Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 5

IP claiming to be Ricco Rodriguez's manager removing sourced (negative) content from article

See this. Some more eyes on the article would probably be good. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over Dong Hyun Kim's recently discovered loss

There's an edit war at Dong Hyun Kim over listing a recently discovered loss Kim had in Spirit MC back in 2004. It's now listed on both Sherdog and Spirit MC's website. I believe the reason it wasn't listed before now was some confusion releated to another Dong Hyun Kim born in 1989/1988 as opposed to the UFC's Kim born in 1981.

Gamechanger (talk · contribs) insist that UFC.com (which lists Kim as 12-0) is the authority on this matter, and keeps removing the loss. Input welcome. --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say this is reliable: SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 Results. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, also see Kim's profile at SpiritMC.org and his Sherdog Fight Finder. --aktsu ^(t / c) 23:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Seen both of them as well. The man has a loss if you ask me. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 23:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The loss to Yong Choi was an amateur match. It was the final match of the Inter-League amateur tournament. http://www.spiritmc.org/ver3/main.asp?mcat=league&scat=pro_fighter_detail&num=74 (in Korean) Kangaroo001 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)kangaroo001 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangaroo001 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sherdog doesn't list amateur matches and exhibition-matches, but they are listing this one. Where on the page does it say it's amateur and do you have any other sources to back that up? --aktsu ^(t / c) 02:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A Google-translates version of the page gives "MC Spirit International Amateur Championship". I'm of the opinion that without further info about it, we can't make the decision that this thus shouldn't be listed on his record when Sherdog (a reliable source) considers it a professional bout no matter what the name of the tournament is. For all we know it could mean it's the equivalent to Shooto's B-class, which is still professional even though it's not on the top level (thus, "amateur"). I'm thinking the best way to resolve this is to email Sherdog and make them aware of what you pointed out above and let them make the decision (as anything we decide is close to WP:Original research). --aktsu ^(t / c) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the English version of his SpirtMC-profile calls the event "SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1", so we might be looking at at translation-error from Google. Also note that he fought for them two months later (April 2004) in what's always been considered a professional bout. I can find no indication of his first bout being amateur other than the tournamnet-name on the Google-translated profile. --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, see the about page and note that the Interleague is one step above their amateur league, while one step below their main league -- making me think it's indeed the equivalent to Shooto's B-class; at a lower level, but still professional. --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, where does it say the fight was part of a tournament? He didn't fight twice in one night, and he doesn't have any other fights listed. If it is, it could be that the other bouts were in fact amateur, but that the final was professional (interleague as opposed to amateur-league). --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, my apologies - I was mistaken about the Kim-Choi match being the final match. It was their first-round match. And yes, it was a tournament. Actually, there were 2 separate tournaments on that card. If you look at the Sherdog page on Spirit MC Interleague 1, or the above link provided by Drr Darkomen, you'll see that winners advance, with Young Choi being the eventual winner of his weight class. And the official name of the tournament is Spirit MC International Amateur Championship (스피릿MC 인터내셔널 아마추어 챔피언십). Kangaroo001 (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)kangaroo001

Spirit MC Interleague lets both amateur and pro fighters compete (http://mmamadness.com/mmapedia/25). I think this is why Sherdog lists that event as sanctioned professional event, thus every fight in that card gets categorized as a professional fight on the Sherdog website, similar to how Tito Ortiz fought as an amateur in his first event (UFC 13) but is listed on Sherdog. I know Sherdog is a reputable source, but since the fight in question occurred in Spirit MC, I tend to think Spirit MC site is more accurate with the result.

But Dong Hyun Kim was an amateur at the time of the Young Choi fight. Sorry , I couldn't find an English page, but here's an article from a reputable Korean sports site http://www.sportsseoul.com/news2/sports/fighter/2008/0501/20080501101030200000000_5486182887.html where it talks about Kim's loss to Young Choi in 2004, and he debuted as a pro afterwards. Kangaroo001 (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)kangaroo001

In my original post, I was hoping to provide some clarification, and not get in the middle of an edit war. I won't edit the Kim Dong-hyun article, but I do hope that his wiki page accurately reflects his pro record (whatever that may be). Kangaroo001 (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)kangaroo001

Also, the Young Choi loss has already been brought up here. I think there were some edits that around after DH Kim's win over Jason Tan (May or June of 2008?). Kangaroo001 (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)kangaroo001

(Undent) Thanks for the links, I'll do some reading :) That the event could have containing both pro and amateur fights makes sense, and would explain why Sherdog could have listed the fight even though it was amateur. I sent a mail to Jordan Breen at Sherdog to see if he knows anything. If it turns out it was amateur, I'll create another table for it to clarify it's not part of his pro-record. --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

- SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 Result -

http://www.spiritmc.org/eng/main.asp?mcat=events&scat=result&schedule=8 http://www.sherdog.com/events/Spirit-MC-Interleague-1-6543

Denis Kang, Jae Young Kim, Young Choi(japanese nickname is RYO), UFC Stun Gun. This event is not amateur. SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 is professional.

ex) SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 5 Result

http://www.spiritmc.org/eng/main.asp?mcat=events&scat=result&schedule=20 http://www.sherdog.com/events/Spirit-MC-Interleague-5-4977

[Denis Kang vs Jung Gyu Choi] is SPIRIT MC +80kg(heavyweight) title match.

http://www.spiritmc.org/ver3/files/game_result/smci5_16m_L1759_resize.jpg

Denis Kang worn SPIRIT MC heavyweight champion belt after INTERLEAGUE 5`s winning.

Amateur event don`t play host to title match. SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE is professional event. 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.113.124 (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your comments. There's no doubt that Denis Kang had been a pro fighter well before he fought for Spirit MC.

However, this Interleague event was an open event to pros and amateurs alike. In an announcement made by a Spirit MC spokesperson on their board, it was emphasized that the inaugural Interleague event was open to amateurs (but not exclusively).

Sorry, there's no English page to this, and there's no direct link. Go to http://www.spiritmc.org/kor/ Under NEWS -> 공지사항 (the first one), and the message # 93.

the fourth sentences reads: "또한 아마추어 대회임을 감안하여, 선수 보호를 최우선으로 생각하며 진행할 것임을 미리 알려드립니다. " which roughly translates into, "We are announcing that, because this is an amateur event, the safety of the participants will be the highest priority."

I realize that this source alone does not prove Dong Hyun Kim was an amateur at the time. But it does say that this particular Interleague event was not a pro tournament. There were monetary prizes given out, but no pro contracts or sponsorships to all fighters.

