sandbox article I created (though I need to do a couple minor tweaks). There is a process I have to go through to get permission to use this bot outside of my sandbox. I will start that process this weekend. First I wanted to make sure that there were not any other additions or changes desired (I'm keeping in mind the debate on the topic above and can easily have the bot not get involved in that controversy). To see an example of how the bot will edit a page you can look at sandbox used for testing and the recent changes made[19]. If anyone has any issues with any of the tasks this bot will perform, please raise your concerns now (or in the next day or two). Once I have permission to run the bot on live pages the set of tasks pretty much become set and changes require going through the bot approval process all over again. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I request that the bot does not get involved in removing future fights from the fight record. Especially since there is zero consensus to do so. I don't know why you even have to ask. Assuming good faith is getting harder. BrendanFrye (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, I've structured the code so that I can easily remove the ability of it to remove future fights. Don't worry about that. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I jumped the gun. BrendanFrye (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I did have someone post to the bot's talk page about making the win/losses in the MMARecordBox template match the Infobox (or vice-versa). I'd welcome additional input on the best way to handle that. In my experience, I'm not sure I've seen either box be more accurate than the other. If anyone has thoughts, you are welcome to add it to the discussion there. Other ideas for tasks the bot can perform on MMA fighter articles are also welcome there. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Neverming, I am done dealing with you and your other gang members. If you want to own the page and the project. FINE. You jfgslo and phosperos can keep ignoring others and just plowing through and doing whatever the fuck you want. Its a fucking shame how arrogant you and your tag team are. You'll keep losing more editors until it s just you three and a bunch of anons, you win then right? BrendanFrye (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the user page for MMABot in preparation for requesting approval for it to work on live articles. It contains the final list of tasks the bot will perform (or that I will be asking for approval for it to perform). I'll likely make the official request tomorrow or Monday. If there are any last minute changes desired, please let me know. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

An update for those interested in a status report. I make the request for the bot to be approved in editing mainspace article. I have been granted allowance for trial runs on live articles. I'll be doing that tonight or tomorrow. The trial run is to make sure that my code really does work across a variety of different fighter pages. Once I (and the bot approvals group) is happy that it is working correctly, it will likely be given permission to run free on all 1500+ fighter articles. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Another update to keep ya'll informed. Over the last several days I've run MMABot (talk · contribs) through a trial of about 80 articles. It appears to me to be working correctly. In a few days, I am expecting the admins to approve MMABot for full-scale running. If anyone thinks the bot is doing something wrong let me know on the bot's talk page or you can mention it at the approval request page. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone has questions this will likely be my last comment to this thread. MMABot has been approved by the admins. So expect to see it making edits across all fighter articles in the near future. I'll be double checking its edits and responding to any concerns on the bot's talk page. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

MMA Training Associations infobox

Just a quick question, does the MMA training associations infobox have a parameter for adding a caption or imagecaption? I was attempting to add some explanatory text and found myself quite unable. Thanks for any info. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like that Infobox doesn't implement the caption field. I've never edited Infoboxes before so I'm hesitant to try to add it right now. I may try later today if no one gets to it first. Out of curiosity, what text were you wanting to add as a caption? --TreyGeek (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

On the Alliance Jiu Jitsu page, I was just going to add a caption explaining who the instructor was and that he was teaching a combatives class. It's not readily identifable from the pic and I think it would help to clairfly just what exactly is taking place. Since most of these infoboxes just have the logo, its understandable why one doesn't exist yet. If it's acceptable to change please let me know. Thanks! Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two immediate solutions. First would be to move the image from the Infobox to the article where it can have a caption through the image markup. Second would be to use the {{Template:Infobox martial art school}} which does allow for captions and might be more fitting since it appears that organization is more BJJ than all MMA. I'd recommend the first option as hopefully the article can be improved, cite some sources, and perhaps other notable images from the school can be included. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the advice good sir. :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 23:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Dream 17" article title

