Talk:List of current UFC fighters/Archive 1

Retirements

The following fighters are listed as active on UFC.com, but will not be listed in the article because either they themselves or someone else in an official capacity has announced their retirement. This section is not for fighters whose release has been announced, but whose profiles have not yet been removed. Only for fighters who have long standing inactive profiles in the UFC's list of active fighters.

• Pat Barry - Heavyweight
• Shane Carwin - Heavyweight
• Antoni Hardonk - Heavyweight
• Stephan Bonnar - Light Heavyweight
• Steve Bossé - Light Heavyweight
• Cyrille Diabaté - Light Heavyweight
• Forrest Griffin - Light Heavyweight
• Chuck Liddell - Light Heavyweight
• Tito Ortiz - Light Heavyweight
• Royce Gracie - Middleweight
• Chris Leben - Middleweight
• Brian Stann - Middleweight
• Ricardo Almeida - Welterweight
• Nick Diaz - Welterweight
• Matt Hughes - Welterweight
• Duane Ludwig - Welterweight
• Brian Melancon - Welterweight
• Manuel Rodriguez - Welterweight (cut, still listed)
• Matt Serra - Welterweight
• Mac Danzig - Lightweight
• Melvin Guillard - Lightweight (cut, still listed)
• Brendan Loughnane - Lightweight (cut, still listed)
• Cody McKenzie - Lightweight (cut, still listed)
• Quinn Mulhern - Lightweight
• Aaron Riley - Lightweight
• Sean Sherk - Lightweight
• Paul Taylor - Lightweight
• Stephen Bass - Featherweight (cut, still listed)
• Kenny Florian - Featherweight
• Josh Grispi - Featherweight (cut, still listed)
• Mark Hominick - Featherweight
• Jason Young - Featherweight (cut, still listed)
• Dustin Pague - Bantamweight (cut, still listed)
• Motonobu Tezuka - Bantamweight (cut, still listed)
• Julie Kedzie - Women's Bantamweight
• Roxanne Modafferi - Women's Bantamweight (cut, still listed)
• Peggy Morgan - Women's Bantamweight (cut, still listed)
• Will Campuzano - Flyweight (cut, still listed)
• Jose Maria - Flyweight (cut, still listed)
• Iliarde Santos - Flyweight (cut, still listed)

TUF Finale Losers

These fighters have competed on recent seasons of the Ultimate fighter and lost their finale contract fights. Since losing they have not been removed from UFC rosters, but are not in the UFC. Some TUF finale losers are retained in the UFC and those fighters will be re-added to the rosters as their status is announced, but until then all TUF finale losers (not including finalists) will be considered cut.

• Vik Grujic - Middleweight
• Chris Indich - Welterweight

Recent Signings

• I've added a hidden designator to each fighter in recent signings to show when they should be removed. All dates listed are either one month after they signed, if they fought in that month, or immediately after their first appearance if that appearance is more than a month after they signed. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

TUF Contestants

• TUF finalists can and should be considered signed by the UFC upon the date their status as a finalist is announced (usually the air-date of their quarterfinal episode). All TUF finalists recieve at least two fights in the UFC, including their finale appearance. All other non-finalist TUF competitors should not be considered signed (whether they fight in the finale or not) until after the finale, as their contract status with the UFC is based upon their finale performance. This is really just an ease of use thing, so that I (or others) don't have to add 10 people to this article just to have 5 of them be immediately cut. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Photos

• I've started adding photos of current fighters along side their weight division. There is only room for about 3-6 photos per division so keep this in mind when making any additions as I don't want the photos to exceed the length of the tables. More notable fighters (fighters higher on each divisions list) will get preferential photo placement, but best quality photos will be given best treatment overall. I would prefer to only use individual photos (one fighter per photo) from official UFC events (possibly just MMA events in general if they are high enough quality) either fights or weigh-ins, no non-competition photos please. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I could be convinced on especially good expo shots etc, but I would rather just get more and better event photos.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing a significant number of expo/promo/fan photos of various fighters, and following numerous attempted edits, I have updated the fighter photos to be slightly more inclusive for high quality photos of fighters standing by themselves. Photos must be clear and the fighter must be the only focus of the photo.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Weight Class Movement

• I didn't really mean to do this, but as others started to I realized that it makes sense. From here forward I will be citing fighters who have changed weight classes. Those fighters will remain cited until their first fight at their new weight class, at which point the citation will be removed.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum to this, for those who do not already know all fighters are given citations when they are signed to the UFC but not listed on UFC.com, and when they are cut and moved to the list of recent cuts.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• I'm new to wikipedia and am not real sure how this works, so be kind and please let me know if I put this in the right section

Joao Zeferino is listed as a Middleweight but he recently moved down to Welterweight and has a fight against Kenny Robertson at UFC Fight Night 28 http://www.mmamania.com/2013/7/27/4560500/kenny-robertson-vs-joao-zeferino-booked-for-ufc-fight-night-28-in-brazil-mma — Preceding unsigned comment added by LTrain5569 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Color Scheme

I'm thinking about adding a color scheme to the tables, any ideas? My best idea so far is to use Martial arts belt colors as table headers, so that may be what I do. If anyone has a better suggestion, throw it out there.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Cuts

• If any fighter on this list that has been cut from the UFC and has not been removed within a week of that cut please post a link to any information about that fighters release here. Info from Twitter accounts, facebook pages, or other personal notes from a fighter talking about his release or his next fight are also totally fine as far as confirmation goes. This goes especially for fighters like Cole Province, who are not listed on the organization website, but no information about their release is known.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames

• If you are going to update a fighters nickname, please make sure that the name is commonly and (for the most part) currently used by the fighter. I too want to call Jose Aldo the Brazilian Cobra, and Joseph Benavidez Joe-B Wan Kanobi, but I have never heard either fighter introduced as such, so I'm not going to. The easiest way to do this is to see what nickname sherdog.com has listed for the fighter, if they don't have one, then that fighter probably never really uses one.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Since writing this Joseph Benavidez has started introducing himself as Joe-B Wan Kenobi, so that nickname has been included.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• As a second note on nicknames I have decided to use fighters listed names from UFC/WEC websites (i.e. listing Cheick Ouidraogo as Cheick Kongo and Mirko Filipovic as Mirko Crocop) this will also be carried over for first names as well. This should help recognition as fighters will be listed by what they are commonly known by, these common nicknames will also be listed next to the fighter, as nicknames to show that they are not in fact the fighters given name.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Previous fights

• Should the last UFC fight a fighter was in be listed? Example:

Name		Nickname	UFC Record	Previous UFC Fight
!a	!a	!a	-9999	!a
United States of America	Frank Mir		12 – 5	W - UFC 119 vs Mirko Cro Cop
France	Cheick Kongo	Kongo	8 - 4 - 1	D - UFC 120 vs Travis Browne
Croatia	Mirko Cro Cop	Cro Cop	4 - 4	L - UFC 119 vs Frank Mir
United States of America	Cain Velasquez (C)		7 - 0	W - UFC 121 vs Brock Lesnar
~z	~z	~z	9999	~z

That's not a bad idea, it'd be a bit of extra useful information for each fighter, but it would also take a bit more work to maintain the article as a whole. I'm not sure whether the two balance each other out, I will move this post higher on the talk page and see if anyone else has any opinion on it, otherwise I'll keep it in mind. I don't want to clutter the page too much, but it's similar to some of the ideas that I had when I started the page, so maybe.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As a caveat, to avoid confusion, the idea of integrating this info into this table, is not mine, but was unsigned, so it appears as though it came from me.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm trying to decide whether to keep the columns on the main page aligned the way they are or to the left. I've modified the table above to show what left alignment would look like. If anyone has an opinion on this feel free to share it.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Why not this:

	Name	Nickname	UFC Record	Previous UFC Fight	Next UFC Fight
	Frank Mir		12 - 5	W - UFC 119 vs Mirko Cro Cop	UFC 130 vs Roy Nelson
	Cheick Kongo		8 - 4 - 1	D - UFC 120 vs Travis Browne	UFC Live 4 vs Pat Barry
	Cain Velasquez (C)		7 - 0	W - UFC 121 vs Brock Lesnar	TBA
	Stefan Struve	Skyscraper	5 - 2	W - UFC 124 vs Sean McCorkle	UFC 130 vs Travis Browne
	Junior dos Santos	Cigano	6 - 0	W - UFC 117 vs Roy Nelson	UFC 131 vs Brock Lesnar
	Brock Lesnar		4 - 2	L - UFC 121 vs Cain Velasquez	UFC 131 vs Junior Dos Santos
	Shane Carwin		4 - 1	L - UFC 116 vs Brock Lesnar	UFC 131 vs TBA

I really dont understand how this is too much. So heres my vote... Yes

Alright, this is unsigned as well, so once again not my idea. But having said that, this is essentially the original construction of the site when I first created it. I felt that this information is not only interesting but important to keep track of. Unfortunately, although it may not seem like a lot, it really is, especially considering that upcoming fights can change daily.