Given that this was a mixed event, and there's at least one Korean news source reporting on DH Kim's amateur status at the time, I tend to come to a conclusion that the loss to Young Choi was from an amateur bout. Kangaroo001 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Got a mail back from Breen; it is indeed amateur and he has now removed it from his pro record at the fightfinder. :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 03:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the follow up. Kangaroo001 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 prize money

http://www.spiritmc.org/ver3/main.asp?mcat=news&scat=notice_view&num=93

+80kg tournament winner : \3,000,000 = $2401.92 -80kg tournament winner : \2,000,000 = $1601.28

Amateur tournament? SPIRIT MC INTERLEAGUE 1 -80kg & +80kg tournament is professional tournament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.113.9 (talk) 06:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your source is the same one that I referred to in my previous post (thank you for posting a direct link btw). Twice in that notice they announce that that Interleague event for amateurs. Nowhere does it say that it's exclusively for pros or amateurs.

Many sporting events allow amateurs to compete with pros and allow them to keep their amateur status, as long as they follow their policies regarding qualifications, what they can accept as prizes, etc. US Open (golf) is one prime example. UFC has allowed Tito Ortiz to compete as an amateur.

Can you provide a source on the fighters' purse for Spirit MC Interleague 1, and that Dong Hyun Kim was paid as a professional for his fight in that event? Kangaroo001 (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kangaroo001 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Young Choi is -80kg tournament winner. He get \2,000,000. Why is [Young Choi vs Donghyun Kim] considered as an amatuer match? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.72.113.165 (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

External links at Muay Thai

Input needed at Talk:Muay_Thai#External_link:_ozfighters.com.au. Cheers, --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Quinton_Jackson#Feud_with_Mo_Lawal

BentleyJ894 (talk · contribs) added this section and I removed it as it to me comes of as extremely trivial in the grand scheme of things, especially considering Jackson have had feuds with actual substance (and which resulted in actual fights, not just talk). BentleyJ894 disagreed with my removal, so can we get a consensus for one way or the other? I don't think this is nearly notable enough for an entire section and at best it should have a single line, or just a mention of Lawal as an example of someone Rampage has been in "disagreement" with. --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Recentism. --aktsu ^(t / c) 13:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove I don't think it deserves even a single line at this point. My issues with the section are: 1) it is largely unsourced; there is a lot of information in that section that cannot be found in the single cited source. 2) They "have had a long standing feud." The article is from a week or two ago, how is this long standing? 3) It seems very non-notable in the career of Jackson. Definitely doesn't deserve its own second level section. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove I don't find it noteworthy at all. Perhaps if the "feud" continues for a year or two, then King Mo signs with the UFC, and then they are scheduled to fight one another it will be worth noting. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove WP:UNDUE for sure. This is certainly not a significant event in his life and certainly does not warrant any mention on this page unless something of actual significance follows. Including every (or any) feud for every fighter just does not work. If I may go off topic a bit, as to whoever wrote that paragraph, it is filled with unsourced subjectivity, most of which are untrue -- "long standing feud" (Jackson stated on his blog that he did not even know who King Mo was and had just met him, which is the very reason why King Mo was mad), "many believe that this fight is years away" awkward line for an encyclopedia entry, "internet sensation" duly disagree with this given that it has barely broken 100k views. Jonhan (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Remove seems like an attempt to increase the profile of Mo Lawal, I have removed as it seems poorly sourced for a biography and the consensus was going that way here--Nate1481 07:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove There is no chance of a fight happening anytime soon and seems trivial to me. I would put the Cro-Cop/Lesnar "Feud" on Wiki before this one. David.snipes (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Karate/MMA

Someone added a "World MMA champions" section to the karate article, now while both Machida & GSP do train in karate, this needs some expansion for a table of the two. --Nate^t/_c 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Strikeforce

You know the drill; input appreciated :) --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fighter Rankings

It was brought to my attention that User:Gavyg03 has made several edits which involve placing that fighter's rank according to http://www.fiveknuckles.com/ into their article. This isn't about FiveKnuckles as a source, because I have looked the site over quite a bit and it seems to be reliable for MMA related content. The problem is whether or not we should include a fighter's ranking in to their article. Please input.

• No. Rankings should not be included in articles for the following reasons:

• Rankings are highly subjective and vary widely from one source to another.
• Rankings change so often it is a maintenance nightmare to keep them updated even if we had true consensus rankings.

--Drr-darkomen (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I just saw all these edits and I tend to agree, there should not be subsections on rankings. Do we have any guidelines on what rankings from which sites should be included? The problem I can deduce from this specific user's edits is that his motives are very suspect. I think there is reason to believe he is an affiliate with that website. Jonhan (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Given the fact that this editor created an article title "FiveKnuckles" which was later deleted I too would say his individual edits are indeed suspect and most likely a form of advertising and certainly not adhering to a neutral point of view. This editor isn't the only one to include a fighter's ranking in to an article, however and is why I started this thread. Krzysztof Soszynski is an example of this. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I just noticed this as well and I'll admit I'm amazed someone else picked up on it too as that never seems to happen :) I note that one of the creators of Five Knuckles is named Gavin Vincent. As for my opinions, I think Gavyg03's additions should be reverted and that we should try to form a guideline of whose rankings are acceptable to note (because someone being ranked high -- especially at the top -- multiple places is notable, not to mention something like GSP, Silva and Fedor almost universally being in the top 3 P4P). I'm thinking the bar should be set quite a bit higher for rankings than what is usually accepted as reliable sources though, meaning we're looking at (from the top of my head) sites like Sherdog.com, Yahoo! Sports, MMAWeekly and SI.com. It may be such a list isn't a very good idea after all though, so I'm open to new ideas. I don't think anyone will convince me rankings (as a whole, from anyone) should never be noted though. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Aktsu, you might be able to swing me to the other side. I suppose I could endorse the inclusion of fighter rankings in articles if we could come to a consensus on a single source for said rankings. Trying to use multiple sources puts us in the ranking game, and that is obviously not our job here at Wikipedia. For divisional rankings I would propose either MMAWeekly's rankings or BloodyElbow's USA Toady/SB Nation consensus rankings. Sherdog, in general, seems to have an anti-ufc bias which may or may not trickle in to their rankings and so I do not favor them. As far as P4P rankings I am open to suggestion. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see anything good coming from us basically "endorsing" one set of rankings as they are opinions after all, but having "X is listed at #7 at Sherdog, #6 at MMAWeekly, #8 at SI.com, #5 at Yahoo! Sports, #9 USA Today, #3 MMA Fanhouse and #10 at Fox Sports" isn't exactly optimal either (or is it?). Another option is to simply note that someone is "in the top 10/top 5/top 3 at multiple MMA sites^refrefref", but some consensus rankings is certainly possible also -- I haven't really looked at any of them. --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is a very tricky issue which is why my initial vote was no. We could go with the more general top 3/top 5/top 10 suggestion with multiple references, but it also seems distasteful for some reason. Endorsing rankings would seem to be fine to me as long as those rankings are consensus rankings. That way they aren't the sole opinion of one entity, and we are dealing in opinion here. The Bloody Elbow rankings seem to be the most prominent consensus rankings out there. They base those rankings off of the following's rankings:

• Five Ounces of Pain
• Inside MMA
• MMA 4 Real
• MMA Fighting
• MMA Ratings
• MMA Rocks
• MMA Weekly
• Sherdog
• Total MMA
• WAMMA
• Fight Magazine
• Fight Matrix
• MMA ELO
• MMA Playground
• TAGG Radio
• MMA on Tap
• MMA Torch
• 411 Mania
• Cage Potato
• Sports Illustrated
• Houston Chronicle's Brawl Sports

That's a lot of reliable sources. Including MMA Weekly and Sherdog. It definitely gets my vote. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 22:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is quite a tricky issue. We don't want to magnify any site's rankings, but on the other hand, there is somewhat of a consensus about rankings from professional analysts with a very small standard deviation for any given fighter. Sherdog's deeply-rooted foundation as a reliable source, in my mind, gives it the undisputable #1 priority for inclusion. Jonhan (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please forgive me for not knowing how to use Wikipedia currently. I posted this in multiple places in the hopes that it will get to the right people. I'm Jason Perkins, Co-Creator of FiveKnuckles.com. My partner Gavin Vincent created a page for our website to give folks some background on the site. This was not done for the purposes of advertising, but simply to list ourselves amongst the database of MMA websites already contained on Wikipedia for informational purposes and to be recognized as the legitimate outlet that we are. We are a collection of writers from already accepted sources such as Sherdog.com, MMAWeekly, CagePotato, MMAJunkie, and Fightline.com. Our Alexa ranking has climbed to 78,000 in the few months we've been around due to our ability to break news in the sport and our integrity as a site to bring trusted information to our readers. The original page that was created by Gavin, was then re-edited almost immediately and was taken to a point of neutrality by several anonymous individuals which I'm sure you have a record of. However, Gavin proceeded to add our rankings to the fighter pages, which was done with the dual purpose of bringing in traffic and legitimacy, as several other outlets do this. While our rankings are seen as a legitimate source of knowledge in the MMA community and our collected monthly to form HDNet's "Inside MMA" monthly rankings, to me, it's unacceptable that they were added by us for the reasons that they were and I would agree with you folks that they should be removed. I would ask however that you view us with the same legitimacy that you hold for Sherdog.com, Yahoo.com, and MMA Weekly. We are affiliated with Yahoo! Sports as they sponsor our live event updates and have already been accepted as a trusted source in the MMA blogsphere, being sourced for breaking news on MMAMania, MMAFrenzy, Sherdog, BloodyElbow.com and many more accepted MMA websites. I apologize that this has been your introduction to our site, but in time, I'm confident that you will see the value of what we bring to the MMA community with our breaking news and reliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.153.132.62 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• No. I reject any rankings and substitute my own. As soon as we open the door to any rankings on here we are asking for an edit war- In the NCAA there are only 2 polls and they have a long history. If we even include Sherdog's rankings, what makes it better than 411mania, BloodyElbow or CNNSI? (and CNNSI's is a joke) Considering FiveKnuckles as a source is a seperate issue altogether, but unless the UFC or a GOVERNING body posts its official rankings- I feel this is something that is not needed and is a gateway to a MAJOR issue. David.snipes (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree that if the UFC releases a ranking it should be included. A ranking system devised by the UFC is as biased as it comes -- I highly doubt they would include any other fighters from other organizations around the world. A ranking system should come from professional analysts; whose purpose is to give a somewhat tentative portrait about the fighter's accomplishments and how his accomplishments have been perceived in the MMA world. This way, we can still give a somewhat accurate assessment of the fighter's career without excessive POV and subjectivity through prose. I'm not sure if I'm convinced that rankings need to be removed through these arguments yet, but I certainly acknowledge the points being made. Jonhan (talk) 02:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• • I have zero expertise or knowledge in MMA fighter rankings (never even looked them up). David.snipes and others bring up a good point. Maintenance for one and edits wars (points to anon IPs) over which ranking to use for a fighter regardless of what we may decide as a consensus. We have enough issues with aspects of articles such as flags (is Krzysztof Soszynski‎ Polish or Canadian? ;). If we open up another thing that people can play with we'll never be able to get any real work done. IMO, unless a fighter's ranking is significant we not put it in the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• This is exactly the reason for my initial no vote. And despite my willingness to try to come to a compromise, per my above posts, I still find it really difficult to say yes for exactly these reasons. We already have a lot of nightmare maintenance issues here at WP:MMA. And it is true that even when the 8 or 9 of us who regularly contribute here come to a consensus that we are vastly outnumbered by anonymous editors who are either unaware of what we have agreed to, or ignorant of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, or simply don't care about either. Random reordering of content, pretend numbers in record boxes, injection of personal opinion are all things that plague us. I would guess over 90% of my edits are just reverts of annon IP editors. The flag issue is another can of worms. We can't even seem to agree among ourselves on that one (despite clear indications at MOS:FLAGS that we shouldn't be using them at all IMO ;-)). Even if we can come to a consensus about whose rankings are to be used there will be constant edit warring and whining about it anyway. Of course if we decide there won't be rankings at all people will undoubtedly try to put them in anyway. Rankings are such a fluid thing anyway that to me it almost doesn't make sense to be included among encyclopedic content. By nature any text we add to an article about that fighter's ranking will necessarily change, and ultimately be removed as their rank changes based on performance and whim, definitively ending once they retire. So we're talking hundreds and thousands of edits to hundreds of articles that when it's all said and done there will be nothing to show for the work because all fighters drop off the rankings eventually. Contrast this to fight records which although they change often and require a lot of work to keep current, eventually will remain static once the athlete has ceased active competition. There is reward for that work whereas there is none for listing current (fickle) rankings. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with David.snipes. I had no idea my contributions would have made such an uproar or I would not have taken them. Five Knuckles is a creditable source and I was just throwing their name in the mix. I 100% accept any action you take and have immediately seized action that I started last night. It would be nice if you could activate their Wikipedia page much like you have done for Sherdog. The rankings area is a tough one and like I said, thought I was contributing in a positive way as well as includings/updating some of the other sites while throwing in FK.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavyg03 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• So what's the consensus? I do not really care either way. Many articles are somewhat inconsistent at the moment -- a few have rankings, others have been removed by a few users. I'd like to start cleaning then all up. Any other inputs? What's are we going to decide to do. Jonhan (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't seem like a unanimous consensus... but the majority put forth a no. I was waiting to see if more discussion was going to take place. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• If rankings are going to be kept they should look like those on Georges St-Pierre's page. No names of websites just "he is currently ranked by multiple MMA publications as the number-one welterweight in the world" followed by two credible independent citations. And in the case of P4P "is ranked as one of the top "Pound for pound" fighters by multiple MMA sources" as opposed to specifying an exact P4P ranking which would require different site rankings to be specified. Another idea would also be to link to dynamic pages for the citations so they don't become obsolete when the rankings change, example. http://www.sherdog.com/news/rankings/list as opposed to http://www.sherdog.com/news/articles/5/Sherdog-Official-Mixed-Martial-Arts-Rankings-19059 The USA TODAY / SB Nation Consensus MMA Rankings are also good in that the url http://www.bloodyelbow.com/rankings links directly to dynamic rankings which would obviously cut down on the work of maintaining the rankings on fighter pages. Phospheros (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