NuclearSun (talk · contribs) and I have been having a discussion over the title of the Dream.17 article. Apparently the article discusses a different event than "Dream 17". I'd encourage people to go to the article's talk page and offer their suggestions as to the correct title. It's been pretty confusing for me to get straightened out in my head so I'm hesitant to be WP:BOLD and rename it without asking for feedback first. Thanks. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

What to do when Sherdog lists win/loss method as "N/A"

I've been attempting to fix the records listed in the {{MMArecordbox}} and the {{Infobox martial artist}} so that both areas match each other and match what is recorded at Sherdog. There have been some occasions where Sherdog lists an "Other" win or loss. Looking through their record table "other" win/loss shows in the method column as either a DQ or "N/A". There's a place in both templates for DQs but not for "N/A". Some people are recording this as one of the other methods (KO, Dec, or Sub) without citing a source as to where it came from. Suggestions on the best way to handle these situations? --TreyGeek (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably need to amend the template to include a either "N/A" or something like "result not officially recorded (RNOR)". Can't allow editors to use original research to fill in record gaps with unsourced info.--Phospheros (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Phospheros' assessment. I imagine that a "N/A" parameter would be easier to identify for editors when they create an article. Jfgslo (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking at how to modify the infobox template to include an additional field for "Other wins". There are nested infoboxes going on and it gets nasty quick. (Perhaps I should have started with the record box instead. ;) My initial thoughts are adding an additional field "mma_otherwin", but then there'd need to be some visible label when viewing the article (similar to the "by knockout" and "by submission"): "by other method"? "not recorded"? "unknown"? I'll try looking at it more tomorrow. (I only mention wins here, there would be a similar field for losses.) --TreyGeek (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I managed to make the changes to the Infobox template. An example can be found with Phil Johns as he has an other/unknown win. I'll take a look at doing the same thing with the record box. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

MMA record box is done now. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

MMA event articles up for deletion

For those of you who don't monitor the Martial arts deletion list there are a number of MMA event articles that have been nominated for deletion. Many of which I have a hard time defending should be kept. The specific events currently listed are:

• Pride Total Elimination 2003 along with Pride 18 through 26, none of which cite any sources.
• Bitetti Combat MMA 4 through 7 which do cite sources, however I'm not convinced any of these articles have sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG.
• Pride Bushido 1 through 5 which I have suggested a weak keep. Coverage is sparse, but I think there might be more found in Japanese media (which I had a hard time sifting through).
• UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard which I suggested keeping because there is sufficient coverage under its "other" name: UFC Fight Night 9.

I think if people want these event articles to stay, you'll need to find sufficient coverage to that show the event itself is notable (not just the promotion or the fighters participating in the event) and participate in the discussions. LibStar (talk · contribs) has been going through kickboxing articles (as mentioned previously here) and appears now to be working through MMA articles. It's a reminder that if you create an article, that article should cite sources and show notability from the start. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

For those interested in Pride Bushido events, there are some easily accessible online resources. For example, for Pride Bushido 3 detailed coverage in English is available at Sherdog, while in Japanese, there are sportnavi and Bout Review (which I believe had an English version for some time, although that's harder to track down.) All other Bushido events have available the same resources. Bear in mind that Japan is still a nation of printed publications, more so at that time, so there is high probability that more detailed coverage is available in Japanese newspapers and other printed media from that time, like Kamipro, since Pride events were televised in regular TV, if I recall correctly. Unfortunately, they aren't really available at Google News, so that means people interested in them will have to track them down the old fashioned way. Jfgslo (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Cruiserweight (MMA) up for deletion.