Having been the principal creator and editor of this site for a while, I don't really feel comfortable taking on the extra work of ensuring that every future fighters upcoming fight info is up to date, and I wouldn't really feel comfortable just letting it go if it wasn't up to date. Really this starts to get into something that would be on the scope of it's own website and not a wikipedia article.

The point of this article is to show who's fighting in the UFC right now and offer just enough info to identify them (nickname & country), and a very basic ranking/sorting system (their record) so that the fighters people are most interested in are put at the top of each list. Once you start adding extra info a.) The page gets cluttered, and b.) The page loses focus, becoming less a list of fighters and more a breakdown of each fighters career in the UFC. If this were it's own website, something like UFCTracker.com or something, then this sort of info would be crucial, but it just isn't.

Also in giving info on each fighters future fight, every one of those fights would have to be sourced, since future fights would otherwise be extremely open to speculation. Right now I've been able to get away with a minimum of sourcing by pulling all fight records from Sherdog.com and all fighters from UFC.com, only 7 or 8 fighters at any given time are in the UFC but not listed. For listing future fights every future fight would need it's own citation from it's independent source, suddenly that's 200+ potential sources continually updated, and a ton of work. I hope this clarifies why I don't think such changes are a good idea and am not eager to implement them.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would cite only from UFC's offcial page. not announced bouts, or bouts in the works, but bouts on UFC.com's page for the event. that way theres like 5 links on the page. I will do the work if we get a green light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knoccout265 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not necessarily that you wouldn't do it properly, but also that it would open the page up to everyone else doing it based on speculation, thus requiring more regulation. Also, I can't see any practical reason to hold such edits to the UFC.com news flow. One of the reasons that I created this article initially is that they seem to trail a month behind what everyone else knows. As long as things were officially reported they could be posted. But the bigger issue here is that I just think it's beyond the scope of what this page is supposed to be. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that is why I'm encouraging you to try this out on the Strikeforce page, or another MMA roster page of your own creation. MMA pages could use more oversight and exposure on wikipedia. More pages than this one could use a consistent editor with good ideas. And if this ended up being a successful adaptation I would be willing to amend my opinion. But I don't want to have you or I overhaul this whole page just to decide that it's impractical, unattractive, or too much work.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorting

• Allright, as I'm sure some have noticed I have recently implemented a number of major changes to improve this articles sorting system. Those changes being that I separated nationalities to make them sortable, I made fighter names sortable by last name, and finally I made nicknames sortable without running into my dreaded "The" problem. For those editing in the future and running into uncertainty about how to handle nickname sorting commands. The (<span>) command essentially hides whatever information you put between the opening and closing statements, but still tells the sorting algorithm to sort using that info, thus I can make "The Great" sort as "Great". This means that the <span> command need only be used when a fighters nickname starts with the or the non-English equivalent.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is there any type of order to the listing of the fighters?Tmt2393 (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As is written at the beginning of the article, all fighters are sorted by their total number of fights in the octagon (wins, losses, draws, and no contests all added together). If fighters have the same number of fights they are sorted by their number of wins, with the winningest fighters listed first. If two fighters have the exact same record then they are listed alphabetically. This is done in order to keep the most recognizable fighters listed at the top of each division, as those are the fighters people are most interested in finding/learning about.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay well I think that it should be listed as alphabetically to begin with.. because you can expect more people want to look up brock lesnar more than they do frank mir, or anderson silva more than chris leben or frankie edgar more than kenny florian.. just because they have had a lot of fights does not make them the most important person in the divisionTmt2393 (talk) 01:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

and i'm not sure where this belongs, but i've noticed several fighters, such as gray maynard, have incorrect records.. he is 8-0 (1 NC) but he is listed as 9-0 (1 NC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmt2393 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you want to sort them alphabetically each column has a sort button at the top so that you may do that as you wish, and to tell the truth, all organizational methods will have flaws. As you say, people are more interested in Brock Lesnar than Frank Mir, or Anderson Silva than Chris Leben, but are they more interested in Brendan Schaub than Brock Lesnar, or Alessio Sakara than Anderson Silva? Alphabetizing would cause more issues than it would solve, thus see the list of male mixed martial artists page, it's a mess. This system at least puts the fighters that people have seen fight the most at the top of each list, while still allowing you to alphabetize, and that's about the best you can ask for.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

On a second note, thanks for pointing out the Gray Maynard thing, I had to do all the fight records myself, and I'm sure I made a couple mistakes. If you do happen to notice any more, feel free to point them out or fix them and I will re-sort accordingly.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No Contests

• I realize that it may seem a little redundant, but since I have changed the listing to of no contest fights to a separate format (listing them in parenthases) I would like to keep an NC designator next to each fighters no contest listing. This is to maintain absolute clarity in a long list. Also from a purely asthetic standpoit the number alone in parenthases seems unecessary and looks sloppy, by adding the information that it is a no contest it makes the need for separating these fights from the fighters record becomes clearer. Also sherdog.com lists these fights the same way, so this adds some consistency. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

hey man, I love the article, but wanted to ask why the NC? no contests have always been in brackets after the fighters' wins-losses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.118.30 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, in part I could say that I did it because that's what sherdog.com does, and as a repository for most mma info it seemed like a good idea to copy their formatting. Realistically that's not true though, I did it independently and then was happy to see it correlated. I honestly did it because first and foremost I have to imagine reading this page as somebody who knows nothing about this sport, so anything I can do to keep it as clear as possible seems like a good idea. Secondly it's just an aesthetic thing (1 NC) just looks better on the page than (1), it seems less out of place. I realize that this may seem unnecessary to a lot of people who follow fighting all the time, but I want to make it simple for everyone. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the NC looks out of place while only brackets and numbers looks much better. (Justinsane15 (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC))

As I've said before, I consider the no contest a closed issue, it's the listing other websites use, it's more novice friendly, so I'm going with it. For an example of the (NC) system used on another web site see http://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Alessio-Sakara-5366.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Citations

• All fighters have been given a general link to the UFC/WEC at the bottom of the article, any fighters not listed on those sites have their own citations, so no additional work needed.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• I will work on making all citations "web citations" in order to improve the quality of the article.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WEC Fighters

This comment is in response to: All former World Extreme Cagefighting (WEC) fighters will have their records listed starting with WEC 25, as that is the first event to take place after the WEC/UFC merger.