List of "notable fighters" at Strikeforce

On UFC, Pride FC and Dream's articles, the list of "notable fighters" only consists of champions (as I think it should), but at Strikeforce Sea888 (talk · contribs) think his choice of notables should be listed -- not champions only. I believe the only way to make the list objective is to in fact only list champions since, per the original research-policy, we can't ourself determine who belongs on such a list. A similar issue to this was brought up previously regarding listing "notable fights" in the lead to bios, in which I believe we decided against that for exactly the reason that we're not the ones to decide which fights are notable or not (it's probably in the archive, but I can't look it up right now). Should the consensus still be to list only champion? --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, some things people should ask themselves before answering: who goes on such a list, who doesn't? What if someone thinks someone doesn't belong -- are they wrong? Why is Kim Couture on there, but not Erin Toughill (who's a replacement in Cyborg-Carano), Sarah Kaufman (who's undefeated) or Miesha Tate (who has both far more fights total and more in Strikeforce) -- are they more or less notable, which ones belong? If someone stops being a "Strikeforce-fighter", should they be removed as they are no longer part of what makes contemporary Strikeforce notable? Is the intention of such a list only to make SF itself seem more important by name-dropping, or is it informative? Does one fight in SF qualify to be one of their "notable fighters" (for example, what if someone comes over from Dream/M-1 for one fight?)? Do you need any fights at all, or is it enough to be a prospect (Roger Gracie)? Who decides which prospects are notable and which aren't? (Also, just to cover this as well: is it possible to instead simply just list of all fighters in Strikeforce, or is that just unencyclopedic and WP:Fancruft/WP:Listcruft?) --aktsu ^(t / c) 09:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Champions & former champions of that org are a definite, after that it's blurry & if you want a List of Strikeforce Fighters article that would be the place for them with formers and 1-off fighters in separate sections. For the UFC non-champions who are in the UFC Hall of Fame are also notable for that reason, so it would then be an org by org call if the HoF fighters should be notable too. If a source makes a case for them being a notable fighter for Strikeforce then add the source, otherwise it's made up of personal opinions. It may be a good idea to have a project guideline on what makes a fighter notable for an org i'd start with what I outlined above, as being verifiable (champion, notable HoF or sourced).-- Nate1481 (talk • contribs)

I'm not completly opposed to listing persons who is sourced as an especially important person for an organization (say maybe something like what Hidehiko Yoshida was for Pride), but the bar needs to be set pretty high as it's an extremly slippery slope.. We shouldn't be making lists of fighters though, that what we have categories for. --aktsu ^(t / c) 12:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree champions and former champs are a must, overall ranked fighters and fighters who have been in a main event should be noted.Sea888 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good criteria IMO. Listing champions only isn't perfect (Pride ends up missing Sakuraba e.g.), and including main-eventers gives us a proper criteria while not being too inclusive I think. Ranking are more sketchy (who's rankings, how many and why x but not x+1 etc.), but adding main eventers to the list I think I can get behind and would preffer to some scary "must be sourced as notable" criteria. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I could get behind this idea. Sounds like a good compromise that avoids over complicating the criteria. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Main event fighters are going to be notable for a given promotion so I like this. Champion or main event is nice and unambiguous too (except to you include UFC fight nights & TUF finales?) --Nate1481 09:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd say no it should be limited to the promotion's flagship cards. Determining that for the UFC and Strikeforce probably isn't a problem, but what about, say, Pride's Bushido cards? Also, while the criteria seems to work pretty well for Strikeforce, how does it work for a promotion as big as the UFC? Anyone up for making a list? --aktsu ^(t / c) 00:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

UFC List is here if you want to take a look: User:Drr-darkomen/Sandbox/List_of_Notable_UFC_Fighters

Definitely a bit longer than Strikeforce's, yeah :P Not sure how I feel about having different criteria for different orgs., but maybe it works as the organizations are pretty different as well -- I dunno. If it was totally up to me, I think I would get rid of the list entirely in favour of only the champions-list (List of Strikeforce champions/List of UFC champions) and instead integrate mentions of the especially important figures in the prose (Shamrock/Lidell/Ortiz/Sakuraba being massive draws etc.), but I guess people like the list so whatever. --aktsu ^(t / c) 14:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly feel fedor and Rogers should be mentioned for the follwing reasons for each. barring any injury, failed drug test or death the match is confirmed http://www.tsn.ca/mma/story/?id=288937. Fedors signing is quite substantial to amke him notable as hes been notable in almost every promotions hes been in. Rogers knocked out arlovski at Strikeforce: Lawler vs. Shields (Punisher88 (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

• I would actually support a system where Champions and ex-champions of that promotion, as well as headliners of major shows of that promotion PLUS notable fighters from other major promotions who have not yet met the criteria within the promotion be listed as long as we applied these rules to all promotions and not just Strikeforce. This does make for a HUGE UFC list, but I hate applying different rules to different promotions. However that would require us to revisit an old conversation. What makes a promotion major? This was brougt up when we were trying to come to consensus on which fighters should be considered notable enough to have their own article. It was never resolved and abandoned. My personal viewpoint is there there have only been two major MMA promotions EVER. PRIDE and UFC. Strikefore isn't there yet (on its way though). DREAM and Sengoku aren't there yet. Affliction is dead and buried after two shows. So it would be my suggestion that only PRIDE and UFC be counted as major promotions and that any fighter who has fought for either promotion be considered notable. By extension Fedor would be included in Strikeforce's notable fighters now. Rogers would have to wait. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC) [edit] On a side note... my first choice would be to not include a list of "notable" fighters at all on promotion articles. We should have a section (or article) on Champion history and that's it. If we have to have a list of notable fighters then my position is stated. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Weight/Height Statistics

When determining a fighter's weight in height, is there a priority that we employ? It is between, from what I know as references, UFC.com stats/Sherdog.com stats/and the misc. reliable article.

Height is more in contention. I've seen Sherdog and UFC with, often times, contradicting heights. Then there's the misc. article, which takes priority?

Weight is more of a heavyweight issue, but I'm assuming the most recent weigh-in misc article is most appropriate yes? But it can often be different than UFC.com's weight. For example, Shane Carwin is 262 at UFC.com and 259.5 at his last weigh in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonhan (talk • contribs) 23:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as weight, most recent reliable data. I would go with sherdog for height. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What I was thinking too, just wanted some confirmation. Jonhan (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

MMA Statsbox

This may have been answered already but I'm going to ask anyway.Should the mma fighters mma statsbox look like the one on Cain Velasquez's page or just the regular one that just states the mma stats? It seems helpful for fighters who have pro kickboxing or pro boxing records but it seems unnecessary for fighters who don't have these records.I guess what I'm asking is if statsboxes like the one on Cain's page is now the standard or every mma fighter.Thanks. (MgTurtle (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)).