Just an FYI the article is up for deletion.--Phospheros (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Renaming event links in fighter record tables by 65.220.13.2 (talk · contribs)

Question for the regulars on the project and any others. MMABot has been making good progress in fixing MMA fighter articles, and in particular their record tables, to conform to the guidelines set by the MMA Wikiproject. One of those guidelines is to not rename event wiki-links using the pipe (|). Off and on for over a month, 65.220.13.2 (talk · contribs) has put back in renamed event links after MMABot has removed them. Recently they have started changing the entire event link rather than using the rename pipe, which I find to be acceptable. However, he is still on occasion adding in piped renames. I've put a number of messages on their talk page (I started out nice, explaining the guideline without giving them a templated warning and moved up to the templated warnings). At no time has the user responded to any of the comments or warnings. My question is am I over-reacting? My next step, if they continue to rename links without bother to discuss the issue at all, is to report them to the vandalism notice board for a temporary suspension of editing privileges. Is that going overboard? I ask because I'm not sure how much I'm stepping on the WP:OWNERSHIP boundary considering how much work I've been putting into getting the fighter articles to conform to the various guidelines. Any input is appreciated. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

He's responded on his talk page with a "Thanks for the head up." Perhaps that means he intends to halt the changing of links, if not I would say that a notice board report would be valid.--Phospheros (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup, they did that the same time as I wrote the above. It was their first response ever to my multiple comments/warnings. Hopefully they won't do it more. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Luis Ciraiz

Hello there. I found this article during my new page patrolling. I just want to ask whether this person is notable for Wikipedia (I know nothing about martial arts).--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We have WP:MMANOT which helps provide guidelines on notability of MMA fighters. None of Ciraiz's fights are with a notable or top tier organization and none of his fights are against a notable opponent. So, to me, it would be doubtful he would be notable as an MMA fighter at this time. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

User doing title edits

Just a heads up, but user RapidSpin33 has taken it upon themselves to incorrectly rename a bunch of events. I've fixed the Strikeforce Challengers ones (which they inexplicably made all numbered events, despite Strikeforce always referring to them by fighter names). He has also messed up the listings for The Ultimate Fighter finale. For example, changing The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights Finale to The Ultimate Fighter 10 Finale (even though the poster on the page clearly labels it the former). Feel free to help clean up this mess. Udar55 (talk) 02:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fighting style in infobox

I believe that fighting style in infobox is causing original research issues and, therefore, I would like to discuss what to do with that parameter. When using {{Infobox martial artist}}, the style parameter is used to describe the martial art style practiced. While this is useful for traditional martial artists like Mas Oyama or Masahiko Kimura, it has led to some problems with mixed martial artists, whose very nature is using more than a single style.
In the past, fighters used a single style in the no hold barred era, like Royce Gracie or Jason DeLucia. This is reflected in their Sherdog's profile, where the style field is used. However, as the sport evolved, describing styles has become somehow anachronic as fighters that use a single style regularly aren't successful in the sport. Even some fighters from the NHB era that were easily recognized as practitioners of a single style, no longer have one at Sherdog, for example, Dan Severn or Mark Coleman. Modern fighters that are associated with a particular martial art style, like Lyoto Machida or Fabricio Werdum, are not described by Sherdog with that fighting style. Yet, several editors add this information in infoboxes without backing up these claims with references and several times just putting whatever style they believe is the one used by a fighter. For example, Josh Barnett, recognized as a catch wrestling fighter by several publications, has no style defined by Sherdog, yet his article in Wikipedia also lists boxing and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. Even with a fighter like Brock Lesnar, who does have wrestling as fighting style in Sherdog, has had problems with his article in the past, changing wrestling to submission wrestling, amateur wrestling, freestyle wrestling and collegiate wrestling at some point if I recall correctly. Someone mentioned that there were edit wars with Kimbo Slice's "street fighting" style, described merely as boxing in Sherdog.
So, given this situation, since fighting styles in MMA regularly cannot be properly sourced with reliable secondary sources and on several occasions this information is taken with original research, I suggest to remove the style parameter in any MMA biographical article that does not have a direct reference in the infobox. I would rather eliminate it altogether or at least limit its usage to a strict standard of describing exactly what a Sherdog fighter profile has: if a fighter profile in Sherdog has no style, then no style should be added the infobox either, and if Sherdog describes a single style, then a single style should be used, described exactly as in Sherdog. This might be a little too extreme, but I think that demanding a direct reference would be enough to solve these issues. Jfgslo (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I would support the parameter's removal from the template.--Phospheros (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