In response to this discussion I have decided to list WEC fight records starting at WEC 25, the first WEC Zuffa event, for which they vacated all previous titles and started them anew. This allows (for the most part) WEC fighters full records to be on display, and affects so few higher division UFC fighters as to be almost unnoticable.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Since WEC 52 was still branded as a WEC event (not UFC), WEC bouts should not be included in fighter's UFC records. WEC fighters who compete on official UFC cards over the next few months should certainly count, but any WEC fight should not as the organization still exists. The WEC will not be defunct until after WEC 53 is complete. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I can explain the several very good reasons why I decided to list these fights. The first reason is that, starting with the merger announcement on October 28, WEC fighters immediately began being signed to fights in the UFC making it clear that the transition, while complete Jan. 1st was starting immediately. The UFC notoriously doesn't cross promote, even with itself. So, if fighters like Jose Aldo and Josh Grispi are no longer under WEC contract, but now UFC contract it has to be taken that the rest of the WEC fighters have most likely followed the same path, making these last two WEC cards WEC in name only, as they now represent only UFC talent. The most compelling argument that this is the case is the upcoming UFC Bantamweight Title fight at WEC 53 (it has been announced that the winner of that fight will be the UFC Bantamweight Champion). If Dominick Cruz and Scott Jorgensen are fighting for a UFC belt, even on a WEC card, that has to be considered a UFC fight for a UFC title. By extension if we consider that fight a UFC fight we have to consider all of these fights UFC fights, or dive into the mess of untangling who already has a contract with the UFC and who doesn't (information we're unlikely to get). Essentially, while it may not be the most empirically correct way of listing this information, I think it is the most accurate; representing the two month transition between organizations, instead of trying to argue that these WEC fights wont impact these fighters UFC careers.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding how this merger should be interpreted. The WEC will still exist as a separate organization through WEC 53. It's true that some WEC fighters will compete on UFC cards before the end of the year, but the other fights taking place under the WEC banner are still WEC fights, not UFC. Both organizations are owned by the same parent company, which has decided to kill off the WEC brand starting next year - that is totally different than implying that WEC events have been re-branded as UFC events. Even the WEC pay-per-view, which hardly mentioned the WEC at all, was still a WEC event. So, it is not true that the last two cards are WEC "in name only." All of the fights on the last two cards are part of the history of the WEC, not the UFC. The fighters will be competing on the basis of WEC contracts, not UFC contracts. The Dominick Cruz/Scott Jorgensen and Ben Henderson/Anthony Pettis fights are NOT for UFC titles. They are WEC title fights with the champions making WEC title defenses. The last person to hold the WEC title will be promoted to UFC champion, but that is different than saying that UFC titles are on line. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Now now, lets not point fingers, and I understand what you're saying. The truth is that the UFC has (since it's takeover of the WEC years ago) created a very strange anomaly in the fighting world and they are now trying to cut through this mess in a very straight-forward way, but the mess still deserves notation. There are three ways of listing these fights, all with different upsides and downsides, and all more or less accurate. The first is the way I think you are suggesting, which is to say "if it's not UFC leave it out". This method has the value of empirical correctness, it is simple and straight forward, but it also dismisses the key impact that these WEC fights will have on the UFC's new divisions going forward, these events are very closely linked and I think it would be incorrect to dismiss that when Dominick Cruz and Scott Jorgensen fight in December the first thing on their mind will be gaining the UFC title not the WEC title. The second method available is to just list these fighters complete WEC records and make a note of it, thus clearly establishing their backgrounds with Zuffa. This runs into problems when it comes to whether or not to give credit to the WEC's former upper division fighters now in the UFC, and whether to keep adding to these records going forward. The final option is the one I was attempting, which was to find a middle ground between these two and list only occurring after the merger announcement, that said that these divisions and all of their fighters would be imported essentially as is into the UFC. Since we have been told (though I don't entirely believe it) that all WEC fighters will move to the UFC then their fights upon that announcement take on meaning to their UFC careers (such as becoming No. 1 contender, or gaining the bantamweight belt). That is why I initially chose to list these fights the way I did, it seemed the most direct way to note a gray area that Zuffa has created by promoting two products at the same time. Having given this more consideration I have decided just to post fighters entire WEC record for those fighters under the WEC banner at the time of the merger. I'll note it on the cite and probably put an asterisk next to the fighters or something similar. This compromise makes the most sense to me. Thank you for your interest. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The October 28, 2010 date is an arbitrary cut-off point. That's when the merger was announced, but the merger won't completely take effect until next year. The only date that matters here is January 1, 2011 which is when the WEC is officially defunct. WEC fighters who are cut between now and then should not be considered UFC fighters if they have never competed on an official UFC card. Whether or not they compete on the last two WEC cards is irrelevant to this question. WEC fighters after the Zuffa purchase and after the UFC merger are no different than the WEC fighters from before the purchase. Fighters records are tied to the brand, not to the owner of the company. You seem to be a reasonable and well-informed person, and a dedicated editor. Please don't see my comments as anything but an attempt to make the page more accurate. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oct. 28 seems like a pretty good point to me as it is the first time that the UFC started putting WEC fighters on it's cards and the announced new weight divisions and new champions. In effect it became a set date that heralded a transition period ending Jan. 1. And under normal circumstances I completely agree, each organization is only unto itself, no matter who owns it, and had the UFC created an even bigger mess by making all their inaugural titles vacant and creating title fights later next year, I would have left all wec records out of this. But they took the shortest path through the mud, by declaring current and future WEC champions direct (linear) UFC champions and by promising (again I don't quite believe this) not to cut any WEC fighters right away. Thus WEC records should be noted in some way as they clearly affect the UFC going forward. And I apologize for taking offense I just don't like to make direct comments towards another person in these situations (as in you don't understand this or you should think of it like this) I prefer to discuss these possibilities in general terms. The UFC is obviously trying to bridge their brands here by bridging their titles, and I in response am trying to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaddeus Venture (talk • contribs) 19:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WEC is not a branch of the UFC, it is however a branch of Zuffa. UFC is a company owned and operated seperatly from Strikeforce or the former WEC. This page does not say Zuffa fighters. Also anytime these WEC fighters fight for the first time in the octagon and get a win, Mike or Joe make mention to the fact that they got there first win in the UFC, for example for someones debut and they get a win, that makes them 1-0 in the UFC.

In a recent interview with Rampage Jackson he spoke of the title unification between him and Dan Henderson. Through his interview he spoke about reciving his own Pride lightheavyweight title belt the UFC made for him shortly after. This by your reasoning makes Pride and UFC connected and then by that standered there records should also be merged. The only reason it seems to me that you added the WEC records is it pads them so you don't have a bunch of zeros for records for the feather and bantamweight fighters that all got added.

If Showtime does indeed cancel the contract extension after 2011 and the UFC maybe by there own power says hey lets merge the UFC and Strikeforce, in no way should you be listing the Stikeforce records with the UFC's. They are not UFC fights nor is any fight that took place in the WEC a UFC fight. The belt Cruz won for the Bantamweight title was a WEC fight for a UFC title but still a WEC fight. That exactly how the UFC and any media site is viewing it. Dana even said Jose will be promoted and the first bantamweight champion will be decided at WEC 53, so a WEC event, a WEC fight.50.99.126.128 (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok I understand what you're saying here, and I am in no way interested in including Pride or Strikeforce fighter records, because no new divisions will be or were included with the folding of pride or the inevitable folding of Strikeforce. As I tried to make clear above the UFC created this problem by promoting fighters as UFC champions for what they achieved in their sister organization. If they had automatically made Dan Henderson UFC light heavyweight champion for his Pride or Strikeforce accomplishments, or made Gilbert Melendez UFC lightweight champion for his Strikeforce accomplishments then I would advocate doing the same thing stretching back to the UFC's acquiring of both organizations (which wouldn't be particularly long history for either). But they didn't do that so it's a totally different scenario. Even if the UFC only refers to their UFC record as their official record in UFC fights they handle every single former WEC fighter based upon their WEC achievements, making it much easier to make sense of their place in the division. Thus this is displayed (and noted) here because it provides a clearer picture of the fighters career even within the UFC. On the whole it could be argued that the idea of UFC records is itself a theoretical construction as it is merely a subset of a fighters professional record. Also remember that these WEC records make up only a minority of listed records, thus the category is labeled UFC records and outliers are clearly noted. This seems fair and the simplest way of making sense of the strange enveloping of the WEC by the UFC. If the UFC had decided to do the more complicated thing and make each fighters in effect start from scratch and hold featherweight and bantamweight title fights after a year or two of match ups in the division in the UFC, then I never would have considered including their WEC records, but they took the straightest path through the mud and essentially just copied and pasted the divisions over treating each fighter based entirely upon his WEC career, so this reflects that. Once again, as time goes on this will become less and less of a problem because fewer and fewer of these fighters will be around, but in the meantime this just makes more sense. I could relabel the divisions if it was that important, but at that point it's just an argument over semantics. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As a secondary note to this I would like to point out that the only really important part of this article is the listing of all current UFC fighters, that's really this articles only focus. The listing of records, nationalities and nicknames is all completely secondary and is only done to provide methods of sorting, and frames of reference (or in the case of nicknames, additional forms of recognition). Perhaps if you view the article through this lens it is a little easier to see why the term UFC record has been used a little more liberally here, as my main interest is in keeping fighters clearly organized. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Noticed some names like Leben, Swick, Nick and Nate Diaz should be edited also Mike Pyle is 2-0 in the WEC.50.99.126.128 (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