Yeah, that infobox ({{Infobox martial artist}}) it's pretty much better in every way to the old {{MMAstatsbox}} so there shouldn't be a problem :) It's pretty long (code-wise) with all the boxing- and kickboxing-fields though, so feel free to remove them if it's unlikely they'll be applicable. --aktsu ^(t / c) 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay.thanks for the answer. Another question though.Looking at the new infobox format I noticed that there are breaks between the stats. Why are the breaks there? I don't think it shows up on the page but if the breaks are necessary, i'd like to know before I do anything.Thanks.(MgTurtle (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)).

I would guess the breaks are there for readability reasons. I doubt there would be a change in the output if you leave them or take them out. However, to edit the box, having the breaks may help in figuring out what is where. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense.Thanks.(MgTurtle (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)).

Speaking of MMA Statsbox, shouldn't we update the Project page from "All articles should begin with a MMA statsbox" to "Infobox martial artist"? --Phospheros (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this has been now updated. The conversion of all uses of MMAstats to martial artist is complete as well. It took about four hours with AWB (1000 transclusions), and as an added bonus, the script cleaned up around 900 malformed birth dates, weights, heights, reaches. I will run the cleanup portion on transclusions of {{infobox martial artist}}, but that will take a bit longer. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

List of UFC champions

Has anyone ever brought up the idea of splitting this article up into ones about the individual championships, then renaming the article Ultimate Fighting Championship championships, formatting it to have a section on the history of all accomplishments rather than having the history of all merged into one article? Could be like the way WP:PW does with titles and awards.--WillC 05:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a decent idea. Can't see the actually writing of the title-histories happening anytime soon, but setting up the framework would at least invite it. --aktsu ^(t / c) 09:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the heavyweight and light heavyweight titles have large enough histories that they could each be taken to FLC on their own. However, if we decided to take the route of WP:PW, we could move the title histories to individual lists (example: List of UFC Heavyweight Champions), then take them to FLC, while having the main article (example: UFC Heavyweight Championship) taken to GAN after an extensive expansion. It wouldn't be hard to do either. I have experience with championships, so I wouldn't mind taking over the duty to expand everything. I just need to know which sites have been proven reliable when it comes to MMA.--WillC 12:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to stop you :) Been a long time since I saw some proper content-writing re. MMA on WP. When it comes to sources, Sherdog is a sure bet, as is anything by Dave Meltzer (who coincidentally made a recap of all 100 events prior to UFC 100 for Yahoo Sports which might be useful). MMAWeekly.com should also be good as well as anything by Josh Gross (now at SI.com). Those are probably the ones which no reasonable person would argue doesn't pass WP:RS, but you also have a lot of semi-reliable sites like MMAJunkie.com, Fiveouncesofpain.com and BloodyElbow.com where you can make the argument for reliability based on content-sharing affiliations with major sites like Fox and Yahoo Sports, SI.com and USA Today, but where much of the content is written by freelance bloggers without any real content-control. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suspect Meltzer's work to be considered reliable. I'll check Slam Sports, and a few other sites WP:PW uses to see if there is anything about MMA on them. Usually I'll see a few mentions weekly from WrestleView.com alone. I'll begin work on each title in a subpage. This will probably take a while to complete so don't expect this be finished anytime soon.--WillC 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Record column for fighters

What do you guys think about the record column on the page?

A user once mentioned it was tacky before and unnecessary (but he was never really answered). Another good argument [for its removal] in addendum is that it takes a good amount of space in the record box; in addition, the overall record can certainly be seen in other places so it may be unnecessary to reintroduce it in the record table.

My personal opinion is that I find it makes the record tables easier to navigate, which is why I even prefer it over Sherdog's fight finder layout. For example, I can look at it and say to myself "Babalu was 22-5 when Shogun lost to him" etc. on immediate sight, without counting wins/losses from the bottom-up.

Anyhow, the inclusion of a record column is worth discussing, if it should be added or not. Or perhaps a hybrid like in the page of Joe_Warren_(fighter) is worth discussing.

Just looking for some opinions and consensus on what you think. Jonhan (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

My opinion about a column for records it that it is:

• Redundant. Any information the column states can be directly inferred from the win/loss column.
• Takes up room. Over time, so much information has been crammed into the fight record table that it is becoming unreadable. This is one of the columns I feel can be eliminated to help with the addition of excess information in the table.

Just my opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Division Statistic

Is there a general consensus for specifying the division statistic (E.G. 170 vs. welterweight) the way it's set up now 170 would be used which would then link to "Welterweight (MMA)". That's what I favor as there is still no uniformity in MMA. In King of the Cage the Flyweight division is 135 where as in most North American MMA promotions Flyweight is 125 and Shooto's featherweight division is set at 132, so stating a # tells you more than saying Bantamweight. Thoughts? --Phospheros (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I would go with what division they fight in thier primary organization, for example there is a local fighter here that fights from 170 all the way to 125, but when he gets fights from Bellator or USAMMA he only fights at 145. So if I created a page for him, I would place him in that division. I can see for the pounds- but the problem there is there is a TON of changes there- at UFC 100 he was 204, at 105 he was 203.5 at UFC 110 he was 205- we would have to change that page every event almost. David.snipes (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The pounds at division don't change, as they are not how much a fighter weighs in at but rather the maximum for a division, Georges St-Pierre fights at what the UFC and the athletic commissions that follow the unified rules term welterweight which has a maximum weight allowance of 170 (+ 1 lb weight allowance for non-title fights) so regardless of what he weighs in at 168, 169.5, etc. 170 would still be correct. As for fighters who compete in multiple weight divisions such as Anderson Silva simply list them (E.G. 185 & 205). --Phospheros (talk) 00:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Listing the maximum of the divisons they compete in makes sense as it's shorter for info boxes but in the text I think include the division name weight in brackets, you need ot include the units (lb) as well as many UK organisations use Kg limits. --Nate^t/_c 11:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it should have division name and then units as well in the infobox. That would be the most accurate. To have just a plain number is confusing. I dont think its necessary to add years behind it as well but im not against it either.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

When this conflicts with this, which one should we believe? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You should email Jordan Breen (jbreen@sherdog.com) to clarify the record. It looks like they are counting an amateur fight on his pro record also mixedmartialarts.com has a 2009 fight as amateur.--Phospheros (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Inch to centimeter conversion

Inch to centimeter conversion doesn't work correctly without a decimal point. So if a fighter has a reach of 72 in, 72.0 needs to be used to get a proper conversion. --Phospheros (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You can also specify the precision in the convert template. I can have AWB check all uses in {{infobox martial artist}}. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be great if you could have the bot add .0 on to all reach measurements without a decimal (assuming that's possible). Also if you could strip all brackets [[]] from Stance as they are auto linked by the template however stance will not show if brackets are used. --Phospheros (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I will run AWB later today. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Machida Karate

The page Machida Karate either needs a rewrite and references or it needs to be deleted, any thoughts?