First I would caution us from being too much of a mirror site for Sherdog. Yes, they have good information on fighters, but looking exclusively to Sherdog for how to present information we may limit ourselves. As for the fighting style in the Infobox, as I mentioned above I agree its gotten out of hand in some cases. I would support fighting styles being listed in the Infobox if it is properly sourced. If there's no source, it should get removed. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely my worry with that alternative. However, what Sherdog has that other sources don't is that it actually describes fighting style. The problem that I have with merely adding references is this: as it can be noted with Barnett's article, while he was awarded a black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu based on merits in competitions, he is not considered a BJJ stylist by MMA publications nor has he ever practiced BJJ per se. Yet, since sources do say that he has a black belt in BJJ, editors add that style to his infobox and can reference it. Same with boxing, which he surely practices like many other MMA fighters, but he is not even considered a striker. It is documented that he also practices Savate, and, again, it is not his fighting style, but it could be easily added like that because sources say that he practices Savate. This is the point I want to specify, that whatever sources are used, they need to mention directly that a fighter uses a fighting style in MMA, not that they merely practice it as part of their MMA training. All MMA fighters nowadays practice several styles. This is why I would favor removing the style parameter from MMA infoboxes altogether, because I believe that most sources don't even add style outside of saying that a fighter is a grappler or a striker. But I think that removing the parameter would be a little too extreme and it could cause edit wars. Because of that, I think that the middle point would be accepting styles that are properly referenced in the infobox, even if it causes the problems that I mentioned with Barnett. To be honest, I'm not sure that this would improve greatly the OR issues. What do you think would be better for improving the quality of the articles, allowing fighting style with direct references or removing the parameter altogether? Jfgslo (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the main problem with requiring citation for a fighters style is that so few fighters could meet the threshold and of those who could most are legacy fighters such as Royce Gracie with "Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu". I'm sure a few modern fighters such as Lyoto Machida who has stated "My style is Machida Karate" could pass muster but beyond that we would mainly have to copy Sherdog. Is it worth maintaining style for a minority of fighters when we know that parameter will constantly be misused?--Phospheros (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I was on the fence on this issue, but I think I'm falling off. I just came across a (possibly not so reliable) source that shows that the fighting style of Dustin Poirier is "Ninja"!![20]. (I'd love to hear Bruce Buffer call this guy "A practitioner of ninja arts" just as much as I want to hear him call Roy Nelson a "Kung Fu Panda". But I digress.) This example may show how difficult (and sometimes ridiculous) it can become to police MMA fighting styles even with a cited source. I also see the point that in MMA today there is really no single fighting style. The field in the Infobox is a direct result of using the martial arts infobox template to signify which form of martial arts a person practices. (Is the fighting style of MMA fighters therefore "MMA"? ;) I think at this point I'd agree with not using the style parameter of the Infobox for MMA fighters. Now whether the other folks who edit MMA articles, but never join in the discussion here will agree will remain to be seen. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me both Sherdog and the UFC will allow a fighter to list there style as a joke. Thus Yves Edwards style is listed on Sherdog as "Thug Jitsu", Buffer has also announced it as such.--Phospheros (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure enough, "Thus Jitsu" is listed in his Infobox with a citation to Sherdog. *sigh* --TreyGeek (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I was afraid that Sherdog might put something like that. This pretty much means that it cannot be trusted as a reliable source for fighting style as it allows fighters to put their own style. Anyway, as I previously commented outright banning fighting styles in infoboxes will no doubt cause edit wars. In order to alleviate this hypothetical situation, I propose two alternatives:

1. We add instructions that discourage the use of fighting styles in infobox and, in those cases that need it, only one should be added as long as it is referenced. This is an example of the type of text I have in mind: "Since the essence of modern MMA requires training several fighting styles, using the style parameter from the martial artist infobox is discouraged in MMA biographical articles. If a fighter does have a primary fighting style, a reference must be added where it is specifically mentioned that a fighter uses said martial art style as his/her main tool in fights. It is not recommended to add more that one fighting style. References that describe martial arts ranks (i.e. black belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu) and/or martial art training (i.e. training boxing) are not evidence of fighting style and are not valid to justify a fighting style in an infobox. Do not add your own interpretation of a fighting style as anything that has not been published in a reliable source represents original research. Primary sources, such as a fighter's website, are also not acceptable for fighting style. Only reliable secondary sources can be used to reference a fighting style. Any fighting style that lacks a direct reference with a reliable secondary source will be removed from the infobox. The problem with this, of course, is that cases like Yves Edwards are sure to pop up, but at least they will be identified and can be discussed in an article's talk page.
2. We request a RfC about removing fighting styles from infoboxes and whatever the outcome after the 30 days have passed will be enforced.

Any other suggestion? Jfgslo (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It's really past time we eliminated this parameter from the infobox, just look at this IP randomly adding in styles, the parameter is total vandal bait.--Phospheros (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks to me like the consensus is to not use the style parameter in articles about MMA fighters. Unless someone comes up with a good argument for its use I'll be putting on the to do list for MMABot 2.0 blanking that field for MMA fighters (though I may need to try to catch kickboxers for their field to stay or be manually adjusted). --TreyGeek (talk) 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I have updated the guidelines to reflect this consensus. We have now to enforce it. Jfgslo (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Flag icons and links

I noticed the record boxes in the "good articles" for this project use flag icons, even though WP:MMABOX says not to. Is this under debate, or has it simply not been done? Separate from that, should opponents be red-linked even if they are not notable (WP:NN)? Also, should location countries be linked, even if they are known by all (WP:OVERLINK)? --Juventas (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No, flag icons should not be there, per MOS:ICON. This has already been debated at length. It has not been implemented in all MMA articles, but the MMABot is working on those issues already. With flags for nationality in table records, although they are not accepted, since it is such a contentions point, removing those icons is not currently enforced by the MMABot and it must be manually done by editors. As for red links, the answer is also no, red links should always be avoided per WP:RED. Removing them is also part of the MMABot functions. If a fighter needs a red link, it should be put in the to do list or in the talk page of this WikiProject, where red links are acceptable. Regarding location links for countries, it has never been discussed here, but WP:OVERLINK does apply here as in any other WikiProject, so feel free to remove those links as well. Jfgslo (talk) 04:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

To back up Jfgslo, flag icons in the infobox and for the location field of the record table are removed by MMABot. Flag icons in the fighter column of the record table are not removed due to its controversial nature and there being no clear consensus (I didn't want any controversy over the bot's edits/tasks). MMABot does not remove red links in the record table, but it is one of the things I would like to implement for the next version of MMABot. I will say that LOL (talk · contribs) has brought up a good point in regard to WP:OVERLINK and sortable tables; without linking items in every row when the table gets sorted on a different column a link for a particular fighter, event or location becomes hard to find, particularly for fighters with a lot of fights.