They were all pre-UFC aquisition of WEC and so shouldn't be listed (i.e. WEC 25). Thanks for the Steve Cantwell Correction BTW. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Can we please remove remove WEC records from UFC records. Makes 0 sense, no other org's records are included. The only reason WEC titles transferred was because UFC didn't have titles in those classes. UFC record = Only UFC fights. If you want to include other org's records change it to ZUFFA record. All the asterisk are asinine and just unnecessary. If WEC records are that necessary (which they aren't) than include a separate column.--70.119.12.16 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

• This WEC citation has created another giant mess now that the UFC has almost completed it's merger of the Strikeforce Heavyweights into the UFC. Why should the WEC fighters have their WEC fights listed with the promotion when Strikeforce fighters are not granted the same courtesy. I think that WEC fights should be removed from the record and should this situation occur again with any other promotion that Zuffa purchases and merges that any fighters UFC record should be counted only from the day they first set foot in the octagon. Koten (Koten) 16:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try and explain this again, because on my end it seems fairly simple, and I've gone through it a couple of times now. The only reason, and I mean ONLY reason that WEC records are listed here is because Jose Aldo and Dominic Cruz were awarded UFC titles entirely based upon their WEC careers. Had they not entered the UFC with UFC title belts already around their waists I would have treated WEC fighters like any other UFC newcomer be it from Pride, Strikeforce, or anywhere else. But Jose Aldo was given a UFC championship because he was a WEC champion and Dominic Cruz's UFC bantamweight title fight against Scott Jorgensen took place under the WEC banner. Thus the only way to make sense of those divisions from an organizational standpoint was to include WEC records. This has not happened in Strikeforce, or any other Zuffa owned property and so is not applicable in other instances.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the work effort made to this page as I myself use it, but I would like to suggest a new column for the WEC records. I bring this point up because I personally like the layout format of the UFC records on this page but its hard to assess what the "True" UFC record for that fighter may actually be, thus it misrepresents the actual UFC record of that fighter which could slightly alter the perception for new readers and the inconvenience for myself and current ones. A new column would correct this misconception. 108.181.101.163 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand your suggestion, I just think it would be incredibly cumbersome for the few fighters it would make any difference for. Every year the number of UFC fighters who fought in the WEC decreases. And for the bantam/feather/lightweight fighters I really don't see a markable reason to consider their WEC and UFC records as separate. The idea of a "UFC Record" is itself a false construct and it's only purpose on this page is to give the tables structure. As such, and as it is a problem that is slowly fixing itself I don't really see the value of reconstructing the whole page for a temporary and arguable issue.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the fighters brought over from the WEC still have their WEC fights counted on their UFC records, shouldn't the fighters brought over from Strikeforce get the same treatment? Going by the same rules, any SF fight post March 12th 2011 should count.

Flag columns

In response to this discussion a note has been added to every table explaining that all flags listed are taken from UFC telecasts and may not fully or accurately represent nationality. These flags are only used to list fighters in the same way that the UFC does, exceptions can be made for fighters who have expressed offense at their UFC flag listing and hold an alternate nationality.

As of UFC: Macao the UFC has started showing Cung Le with the South Vietnamese Flag. Finally this issue can be put to rest. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• It seems as though the flag columns on this page are supposed to match the ufc.com profiles' "From" field, but this is misleading because virtually everywhere else on Wikipedia, flags are used for country of nationality instead of country of origin. If a flag column should exist, then it should follow a database that covers fighters from any promotion—probably Sherdog. —LOL ^T/_C 23:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge these flags do represent nationality. If they do not I would be happy to have inconsistencies pointed out. I assume you are referring to people like Yves Jabouin, or Krzystof Soszynski (or however you spell it). I am unsure of their nationalities. I know where they were born and that they now live somewhere else, but I have no information regarding further nationality. I know that when they are presented by the ufc in there broadcasts (with their little nationality flags) it tends to be those original countries where they were born. So, if you have specific debates about nationality for which you can point to verifiable evidence as to certain individuals nationality then I would be happy to make appropriate changes, otherwise I am only listing those things I know for sure. And yes I do know for sure that Mark Munoz is American even though he was born in Japan.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to point out my desire to stay as far away from much of the MOS:FLAG debating as possible, So I'd like to just keep this to whatever incorrect information you feel may be present. And having known people who spent more than a decade living in a foreign country without achieving citizenship I am wary of listing citizenship based solely on primary residence. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sherdog would be a good database to follow because it covers fighters from any promotion and is likely the most accessible resource (unlike the tale of the tape, for example). According to it, Ivan Menjivar, Yves Jabouin and Krzysztof Soszynski are Canadian; Dennis Siver is German; Andre Winner is English; and Anthony Njokuani is American. —LOL ^T/_C 16:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The Sherdog database only lists where a fighter trains out of, not what his nationality is. It lists Dennis Siver as fighting out of Manheim, Germany, that does not by any means make him German. Unfortunately it also makes Sherdog.com an unreliable database for such things. It should not be used in determining fighter nationality. If the UFC considers Siver Russian, and Njokuani Nigerian (which it does, at least in it's own advertising) they are a much more reliable source of nationality. Because I do not know for certain what the nationality of these fighters is I either default with what the UFC advertises them as in their broadcasts, or where they were born as this is information that I actually know. I think actual articles that are reliable and can give clear information on nationality would be needed to change this practice. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of what I would want as an indicator of nationality for fighters born in a different country than their primary residence. http://www.sherdog.com/news/news/UFC-Inks-Undefeated-Swede-Papy-Abedi-to-4-Fight-Deal-33470. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Upon further examination of the Sherdog database, it seems unclear what they list. It's definitely not where they fight out of because Carlos Eduardo Rocha fights out of Germany[1] and Sherdog lists his country as Brazil.[2] The problem with using a single news article instead of a database is that a reference would be needed every time a flag is used for every fighter with an unclear primary nationality; the record tables of their opponents, the articles of the events in which they fought, and other lists would become cluttered with the same reference for one particular fighter. I think we may have just discovered another good argument for removing all flags for nationality MMA. ;)