(also posted at WikiProject Martial arts) --Phospheros (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus needed at Talk:Kim Dong-hyun regarding including information about amateur career

... regarding whether to list a known amateur fight on his page or not. --aktsu ^(t / c) 19:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bump! (Or, per Sherdog.net: TTT!) Started a RFC. Input appreciated. --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Q: If other more notable fighters do not have their "amateur records" listed...why should Dong hyun Kim? Why single him out in particular? It reeks of malicious intent.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.72.44 (talk • contribs)

Which fighters is that? If you have sources to back it up, feel free to add it -- it's just that in most cases there simply are none. --aktsu ^(t / c) 08:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it's necessary, as we mostly only care about professional records, in sanctioned bouts, as opposed to exhibition and amateur records. While, if the fight is noteworthy enough (such as the exhibition match between Roy "Big Country" Nelson and Kevin "Kimbo Slice" Ferguson) it can be included as a small little piece of a section, the entire amateur record has no need of being listed. Plus, the records will most likely be woefully incomplete and/or riddled with inaccuracies. Fatalhitx (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alistair Overeem

Can someone put a protection on Overeem's page i'd really appreciate it.thxMarty Rockatansky (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done 1 week. By the way, you will get a faster response at WP:RFPP. I don't know how many admins watch this page. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 16:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks brother Spork.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 17:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mirko Filipović

There is some dispute as to what the the final result of the Junior dos Santos vs. Mirko Filipović should be listed as.

• The Texas Dept. of Licensing and Regulation list it as - TKO
• Sherdog lists it as - Submission (Punch)
• Mixed Martial Arts list it as - TKO/RSC
• UFC lists it as - Submission (Other)
• Wikipedia currently list it as - Verbal Submission (Punch)

--Phospheros (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Texas Dept. of Licensing and Regulation (the governing body)'s listed result is the result. While the other ones might be more informative (or even more "correct"), they're not the official result. I'd vote for having the actual result as the result, but explaining the situation somewhere possibly with mentions of the UFC's/Sherdog's interpretation. --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright if there are no objections I will update Filipović's and Dos Santos's pages to reflect a TKO, I'll use the "Notes" section to mention that Sherdog & the UFC record the bout as ending in a Submission. --Phospheros (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Phospheros (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Weight class notability

The MMA weight class pages have listings for notable fighters in each division (example: Lightweight (MMA)) I think it would be helpful to come up with a set of consensus guidelines as to what constitutes notability in this instance to keep the list from getting overly broad. --Phospheros (talk) 02:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

How about the 'old' standby of champions and tournament winners... for that weight class? --TreyGeek (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with 'champions' in MMA is that there are a 1,000 of them, it still comes back to subjectivity, do we only list champions of major organizations? What constitutes a major vs a minor org.? I'm starting to think it might just be easier to get rid of the lists. --Phospheros (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Getting rid of the lists may be nice, but it's going to be a fight. When I said champions and tournament winners I was thinking notable fighters who are champions and tournament winners. By that, the Heavyweight Champion of Extreme Combat Martial Arts out of Podunk, Texas would not count. There is a thread somewhere (possibly archived at this point) on discussions of what makes a fighter notable. In that thread we began discussing the issue of major vs minor vs local promotions/organizations. Maybe it should be revisited?

Just to make clear, I have no problems axing the lists of 'notable' fighters in the weight class articles. My points above are to handle the possible situation of people insisting there be such a list. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Entrance Music

There have been several additions of the entrance music for each fighters. There is no source given, however, so I suspect that an editor is simply listening to the music himself and adding it to the event article. This seems to me to be a pretty clear violation of the ban on original research. I would like to remove the sections, but wanted to get input here before I proceeded to see if anyone has a reliable source for the music.--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Without citing a source it'd be pretty hard to WP:VERIFY the music. I'd be in support of removing those sections if they remain unsourced. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Source: UFC 80 DVD  :-)

I fail to see the problem with adding music. In certain instances sush as on the Tito page. it adds a good bit to the fighter's personality. David.snipes (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem is if the list of entrance music is that it should be sourced, like all things on Wikipedia. If the list of entrance music on a fighter's page is not sourced, I do not see a problem in it being removed until someone provides a WP:Verifiable source. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:Verifiable Para 2: Electronic media may also be used. So if you saw the Event itself- and can prove it via the CD/DVD - then its sourced. David.snipes (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I won't argue that. However, how many articles with lists of entrance music actually cite a source? Without the actual citation it can and should be removed. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Using the event as a source doesn't work because it would entail listening to the audio and comparing it to a known song, which would be original research. --aktsu ^(t / c) 17:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's unfortunate really as it is a useful addition to the pages, but how on earth would you find a source for this thing? I realise how it breaks X rules and would like to find a source to allow it to stay on the page, but I've no idea where to find such a thing. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The inability to find reliable sources would be an indication that the content doesn't really belong here. Personally, I find entrance music to be more like trivia than something I'd call "useful". —LOL ^T/_C 03:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn on this- I think its relevant, easily verified (watching should be good enough- how else do we get the WINNERS of the fights?) Maybe the entrance music would be better off on the fighters page instead? David.snipes (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability is the issue. If there is a dispute on who won a match (or as frequently occurs how a match was won), there are sources to verify that information (usually state athletic commission websites which publish the results as well as MMA news sites). If there is a dispute on what song a fighter enters with, how can you verify what song is correct? Without a reliable source, you can't.

I'd also be extremely interested in hearing an argument on exactly how it is relevant to an MMA event, MMA match, or MMA fighter what music a person enters the arena with. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Same with Kids, spouses, religeon etc? David.snipes (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories

I've noticed that we have categories such as Brazil mixed martial artists // England mixed martial artists // Canadian mixed martial artists etc. I was wondering if we should also start adding some such as California mixed martial artists , Texas mixed martial artists

Just a thought David.snipes (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think its a good idea. and its used already for baseball, football and basketball players. Category:American mixed martial artists by state would be a subcategory of Category:American sportspeople by state.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if no one has an issue with it by Monday- I'll start it up Monday. David.snipes (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Theres a [Category:African American sportspeople] i think we should add mixed martial artists there as well. I can help you out Snipes, theres 550+ pages to categorize.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, I just figure I'll add them as I'm running around wiki- I'll probably hit all the UFC roster by the end of the year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Mixed_Martial_Artists_from_LA&action=edit&redlink=1 Someone is going to have to show me what I'm doing wrong however. Nevermind, I think I got it. I'll try to get all the states done first then start filling them in.David.snipes (talk) 13:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I feel we need an overhaul of when fights can be added to PPV pages

Hi, currently, wikipedia has the problem of fights being added to pages when there is the slightest rumour to suggest said fight will take place. A few that spring to mind lately are Wanderlei Silva vs. Michael Bisping, Randy Couture vs. Mark Coleman and Georges St.Pierre vs. Dan Hardy. My problems with these fights are as follows:

• Silva/Bisping - this originally was a rumour that had as much strength as the Silva/Akiyama fight. Then, we received news that Silva had agreed to the fight, but we had no indication of whether Bisping has, nor any news on the contract signing. For this reason, I feel that the fight should not be included.