As for MMABot's progress, it has visited almost 1200 fighter articles (of a little over 1500). I've also manually edited (or skipped due to various reasons) another bunch of articles. It'll be a few more hours of sitting down and monitoring MMABot for the first run of fighter articles to be completed. I'll want to do one or two more re-runs of all articles before I start working on the to-do list that I've been formulating on MMABot's talk page. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to clarify the point that Juventas is asking about countries. He is not referring to repeated links, which are acceptable in some circumstances, like long tables, but to the part at WP:OVERLINK that says: Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, nations, languages, religions, and common professions. For example, he is not saying that Mobile, Alabama should not be repeated in the table, but rather that United States should not be linked at all in the article since English readers already know what United States is and, therefore, it's irrelevant to link it in the first place. Same with almost all other countries related to MMA like Japan, Netherlands, Canada, Brazil and so on. I only recently noted this text when another editor started enforcing the guideline in infoboxes with nationality because it's irrelevant to link American for English readers. Jfgslo (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I see that MMABot (talk · contribs) only removes flag icons in the location field. A suggestion, if possible: it would nice to have all "good articles" early in the queue, since they are used as examples for other editors (Jim Wallhead and Ronnie Mann must still be in queue). I hope the red-links will be removed, and I see that that discussion is now on MMABot's talk page. I agree that repeat links are necessary for tables, but as Jfgslo has clarified, the countries do not need to be linked at all. --Juventas (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it turns out that MMABot finished its first run through all MMA fighter articles. *looks around innocently* Okay, obviously not. Some background first: the fighter articles to be edited are pulled from [[Category:Mixed martial artists by nationality]]. It looks like I didn't grab the nested categories within [[Category:British mixed martial artists]], so all "English", "Scottish", "Welsh", "British Virgin Islanders" and "Northern Irelanders" were not edited if they did not belong to another nationality category. I'll try do those 71 articles later this week. MMABot or I has been through every other fighter article. If a fighter article hasn't been standardized it is either one of those non-British British fighters, hasn't been assigned a nationality category, has had the edits reverted and/or was one that needed a lot of manual fixing and I skipped it as it may have appeared to be an inactive or non-notable fighter. So, given that, I really just have a semi-random list of fighters to work through. I could manually move some fighters to the top of the list (like the good articles as Juventas suggested). I may try to do that in round 2.

As for red links and linking country names they can be handled in the next version of MMABot (which is a month or two away). If it doesn't happen sooner I'll start a formal discussion on red links on this talk page when I'm getting close to implementing that so that there is a clear consensus on removing them (if there is a consensus to remove them).

WP:OVERLINK: I've been thinking about how to handle this (and again, this'll have to wait for the next version of MMABot). It's trivial to find instances of "[[United States]]", "[[Japan]]", etc and delink them assuming I have a list of all country names. It may get more difficult when the city and country are linked together (such as Paris, France). I would have to convert it to "[[Paris]], France" while catching those instances where the city and country must be linked together (such as Paris, Denmark). In these, possibly rare, situations how should the final text/markup look like: "[[Paris, Denmark]]" or "[[Paris, Denmark|Paris]], Denmark" or something else? --TreyGeek (talk) 04:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Darn those non-British British fighters and their good articles. Thanks for looking into this. [[Paris, Denmark]] is definitely preferred--it draws attention to the fact that it's not the Paris you would first think, and it's simpler. Another simple thing would be replacing instances of U.S., US, U.S, etc. with United States. I also see instances of [[Cleveland, Ohio|Cleveland]], United States which I believe should always be [[Cleveland, Ohio]], United States. Some interesting programming challenges. --Juventas (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:MMANOT

Just having a quick look at this and spotted two things the simple one was: Do BAMMA now come under the top tier having signed Nate Marquardt (currently no 4 MW on Sherdog) or should this wait?

The other was a somewhat oddly worded paragraph:

Individual events are not considered notable since WP:N specifically says routine sports coverage "is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own stand-alone article". WP:N also says "notability is not temporary" and "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability."

Would "Individual events, even from major promotions, are not automatically considered notable..." be a better start? --Nate^t/_c 15:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but no and no. To me your two points are conflicting (though not intended to be related). You link to WP:INHERIT in your final statement, but then want to suggest that BAMMA is a top tier promotion because it has a (single?) notable fighter. A promotion is not notable because it has notable fighters. It is notable because it passes WP:N and WP:GNG, WP:MMANOT helps provide guidelines about which promotions have already passed those guidelines/policies. While your proposed addition to WP:MMANOT is well intended, I'm not sure it is necessary. If anyone wants to argue that an article about a Pride event is notable simply because Pride is notable (as has happened in recent deletion discussions), then that statement still applies. But hey, I've been known to go against the grain.  ;) --TreyGeek (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be at cross purposes here; The current "standard" for a top tier promotion is "A Top 10 ranked fighter" (when assessed), based on that BAMMA would now be top tier (personally I don't think it is yet) so this criteria might need clarifying (note that this is not about notability but how WP:MMANOT classifies them).