But anyway, I'm quite certain that the UFC advertises Menjivar, Jabouin, and Soszynski as Canadian; and Siver as German because I've seen the most recent tales of the tape for each fighter. Unfortunately, I don't see any good solution for this problem besides removing all flags. —LOL ^T/_C 22:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... Well I'm going to leave it the way it is, I'll check the tales of the Tape, I know siver's last was russian, because I was wondering about this argument the last time he fought. But beyond that I'll check the others. I do not see any reason to remove all flags from this site however, that seems like a knee jerk reaction especially since I would just replace the flags with things like American, Canadian etc. which would be the same thing but more circuitous. Removing major sections of the whole page seems like a knee jerk reaction to a very small problem. As I said, I'll check the tape and change any fighters brought to my attention. Otherwise simply finding articles that say "So and so is german, canadian, american, etc". should be fine. I realize this may not be best, but it is the best available. As I say I do not want this to be a part of the MOS:FLAG debate, as I have constructed this page from scratch and maintained it almost entirely on my own I would like my position on this to be respected. The debate over the use of MOS:FLAG seems to be a heated issue and I don't want this page to be subject to one persons subjective views on the topic. If you feel it necessary to clear major sections of this page I will do my best to avoid an edit war, but I will keep it in it's original format. Sooner or later I will probably leave this project behind as it is too much to maintain for ever and ever, but until I do, I'd prefer it left the way it is.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, double checked Siver's, his last was Russian @ UFC 127. In WEC 53 Menjivar was introduced as Salvadorian, there was no tale of the tape from UFC 129. At WEC 52 Jabouin was introduced as Haitian, he was not given a tale of the Tape at UFC 129. And finally, at UFC 131 Kryzstof Soszynski was listed as polish, and Yves Edwards as from the Bahamas. I hope this answers all of your immediate questions. I realize that you may feel strongly about this topic, and I am fine with you continuing the debate else where but for now I would ask that you do not continue it here. In my own defense I would say that the reason I initially included this information on this page is because it's the sort of simple information people want to know, when they look at a list like this. As debatable cases would not constitute vandalism or willful misrepresentation (i.e. I'm not listing everyone as North Korean) I think deletion would an extreme reaction to minor issues. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Very strange because I remember watching UFC 127 and 129 live and don't recall any flags that conflicted with Sherdog, but that just further shows how difficult it is to source primary nationalities since there doesn't appear to be any reliable database for them. You're right that replacing flags with words is "the same thing"; it's equally as problematic because Wikipedia would still be making claims about fighters' nationalities when a reliable source for them does not exist. I actually don't feel that strongly about this topic (I don't recall the last time I've touched flags on this page), but I felt it was important to point out any inconsistencies or possible breaches of policy (the latter isn't just minor). As evidenced by the MOS:FLAG debates, nationality is clearly something that many fans like to know, but it's overshadowed by the problems that listing them creates. I'm happy that you've taken the time to create and maintain this page, but according to WP:OWN you don't have any leverage because of that if anyone decides to remove or fiddle with the nationality claims because of WP:V. —LOL ^T/_C 23:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, final response as we are winding this down. I'm not trying to claim ownership of this, I'm merely stating that as I have put a lot of time into it as it's principal developer and maintainer, that my stance on the information in this page be respected. Anyone can change anything they want at any time, I'm not trying to claim leverage, just asking for politeness on an issue that as you say "I actually don't feel that strongly about this topic." Also just because a debate is very complicated as MOS:FLAG surely is, that does not make it important. This information is very minor. It does not constitute vandalism, and it is rarely done in an attempt to willfully misinform people (those are major issues). This is a debate over the battle between ease of use and academic integrity. It does not threaten the sanctity of wikipedia itself, merely raises a very complicated debate over the nature of Wikipedia as a product, it's intended uses and it's future as a resource. I agree that it is important to point out breaches of guidelines and policies and would be wholly in favor of a tag that warns users that a page contains information about nationality that may not be verified, I just think that immediately removing all such information does more to turn potential users/editors away than it does to protect wikipedias foundational integrity. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I took a while to think about this while I was at work, because I'm not thrilled about the problem in general, and I've decided on a workable solution. I will add a note to each table making clear that all flag listings in these tables are based upon ufc telecasts only and may not entirely represent the citizenship of these fighters, or something to that effect. Because that's really where I think the solution lies, in careful notation and not an all or nothing approach. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The presence of disclaimers is better than the previous state, but it's still troublesome because the vast majority of people don't have access to the fights and the UFC's claims may conflict with other promotions'.

Well, I'm trying to find a middle ground. And as wikipedia does not require web citations only, but only asks that content be verifiable, I see no reason that this wouldn't be fine. Video citations are possible and verifiable, so this content is verifiable. Just because it is not easy to get a hold of doesn't make it not viable. If an article cites an obscure book that is not widely available, that doesn't make the information incorrect, so the argument that this information isn't widely distributed doesn't make it less factual or useable. As far as competition is concerned that is now a non issue, the UFC is the only major promotion. It would be like arguing that in an article on professional football the CFL should have as large a voice as the NFL. But more importantly this article only pertains to the UFC these fighters' careers in the UFC and the information that the UFC releases about those fighters, if other promotions list conflicting information then that information can be used on sites pertaining to that promotion, with a similar note about the potential for such information to not represent full citizenship. Like I said above, I believe that clear and careful notation offers the best solution to a complicated problem like this one. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Didn't notice that you kept responding so I'm a bit late, but anyway, I didn't say that UFC telecasts aren't acceptable; the main problem with flags is the edit warring, and so the best solution would be a free, easily accessible source. As for conflicts with other promotions, I'm not a big fan of having inconsistencies within Wikipedia and justifying it with ugly disclaimers everywhere for some 12-pixel tall icons. How I wish there were an authority for all fighters.

I watched UFC 132 and noticed that on the tale of the tape, the flags now represent where they were "Born", so now we know that the tales of the tape can't be used for nationality. I appreciate the effort you've spent on this, but flags are definitely very troublesome. —LOL ^T/_C 20:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Exception should be made for Cung Le. He represents his South Vietnamese heritage, but he's an American [USA]. Using the current flag of Vietnam is highly offensive to those who still represent the South Vietnamese flag. It's even noted in the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_South_Vietnam. Cung Le's profile also quotes him as being as an American, as he also competed for Team USA. http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/57/3a83a297fdeb7f1d02841979c9a0a4dc/l.jpg PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care about this part of this debate, but I fail to see how you speak for him personally. I understand that he has competed for America, is an American citizen, ect. I also understand that many south vietnamese may resent the vietnamese flag, but has cung le at any point come out and said that he resents being displayed with the vietnamese flag in the UFC? If so can you cite this? If you can't please reconsider your stance as you appear to be projecting your political views onto somebody else, and received a ban from posting on wikipedia as part of this discussion with another member. The stance of this article is whatever the UFC shows is what we use because it is citable and uniform. I have argued for making allowances for fighters in specific circumstances, but others feel more strongly that none should be made, I would say any such allowance would have to be highly verifiable. Personally I'm just hoping he retires soon, so this can stop being an issue. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 05:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Then you clearly contradict yourself if you day you don't care. I already showed you tweets from his last fight where he clearly said that he didn't know about them displaying the flag. He also CLEARLY represents the South Vietnamese flag, which he originally is from. Show me any picture, besides the UFC tale of the tape, that he actually represents the current flag of Vietnam. I think you would find none. I also think you would only see the South Vietnamese flag. He even just tweeted that he is from South Vietnam, which is a clear indication as to why he represents that flag. I am not projecting my political views, I'm showing you clear facts and siding with the side Cung Le PERSONALLY represents. The fact that you are annoyed and PERSONALLY want him to retire shows your own agenda and bias. Are you going to say the same thing about all fighters and their fans who want to interject about the correction of flags?