• Couture/Coleman was, earlier this week, rumoured to be taking place and that both men had agreed to the bout. Today, a new source has been added to this fight to say that Coleman has officially signed the bout agreement, but that Couture's camp could not be reached to confirm likewise. As such, again, the bout is not official, despite being agreed on, therefore a number of factors can occur that prevent this fight (e.g. Silva/Akiyama with a potential replacement being found).

• St.Pierre/Hardy is highly rumoured and has no official location/date/agreement. Someone created a page for UFC 111 (I think it was) saying that this fight would take place there, on the basis of one weak rumour.

Because of these examples, I feel that we should hold off and discourage fights being added until bout agreements have been signed by both parties. There are a number of bouts that I, personally, would disagree with and would prefer to remove, but don't due to the likelihood that users/IPs would revert. However, I feel that the MMA Project should make new rules as to when fights can be added to the main page and I think it should be when bout agreements are signed by both members of a fight. If IPs and misinformed users were to continue to re-add the fights, it's a case of letting them know and perhaps adding "bout agreed" fights to the background as is currently the common practice. Any comments? Paralympiakos (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel there need to be any "rules" created for this situation. If a fight is not reliably sourced, it should be removed. WP:Reliable and WP:Speculation already covers this problem. IPs will still make their edits regardless, so we just have to stay on top of them and revert any improper additions/edits. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I just feel that fights like Cain/Nog on UFC 110 shouldn't be there presently. It's being targetted for that event and I think that they've verbally agreed to the fight, but in terms of official signings, I don't think I've heard anything. For this reason, it should be backgrounded, but presently, it's in the officially unannounced fights. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion on this issue here. Bascially, if a bout is unsourced or rumored, it should be removed. If a bout has a signed contract or both parties have reportedly agreed to a bout, then it can stay as long as it's properly sourced.

As for the fight you mentioned, I looked at the cited source, and it says "Verbal agreements are in place for the contest" so it would be allowable (unless consensus on this matter changes). --TreyGeek (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough then. It was a new consensus I was looking for. The main reason being that UFC has become less predictable in my opinion, over the last few months in terms of its rumoured fights actually taking place. There have been a few occasions when we've heard strong rumours of a fight, only for it to be cancelled or a participant changed (e.g. Silva vs. Bisping/Akiyama). Now you may say that upon that eventuality, we can change it, but I'm just wondering whether adding these rumours is within the rules. It was my understanding that rumours are not to be added, which for all intents and purposes, a lot of these fights originally are. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

If a fight is "rumored" then yes, it should not be on Wikipedia. If a reliable source reports that a fight is agreed to, then it's not really rumor any more. I will also extend this to the potential GSP/Hardy title bout. Until it is actually signed or agreed to, we shouldn't mention it other than stating Hardy won a #1 contender's bout. (Afterall, the UFC could decide to let GSP fight someone else before Hardy gets his title shot.)

To recap: signed contract or verbal agreement = good. All else = bad.  :) --TreyGeek (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The biggest problem I sometimes find is that different Reliable Sources report conflicting information (around the same time which negates any recency arguement).(Justinsane15 (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC))

Joe Son arrest update

The article on Joe Son has been pretty much static for a while, with little further information on his arrest and charges filed against him over a year ago. There are legal proceedings ongoing, as you can see here [1] (p. 67), but I can't find any secondary sources that I could use to update the article. The main problem is that searching for "Joe Son" on the Internet is uniquely difficult.

Can anyone help? gnfnrf (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The same problem with Jeff Monson, he was supposed to be senetnced in October 2009, but nobody seems to know what happened with that and he's still fighting on a consistent basis. (Justinsane15 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

That was actually pretty easy. He's on work release. Added and cited in article. gnfnrf (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

UFC and UFN article names

Currently, the UFC events template looks as such:

WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 5

Why do the UFNs have fighter names, but the main UFC events do not? Surely it should just be numbers for every event or names and numbers for every event. For the purpose of space, I think the articles should be renamed as UFN (number) like the current UFC articles are. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the UFC uses numbers for fight nights anymore. They will still use numbers for their major shows and add a subtitle (ie "Ortiz vs. Griffin 2" is the subtitle to UFC 106). So, without the UFC officially using numbers for fight nights then they shouldn't be numbered in the template, IMO. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

They do use the numbers internally and with the media, but on the promos they do not- so I think there is no change needed on the Template, but on the article itself it should remain Ortiz vs Shamrock 3 also known as Ultimate Fight Night 7 ---David.snipes (talk) 13:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

MMA Junkie

I made an article for MMA Junkie. Are there any reliable sources to make it notable? Portillo (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Why would you create an article without reliable sources in it to prove notability from the start? I doubt MMA Junkie would be notable for Wikipedia. --TreyGeek (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Im an Inclusionist. Portillo (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but gather sources first? Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It won the award for Best Media Source at the 2009 World MMA Awards, I would say its pretty notable. There's plenty of relaible articles covering the World MMA Awards that mention MMAJunkie. (Justinsane15 (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

Do you think we should make another article with sources? It also won 2008 Best Media and 2009 Best MMA Journalist. Portillo (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to create the article in a sandbox. Then when you are happy with it, ask other editors to provide feedback. If it is 1) well written, 2) properly sourced, 3) shows notability then I would suggest recreating the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone standardize the pages?

Can someone with a bot standardize the record boxes to the one in the main project page here

Half the pages have record boxes that either have something missing, is arranged differently or, is altogether altered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Silva (this one is normal)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Lutter

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manny_Tapia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirko_crocop

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Alvarez

Some examples I found, all are different. It's a big mess 128.54.175.110 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Nate^t/_c 08:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah those were just examples, a vast majority of the fighters pages are inconsistent with each other and the standard formatting like that. It would take too much time correct all of them by hand, but with a bot it would be instant. I don't have a bot though haha but I know some contributer here does. 128.54.175.110 (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jon Jones (fighter) vandalism

Just a heads up, Jon Jones' page has been vandalized quite a bit over the last couple of days. I've fixed it up, but even as I was doing that, others were vandalizing it.