The second point was that "Individual events are not considered notable" seems absolute and implies that all the articles form UFC 1 to UFC 133 and the rest should be merged to Ultimate Fighting Championship which is obviously a bad idea. Softening it to say that they should prove notability on their on merits, and not just because they were event's from an other organisation, makes the same point but without the implication that they can't be notable. I was querying the wording rather then what I perceived as the intent. --Nate^t/_c 15:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll address events first. If you are suggesting modifying the wording for events to something along the lines of "Individual events are not automatically notable and must pass WP:N and WP:GNG to have an article about the event" then I can support that.

I think I see where you are getting at with the tiers but I interpret the sentence "Any organization with a fighter ranked in the top 10 in any weight class was included" differently. I interpret that sentence to say when the list of two tiers was constructed, those promotions in the top tier category, at the time, had a fighter in the top 10. I don't interpret that to mean any promotion with a top 10 fighter is a top tier promotion. If we need to clarify it so be it. The next thing to look at is why the promotions were split into two tiers (three including non-notable promotions). The only other reference, that I see, about top tier promotions is in the notability of fights in that a fighter may be notable if they have won a championship in a top tier organization or have fought in at least 3 events of a top tier organization. Do we want to suggest that a regular fighter with BAMMA is a notable fighter (generically speaking)? --TreyGeek (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The wording you suggested makes sense to me, that was what I was trying to get at do you want to update it? The link to Inherit was to emphasise that just because it's a UFC/Pride/other event doesn't mean it's notable/not-notable.

On BAMMA, it was more that where the guide says "organizations in this list were determined by looking at independent world rankings of MMA fighters in June, 2010. Any organization with a fighter ranked in the top 10 in any weight class was included" it should be clarified. Currently it implies that if reassessed now then they would be and one fighter does not a promotion make (the fact that Alex Reid had a title shot recently makes that obvious) --Nate^t/_c 09:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Using the ratings at the time these guidelines were written was an attempt to be both objective and reach consensus. I liked an objective standard, although I would have liked to require more than one fighter. However, I thought it was better to have some guidelines that most everyone was willing to accept. As far as the wording on the events section goes, the point was that no event was automatically notable simply because it was UFC or Pride or whatever. To be notable an event needs to be more significant than just another fight night. I would say that anything that passes WP:GNG and WP:V is eligible for Wikipedia. The problem was that clear definitions of notability for fighters, organizations, and events were lacking. That's what led to the drafting of this page. As far as the tiers go, that was another set of compromises. There's really a third tier--the many local and regional organizations where most fighters get their start. The feeling was that those organizations are not notable. Papaursa (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that in the List of current mixed martial arts champions page, UCMMA is listed as being the dominant MMA organisation in england, well Great Britain, is this based on any form of official statistics, such as the world rankings of its fighters, just that if not, an argument could be presented that BAMMA has more notoriety, at least in terms of higher calibre fighters such as Paul Daley, Frank Trigg, Tom Watson, Jim Wallhead, Nate Marquardt and the like, obviously it doesn't match up with the likes of the UFC, Strikeforce or Bellator, but perhaps in terms of domestic dominance, this should be discussed. Josh Heza Talk 14:22, 11 September 2011 (GMT)

Adding future fights to the fight record table

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Future fights should be mentioned in prose at the end of the Mixed martial arts career section rather than in a table. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

---

I've been asked as an independent admin to look into the issue regarding adding future fights to the fight record table which has been discussed two years ago and recently above. There has been some discussion regarding the application of WP:CRYSTAL, and it should be made clear that CRYSTAL does not forbid editors from including information about future events, but does provide some guidance on how to do that appropriately. While CRYSTAL was written with complete articles in mind, the guidance is also useful in regard to information being added to articles, so can be consulted for the purpose of how to include details of future fights. The key to CRYSTAL is that the future events should be notable. And for an event to be notable it would need to be verifiable by reliable sources. As far as Wikipedia goes, as long as the material meets those requirements then it can be added to an article.