You also mentioned that I received a ban. If I was banned, how can I be making this comment now? That user was a troll. You clearly did not read any of his statement. He compared Cung Le to Osama Bin Laden, that's right...OSAMA BIN LADEN. He was indefinitely banned, I wasn't. The only reason why they suspended my account was because I was posting his "source" ofinformation that a so-called moderator was using off Facebook and I questioned the validity of that info. That mod was actually temporarily suspended as well. You clearly state that you would make exceptions, but do not want to look at the facts. Personally I think you're judgement is clouded and you're jumping to conclusions. This is a reason why flags are also not favored on Wikipedia for instances like this and your own PERSONAL beliefs. That's not fair judgement in any way. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not annoyed by Cung Le, I love watching the guy fight, I'm just annoyed by this debate. When I say I don't care, I mean I don't care about the political aspects of the Vietnam, south vietnam flag debate, I have no stake in that and wish none. The only thing I'm doing is trying to develop a consistent citable article for wikipedia. Saying Cung Le doesn't know about something isn't the same as saying he disagrees with it. Saying that Cung Le has represented America is different than saying that he in no way represents Vietnam, he can do both. I just want proof that Cung Le is in opposition to the way the UFC is representing him. I haven't seen that. I have no other interest political, or personal in how Cung Le is represented. I whole heartedly feel that he should be represented as American in his wikipedia article and that his strong ties to south vietnam should be mentioned. There are numerous fighters that the UFC does this with and citing every one of them would be a pain. The debate over flag use seems moot, it could easily be replaced with the words American/Brazilian/English, etc. next to each fighter and the information would be the same, minus the flag. The flag is just easier and looks better. It is arguably important to this sport because of the way fighters are promoted as individuals often in representation of their country. The upcoming season of the Ultimate fighter will be comprised of UK fighters against Australian fighters. It's similar to other individual sports like tennis or boxing, and how important it is that an English tennis player hasn't won Wimbledon for 85 years, or an American hasn't been Heavyweight Champ for a decade. I understand the emotional charge that this can carry for some people, and I am not agreeing with the person who made the Osama references (that was a wrong thing), I'm just asking for more direct proof of a conflict between Cung Le and the UFC.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I apologize if I'm causing problems and will respect your decision. I'm just asking to take into consideration what has been posted. Check out Cung Le's recent tweets and Facebook comments. If you go directly to his UFC Fighter profile, it shows his tweets stating that he's already asked the UFC about it and can not change it. Therefore, he's concentrating on his upcoming fight with Rich Franklin. So it's clear, at the least Cung Le has tried to brought this to the attention of the UFC Production, even states on his fan page that he's asked them many times but no change. I won't post the links due to breaking Wikipeidia privacy, but urge you to check it out. I just saved a copy of the tweets that I saw on his current UFC profile page and can re-post that in the comments as long as it's not breaking Wikipedia rules.. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Again no links will be posted due to Wikipedia privacy rules but here is a comment that recently made about the flag that implies conflict, but Cung Le can not change it himself even if he disagreed.

Well the good news is that the UFC production team FINALLY cleaned up their act and use the South Vietnamese flag for Cung Le's place of birth in the fight with Rich Franklin . Can we FINALLY switch to the accurate flag for him and put this issue to rest now??? 173.60.220.207 (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sweet, I am so happy to finally have this resolved. Thank the UFC gods. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

"Cung Le: Give me a break with the flag deal. I already told UFC more than a dozen times! They said that is the current flag.4 hours ago"

There was clearly a dispute about the comments he's been making on his Social Networks. However, ultimately it's not his decision on which correct flag that UFC should be using as it's UFC's choice to use whatever flag they think is correct. I'm a fan of UFC and fully aware of their usages of flags including in marketing. UFC Promo 121 Cain Velasquez vs Brock Lesanar, Mexican flag was used for Cain http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpyEoHHBKJk. I'm not disputing that because Cain has gone on interview to say he was surprised at first but to him it made sense. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Removal of flags

as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG and MOS:FLAGBIO the flags should now be removed. Mtking ^(edits) 12:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting... I guess I would say that since every flag in this article is reasonably sourced, as this article is only and entirely a reflection of how these fighters are represented by the UFC, then I have trouble seeing how removing the flags does anything other than deconstruct the article. Not to mention that I am fully willing to replace the flags with the words, I am finding this whole idea very tiring. I understand the thrust of the arguments being made, although I hardly consider 6-4 a "consensus" (had I voted it would have been 6-5). Eventually this really deserves to get a wider audience than 10 people. And as I see it the argument boils down to form over function, is it more important that wikipedia is empirical or that it is useful. However I can quite easily (given several days of work cite every flag on this article to a video source from UFC telecasts. It's not something I want to do, but I could do it. At that point I would argue that these are "representative nationalities" as the are represented in the UFC, not MMA in general, perhaps but as I said this article is only reflective of UFC careers. Give it a thought, write a response. Also I would generally argue that this article is in almost no way biographical in nature. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The most relevant section is MOS:FLAGBIO when it says "Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship or nationality." that is exactly what is happening here. Mtking ^(edits) 22:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

rather than having the same argument over again, i think we should respect the decision made in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG. if at some point, a compelling reason to open the debate again presents itself it should be done in a central location where everyone involved can see and partake. Kevlar (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

My point is that it's not exactly what's happening here, although the result is similar. The use of flags in this table is purely representative of the use of flags by the UFC, nothing else. The fact that the UFC uses those flags to represent birth is secondary and not really the responsibility of the article. But if I change the information to a column that says "ENG, USA, AUS, KOR, etc." will that really be an improvement? I don't understand what you feel this article is gaining from this kind of change. I agree in general that there needs to be a more clear and referential system to how flags are used for MMA articles, but I don't think that erasing them all is the right answer, it's really just the easiest answer, and the fact that there is still very much a closely divided argument over this topic makes me feel that jumping into sweeping changes over the consensus of 6 people is a bad idea. How many people are involved in Wikipedia's Mixed Martial Arts Project? Is 6 or even 10 really a fair representation of the whole? Anyway, I'll look at switching it over to a written shorthand version, but the result will be largely the same, now in text. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not support the replacement of flags with text (or anything) that implies nationality or representative capacity, UFC fighters do not represent a country, they fight for themselves, the use of anything that implies they do is wrong. Mtking ^(edits) 00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the UFC runs shows like TUF Smashes, and TUF Brazil, in which fighters are selected entirely for their nationality stands as a reasonable argument against that, to compound that they have also run shows with fighters entirely from one country against fighters from around the world. I would also argue that because the UFC publishes this information during their broadcasts, that makes the information relevant to their organization and the fighters performing under it. In general I would in fact argue that nationality in individual sports plays a secondary but important role. It is important to boxing that there hasn't been an American heavyweight champion since Evander Holyfield. It is important to Tennis that a British player hasn't won Wimbledon for 80 years. It is important to distance running that Kenyans have a history of dominance in the sport. These things are not of primary importance, but they are significant. To say that a fighter only fights for themselves is an obfuscation. Technically Olympians only win olympic medals, in non team events, for themselves. The fact that they are connected to a country takes more significance, but it would be wrong to think that a gymnast is really trying to get that gold medal for their country. Their motives are almost entirely personal. I am not against better regulating the use of flags for MMA (I think much of the guesswork done in other smaller MMA cards is probably for the worse), but I would say if an organization is publishing this material, it should be useable in article referencing that organization.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is clear in my mind why the UFC uses flags, they are trying to promote their brand in counties other than the US, highlighting fighters from target markets helps them, that does not mean an Encyclopedia should copy their promotional effort when it is the WP convention that flags should only be used to indicate national team representation, for example what are you going to put for Cung Le and John Maguire ? In the case of Le if you replace the current flag with text it will still be wrong and imply a nationality not supported by RS's and I contend a direct violation of BLP. In the case of Maguire he is the only fighter listed with a British flag even though his article says he is English. In the case of other sports it is clear as there is an overriding governing body to set the rules, it seems the UFC use what ever flag best suits their needs at the time. As for your Olympics point, I think you need to go check that, athletes represent their national team, how you tell that is if you don't make your team you don't compete. Mtking ^(edits) 00:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for the update on the Olympics, being snide is not the same as being helpful. My point is that the athletes keep the medals, they compete from personal desire and for personal success, making an olympic team allows them to compete, but their success is still personal. Barack Obama isn't rolling around in a big pool of Olympic golds (ala Scrooge McDuck) that the US has acquired over the years. And in what way does boxing have an internationally reputable governing body. It has several iterations, all with different flaws, difficulties, and promoting purposes. Speaking of Le and Maguire, as with everything else they get what they're given from the UFC. You argue against furthering their promotional tools in an encyclopedic setting, but at that point isn't it arguable that any information about an athlete which is only referential to their standing within a sports organization shouldn't be allowed. Technically listing a player's All Star team elections would be inadmissable because it's only a promotional tool of MLB. In general, as far as using flags to suit their needs, that is categorically not been the case with the tale of the tape. They have displayed Velasquez as Mexican in posters, and made other unclear statements I'm sure, but the tale of the tape has been remarkably consistent. Cung Le's was recently changed to South Vietnamese after personal campaigning on his part to correct an oversight, and Maguire is displayed with the UK flag as he is technically a gypsy, I don't know that anyone has an accuate source for his citizenship beyond the ability to say he's a citizen of the United Kingdom. I would also argue that the BLPs guidelines on "Lists" are incredibly vague and carry no suggestion that the use of flags as in this table falls outside them (or has even been a relevant argument at all), if you can make a clearer argument for how the BLP's guidelines on lists cover this article I think that would be important.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We can talk this round and round, but that still does not address the issue that the MOS makes it clear the flags should not be used as they are being used here, as WP:CONLIMITED points out the editors here or at the wikiproject can't override that, in fact the RfC at the wikiproject endorsed it. As for Le, can you quote a RS for that as his page has one for him being American. Mtking ^(edits) 02:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP does apply (see note at the top of the talk page), by having the "South Vietnamese" flag against his name, like it or not it implies he is representing that county or is a citizen of that county such a claim can be contentious (as in this case) given there are clearly RS saying he is an American. Mtking ^(edits) 02:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags). If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent.