The question for you guys is do you want to include that information, and if so, how do you present it. From my reading of the discussions there is agreement that appropriately sourced and notable future events should be included, but disagreement on the how. The disagreement hinges on the use of the fight record table. There is nothing in the WP:TABLE guidelines that suggest an editor shouldn't use the table to present future events. However, my understanding of the nature of the issue, is that there is/may be a problem with editors adding inappropriate events to the table. Also, there is some dissonance between the nature of the table, which is set up as a record of past fights, when future fights are included. I note that Sherdog do not include future fights in their record tables - example for Dallas Jakobi - but list them separately. And this is also true of mmafighting - example Jake Shields record on a different page to news of upcoming fights.

I note in the above discussion that there are several suggestions that having a separate table or section for upcoming fights would be useful. At the moment there is not clear enough consensus for including future fights in the fight record table, nor for having a separate table/section. I suggest a simple straw poll. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

Simply sign your name to one of the comments below:

I support including future fights in the fight record table

1. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I support including future fights in a separate table/section

1. TreyGeek (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Juventas (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
3. Jfgslo (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
4. gnfnrf (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
5. Phospheros (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments

Add any additional comments here rather than on the straw poll. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• Include future fights in prose of article. It's easier to explain it is a future fight, may not be guaranteed to happen, and provides a good opportunity to explain how the fight came about and any importance of the fight (to show notability) --TreyGeek (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• I share TreyGeek's rationale and would also favor future fights only as prose in the article for the very same reasons that he mentioned above. Jfgslo (talk) 04:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• I also agree with TreyGeek that future fights should only be placed in the prose, very few fighters have more than one upcoming bout and creating a table for that seems undue.--Phospheros (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• I would suggest that people give some thought to where in the article details of future fights would go. This would make it easier to ensure that future fights do not go into the table if that is what consensus decides. Examples of articles which deal with future fights are Chris Cope, Kit Cope, Daniel Cormier, and Tim Credeur (I note that Tim Credeur has the future fight details also in the table). These all mention future events at the end of the Career section. A note in your guideline that future events should be placed at the end of the Career section might be useful. Currently the advice is "within the body text" which may not be precise enough for some editors. Changing the prose from a future to past event is easy and would be done when updating the fight record table, so a comment which says - "XXXX will face YYYY on ZZZZ" would be altered to - "XXXX faced YYYY on ZZZZ", adding - "which he lost/won.....". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

For this, I propose the following.

In the section Mixed martial arts career add: "3. If a fighter is officially scheduled to fight in the near future (less than a year), future bouts can be mentioned in a short sentence at the end of this section, provided that they are backed up with reliable sources. Use simple sentences that can be easily modified when the bout has passed For example, "XXXX will face YYYY on ZZZZ" would be changed to "XXXX faced YYYY on ZZZZ", adding - "which he lost/won.....". This makes it easier for editors to update the information and also comment when a notable fight is cancelled.

And in the section Mixed martial arts, subsection of Record, I propose: "Never add future bouts. The purpose of the record table is to provide a quick account of a fighter's past career, not to speculate about hir/her future. Upcoming bouts that have been officially announced can only be mentioned within the body text at the end of the Mixed martial arts career section provided that they are notable (covered by reliable third-party sources.)" Jfgslo (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Unless there are any objections, I will close this tomorrow as there being consensus that future fights should be mentioned in a separate section rather than in a table, and I shall recommend that the wording above by Jfgslo be implemented. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.