If a sportsperson most usually represents a specific country (e.g., Germany) but has represented a larger, supernational entity on some occasions (e.g., Europe) it may be more appropriate to use the national flag; this will often need to be determined on an article-by-article basis.

Subnational flags (e.g., England rather than UK) are traditionally used in some sports, and should not be changed to the national flag without consensus."

Your point about MosFlag is dependent on a very narrow view of "representative nationality" which MosFlag contains no clear guidelines for. You can say what you think it means, but it's no more valid than what I think it means. As for the RfC, at least what I saw was an incredibly small number of heavily divided people, I don't think that's a good or useful consensus for instituting mass change. As for contentious material, it is not contentious that when Cung Le fights for the UFC they show him to represent South Vietnam. That is his representative nationality within UFC competition. The reason that this can get talked round and round is because it is an incredibly unclear subject couched in a lot of vague guidelines, I'm not against trying to make those guidelines more useful, trying to get something out of them, but establishing a policy of mass erasure seems like entirely the wrong tack on a fraught subject. Unfortunately I also noticed that the within RfC on the MMA Project page only one of the contributors voting to remove flags was in fact a consistent contributor to MMA articles. That in and of itself sets a poor precedent for creating consistently usable guidelines, and creates a incredibly poor "consensus". Thaddeus Venture (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The MOS wording is clear, we are continually told that the UFC flags relate to the county of birth hence why Le has the flag he does, MMA fighters (but for one or two events build as country vs country) don't represent a country, there is no national or international governing body to oversee them, there has been a RfC listed correctly at the project with the correct notifications, it was not a vote, and the consensus was the MOS applies to MMA in the same way as it does everywhere else. I understand you don't like the outcome, but that does not change it. Mtking ^(edits) 04:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright, a final point of interest. "Consensus is that per MOS:FLAG, flags are inappropriate for inclusion in results tables unless the competition is established as taking place between fighters as a representative of a particular country. This would mean that a fight prominently featuring fighters from a particular country due to its setting, eg. many Brazilian fighters at a competition in São Paulo, would not use flags, but that same competition set up as Brazil vs. the rest of Latin America would have flags, as the nationalities of fighers - the team they are fighting for - are appropriate to understanding the outcome of the overall competition." This is the RfC, if I'm not incorrect, and it pertains entirely to "results tables" which this page contains none of. You have a variety of arguments all of which I think are structurally half arguments and don't cover a page such as this in which all flags are verifiable and used only in a sporting sense. I understand the argument that the UFC is not a "international governing body" although it does act as a governing body in those places where it holds events without a commission. I don't argue against the use of flags in results tables as I believe that there is no good sourcing for nationality for fighters, Sherdog is an incredibly poor one even as it is the standard. I would argue that UFC events could use flags as long as they use the same flags as are listed here. And while UFC flags may refer to country of birth that is really an issue with the UFC's process, they are still then used by the UFC to reperesent these fighters in a sporting sense. They are a "representative nationality" used not to convey legal status, but to label the fighter as a representative of that nationality. The UFC's system is casual, but it is their system, and I fail to see a problem with using it as information for UFC fighters pertaining to their UFC careers. I would not advocate using this information for these fighter outside of the UFC, which is why I feel a more nuanced set of guidelines for flag use in MMA articles is needed. However as this is a "list" and not a "results table" and the "representative nationality" is arguable I still fail to see how the RfC is quite relevant.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a wiki-wide MOS for a reason, ie. so as to maintain a constant look and feel across the whole 'perdia. For better of for worse that standard is that in a sports setting the use of flags is only permitted where it reflects national representation, and specificity not country of birth. As there is no concept of national representation in MMA and the UFC has chosen a system based mainly on country of birth flag use on MMA articles is not appropriate. Mtking ^(edits) 19:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm... but that's a different argument than your RcF which is what you're trying to get this removed on the grounds of. And I would argue that a representation of nationality in the UFC, even based on birth does not conflict with wikipedia guidelines, as you are then arguing that the UFC system is invalid as it pertains to the UFC. It's their system, they use it consistently, it therefor seems available as a resource (what exactly it represents is secondary). No governing body can be said to extend over the entirety of the sport, the NFL does not represent all of football, the MLB does not represent all of baseball, and the UFC does not represent all of MMA. These organization differ somewhat in their construction, but the UFC itself has proven to be an distinctive construction in MMA as a departure from other sports models. They can be said to represent the highest level of the sport, and encompass a large number of athletes and carry a large number of self contained competition. However the UFC model is built largely on a boxing/pro-wrestling model, the boxing half of which is largely bound to higher governing bodies, which MMA does not contain. But I don't know or see any clear reason that a lack of higher governing body (an IBF or WBC, etc.) strips away validity from the UFC as the highest level of the sport. You are operating under distinct interpretations of MOS that are purely interpretation, not fact, and you are attempting to apply those interpretations for a broad range of uses and situations. You can argue that there is no concept of national representation in MMA, but there is in the UFC (via TUF, Nation v Nation cards, etc.) and if rarity makes that position untenable, then wouldn't it also do so for golf, tennis, or boxing, or any individual sport in which there are only a rare few instances in which international competition is structured via nationality. Wikipedia certainly seems to generally allow for that level of "national representation", certianly, at least in lists such as this one if not record tables, which I agree are too difficult to properly source or manage.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be blunt but this is now reaching the point of WP:FILIBUSTER, there is a MOS, there has been a a RfC, use of flags where they indicate place of birth is not appropriate, even Kevlar above who !voted for flag use at the RfC for the use has accepted it. The whole argument of why MMA/UFC is different and should be treated as a special case on WP has been tried before and not accepted. Mtking ^(edits) 23:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No one, least of all me, is stopping you making these changes. I'm merely stating my position as you're asking that I or someone else swing the sword. The RfC only points to record tables, and the way in which mosflag has been applied to most, if not all individual sports suggests that flag inclusion has been the wiki-wide standard for tables of this nature. If you feel that you need my permission to proceed however, please go ahead.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

When the UFC ceases to advertise people by their nationality and flag (done before every fight, and hell, their intro is festooned with flags), and stops promoting reality tv shows based on international competition (see The Ultimate Fighter: U.K. vs. Australia), then flags might cease to be appropriate components of MMA fighter tables. As it is the UFC has gone out of their way to promote the nationalities of its fighters and also the nationalistic diversity of its various divisions, in addition to international competition (hell, see the new PPV intro sequence they use). As it is, no one has a problem with it. The burden would be on the one complaining to explain what the material problem is here. As it is, it's a helpful organizational tool and helps makes fighters easier to remember which is important when you're talking about a roster of over 300 people, and is hardly unique to MMA in the wikipedia database (see golf, tennis, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, Formula One Racing, Sled Dog Racing, ADCC submission wrestling, K-1 kickboxing, etc.). Honestly, I'd be much more interested to hear the material counterpoint than a vague WP citation. It'd be a much more constructive approach to this. Beansy (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, Thaddeus, just putting this out there, and I'm aware this goes against general flag use in MMA, but it might be best to go with the Manual of Style recommendation that flags reflect direct national sovereignty and change the English flags to the UK flag (as well as any non-English UK fighter in the future, although I don't think any are under contract at the moment). Beansy (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly, of all things, that's something the MoS does allow for, at least in a sporting sense, flags for sub-national areas can be used (specific example given was England, rather than uk) for representation in sporting competition.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Flags are allowed to be in results tables because the UFC has always been a competition between countries, and that is why they have always shown flags in the tale of the tape, or country name in the very early UFC days. But this page has no results tables, so flags should not be removed anyways. JonnyBonesJones (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the flags returned, they add alot the the pages, it's basically a better Wiki with them on there - agree though that we need to find the most encyclodedic way to add them. How about allowing more than one flag and listing them in alphabetical order? 167.1.176.4 (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that those flags should stay on the page because it really does add to the page. There is no logical reason to delete them. They have been there for a while and not until recently has mtking started messing with them. Just leave them there, they add a lot to the page and they aren't hurting anybody by being there. Brusinggiant (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah wonderful. So MTKing has invaded this article as well and is attempting to ruin it too with his petty personal attacks against MMA. Same tactics too, I see. He comes in and proposes destructive changes with a terrible attitude and tone but doesn't actually say anything wrong. Then when you take exception he calls you out claiming he technically hasn't done anything.

MTKING, GO THE HELL AWAY.NerdNinja9 (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Records

If the fighters records are being displayed for their UFC/WEC Records, then why arent the records of fighters from Pride, Strikeforce, WFA?

--Mollica93 (talk) 16:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

This is copy/pasted from the above discussion about WEC records and should answer your question precisely.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok I understand what you're saying here, and I am in no way interested in including Pride or Strikeforce fighter records, because no new divisions will be or were included with the folding of pride or the inevitable folding of Strikeforce. As I tried to make clear above the UFC created this problem by promoting fighters as UFC champions for what they achieved in their sister organization. If they had automatically made Dan Henderson UFC light heavyweight champion for his Pride or Strikeforce accomplishments, or made Gilbert Melendez UFC lightweight champion for his Strikeforce accomplishments then I would advocate doing the same thing stretching back to the UFC's acquiring of both organizations (which wouldn't be particularly long history for either). But they didn't do that so it's a totally different scenario. Even if the UFC only refers to their UFC record as their official record in UFC fights they handle every single former WEC fighter based upon their WEC achievements, making it much easier to make sense of their place in the division. Thus this is displayed (and noted) here because it provides a clearer picture of the fighters career even within the UFC. On the whole it could be argued that the idea of UFC records is itself a theoretical construction as it is merely a subset of a fighters professional record. Also remember that these WEC records make up only a minority of listed records, thus the category is labeled UFC records and outliers are clearly noted. This seems fair and the simplest way of making sense of the strange enveloping of the WEC by the UFC. If the UFC had decided to do the more complicated thing and make each fighters in effect start from scratch and hold featherweight and bantamweight title fights after a year or two of match ups in the division in the UFC, then I never would have considered including their WEC records, but they took the straightest path through the mud and essentially just copied and pasted the divisions over treating each fighter based entirely upon his WEC career, so this reflects that. Once again, as time goes on this will become less and less of a problem because fewer and fewer of these fighters will be around, but in the meantime this just makes more sense. I could relabel the divisions if it was that important, but at that point it's just an argument over semantics. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, it's an organizational thing.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand all of that..but fighters such as Brian Stann, Chael Sonnen, Condit, etc. all have their WEC records combined together..which based on your explanation would be incorrect. The divisioned were merged into the UFC nearly identitcal to the moving of Pride into the UFC. --Mollica93 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but all WEC records must be treated uniformly. I can't just say all WEC records from WEC 25 on are being counted, except for anyone in the higher weight classes. Those fighters may stick out as anomalies in their weight classes, but there are so few of them that those anomalies are pretty unobtrusive. The system has to be uniform for all former WEC fighters post ZUFFA ownership to be effective. What if a former WEC welterweight dropped all the way down to featherweight. Would his record then have to change, that wouldn't make sense. It's just easier to say All fighters who fought in the WEC after WEC 25 will have their records counted, because it makes organizing the lower weight divisions easier.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just gonna play devil's advocate here, but maybe just include all records obtained while fighting under Zuffa? Basically that's WEC starting with WEC 25 and Strikeforce starting with Strikeforce Challengers: Wilcox vs Damm on April 1, 2011. That's an addition of 17 Strikeforce events (including their final one in January). Just a thought. Beansy (talk) 07:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually totally happy with that idea, and I've been toying with it for a while, it wouldn't mean significant changes, but the whole purpose of records on this page is to provide meaningful organization and that wouldn't hurt.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen, it's the consensus opinion that only UFC records should be listed here. There are so many reasons to not include WEC records in the UFC records, but hopefully whoever tries to defend this stance realizes the error of their ways. This is an awesome page, but out of the two hindrances to it (WEC records and iffy retirements), the WEC records really need to change. Hoping it changes soon. (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2012 (HST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by M9jorodb (talk • contribs)

Cuts and signings sections listed in order with most recent at the top?

I feel that it may be useful if the Recent Cuts and Recent Signings sections were ordered by the date they were cut/signed (or more realistically the date it became news or the date it's added to the page)with the most recent at the top.

(I'm not suggesting that a "date" column be added btw)

It would make it easier to notice the latest cuts/signings when rechecking the page, particular during this year.

Sfour (talk) 23:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Updated records

Hey, just wanna congratulate the guys who built this page. Pretty incredible. You guys might wanna change Joey Beltran and Pokrajac records tho, cause it was overturned. Also, I think the UFC does not add the WEC fights to a fighter official UFC record. If you guys watched the last event, they listed Brian Stann as 6-5 in UFC on the Fuel post-fight show, so that does not include WEC fights. They only took WEC records as consideration to see who would be cut right away with a loss, like they did to Charlie Valencia. I think it would be better if you guys could add more bars like WEC record, Pride record and Strikeforce record, cause this way we could see where each fighter came from. Anyway, thanks and keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.106.102.171 (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

anonymous edit

who dreverted my edits? I spent like half an hour trying to fix the tables to put those 5 now-released fighters in and remove their names from the appropriate division table Rissx (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I did, you forgot to update the roster number, and use correct hyphens, the correct indicator date to signify when to remove them from the recent cuts list. This is Wikipedia and everyone is free to edit, but we are also free to correct editors as well. It's not about who makes the edit, it's about improving the page's quality and accuracy. 173.171.83.140 (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent Cuts

The reason I removed the content there is all the names on that list are to be up there for a month, after a month has passed, and indicated by the hidden date, they are to be removed. This is explained in the recent cuts description. I have no idea why my edits were reverted twice because they were in the right. If the 2 people who reverted them would kindly revert the to the last edit by me, that would be great, I'd do it but I don't wanna break the 3 revert rule. 173.171.83.140 (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)