Thought you guys might want to keep an eye on it. --James Duggan 07:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

British pratictionisers category needs fixing

I created a British Jiu-Jitsu practitioners by nationality but I realised my mistake can someone fix it please? I dunno how to. Dwanyewest (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Is there a list somewhere of which MMA-related websites are considered reliable sources, and which are not? If not, it might be a good thing to create. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

don't like the idea personally. it puts us in a position where we're taking anything on those websites based on authority. generally sites like sherdog, mmajunkie, mmaweekly, etc. can be used as good references, but they can and are often wrong many times. a non-credible list would be much more appropriate imo. 128.54.175.110 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would be fine, too. I just think that we should try to address it in one fashion or another, as there are a lot of MMA articles out there right now with "mystery meat" sources. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Video game section does have a "approved" list of sources- but this section for some reason must be getting a check from Sherdog, as it is the only "Gold Standard" of sources. David.snipes (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

UFC 24

Please note that the reference to Scott Adams's page leads to an author with the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.160.216.209 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Thanks, Feel free to make any other changes you see on those early ones. David.snipes (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Biography sections?

An article about a person is a Biography [2] ... so I don't understand why MMA bios need a bio section. Hutcher (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I always thought a "biography" section was a bit strange myself. I think "career", "personal life", "early life", ... are better. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Hutcher (talk) 05:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Gracie Family template needs working on

I have created a gracie family template anyone wanting to adjust it be my guest.

Dwanyewest (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a wiki list of Gracie's anywhere? If so, I'd happily help you with this template if you want. Otherwise, my knowledge is very patchy. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Pride Articles

The Pride Articles need major work there is no display of weight and should be fixed. Mollica93 (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for addition of some rules into the main WPMMA page

At the moment, the unwritten rule is that fights cannot be added to PPV cards or the MMA records of fighters, until bout agreements have been signed and returned.

However, therein lies the problem; the rule is unwritten, I think.

Lately, I'm being battered by IPs with grievances because their edits are being undone by myself and the occasional other user. Upon explaining the reason for removal, I'm getting lots of moaning, fake threats, warnings and vandalism to my talk page. I've even been reported by User:Caio Morone for "3RRing" because I dared to keep the format of UFC 109 as the same as every other UFC page, but he couldn't take that, nor give a good reason for his counter productive edits.

My request therefore is more help in removing these unsigned bouts and also some form of literature in the main page of WPMMA, so that it can be linked to, to show IPs and other users when they are misinformed, thus hopefully reducing the amount of warnings I'm getting for doing the RIGHT thing.

I await people's opinions. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great, in theory. However, I fear it won't stop the mistaken edits by IPs and uninformed users. (I say mistaken in attempt to assume good faith.) Quite honestly, in my opinion, battling erroneous edits by IPs and uninformed users is a never ending battle and the biggest cause for established editors to become more inactive over time. I don't have a permanent solution for it other than banning edits by IPs (and that will not happen any time soon). --TreyGeek (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just thought maybe, for those mistaken IPs who are willing to learn, this would help them, as it's not just a user telling them what to do; it's actual documentation by the WPMMA community, which holds far more "say-so" than just one user on their own. If you don't think it's worth it, then fair enough, but I was hoping we could get something to help us out. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've made a draft of what this could be, so that we at least have some set guidelines and something to quote. Hopefully it will help the MMAProject.

How does this look? (Bear in mind any changes can be suggested)

Structure for adding future fights to Wikipedia

MMA fights are subject to change, because of injury or simply through an organisation changing that fighters opponent. As such, it is common practice not to add fights to pages, simply because they are rumoured, as it creates unnecessary work to remove the fights oncee cancelled. The WP:MMA guidelines are to add the fights in the following order.

• Adding future fights to fighters pages and to MMA event pages is perfectly acceptable and welcomed, but the bouts must have signed bout agreements before they can be added to a fighters MMA record section.

In addition, if fights do not have signed bout agreements, then they should be placed in a "Background" section, labelled as such, rather than "Rumoured Matchups" to avoid WP:SPECULATION

• When fights aren't officially announced by the relevant organisation, but have signed bout agreements, they can be moved to the "Announced Matchups" section of an event page, which looks like this:

==Other Announced Matchups==

These matches have been reported as finalised by reliable sources but have not yet been added to the official card on (organisation's website)

When fights are added to this section, they can also be added to a fighters MMA record on their unique wiki article.

So how does that seem? Any changes you would make? Also, where exactly on the page would you place this? Paralympiakos (talk) 01:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of this has been discussed before: "Other announced matchups" sections and not adding future fights to fighter's record box. I'll simply point to my comments in those two threads in regards to this one. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Having read through that, it seems as though you pretty much share the same opinions on this matter as me. As for it being discussed before, it has, but it's not been implemented into the main project page, meaning we've not got anything to link to other than archived discussion. Paralympiakos (talk) 16:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The biggest disagreement I have with what you stated above is adding a future match to a fighter's record box (their record history so to speak). I don't believe a fight should be added to the record box until AFTER the fight is over.

Also, archived discussions are perfectly legitimate to point to to show consensus on these matters. It does not have to appear on the WikiProject page. (Not like IPs are looking at the WikiProject page anyhow when they muss with articles.) --TreyGeek (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can easily change that if you want to. I just feel that it's at least a step up if it is in the main page. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've long since given up trying to enforce the previously determined consensus on not adding future fights to a fighter's record box. It comes down to the uphill battle against people who would care less to come here and find out what should and should not go into articles and boxes (mostly IPs but some registered users as well). So, whether we allow future fights in the record box or not, it no longer matters to me. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

CLUB DE LA PELEA MEXICO

Organizacion espezializada en la enseñanza, promoción y organizacion de eventos de Atyrd Marciales Mixtas en la Cd. De México.

Fundado en 2006 con su propia linea de ropa y patrocinio de peleadores con MMAXFIGHTS. En 2007 inaugura sus instalaciones deportivas en la Cd. de México, siendo el primer gi,masio concepto en su tipo con octágono, ring de boxeo, tatami de 134 m2; area de costales y maestros experimentados como peleadores "profesionales" de Artes MArciales Mixtas en México. Conociendo las limitantes que esto supone.

Tres años despues en 2010, el Club De La Pelea privilegia la profesionalización, la seguridad y el conocimiento del Reglamento Unificado por la Association of Boxing Comissions que sanciona y protege la integriad de los peleadores y el deporte en los Estados Unidos y Canada, al ser la unica organización que ha capacitado a miembros de su staff con Big John MacCarthy.

C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroeydios (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody speak Spanish? Paralympiakos (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't. But google does. The text above appear to be at least a partial cut and paste of an es.wikipedia.org article. No explanation as to why it's here. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Heads up re: a user

Someone might want to keep an eye on the edits being made by user:Pdl MMA. The edits by that user could be construed as spam or conflict of interest violations. Chicken Wing (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Results pages WEC 1 through WEC 23

A series of pages title WEC 1, WEC 2, etc. through WEC 23 appear to contain the results of World Extreme Cagefighting events. Some have a very short lead section; some have no lead section at all. WEC 10 contains an additional short section on "Background" and WEC 13 contains brackets. Other than this, the information appears to be taken almost verbatim from http://www.sherdog.com/ which serves as the sole source for most of the pages. The pages WEC 24 through WEC 48 seem to have a bit more information, including sources.

This appears to be contrary to WP:What Wikipedia is not, in particular "not a mirror", "not a webspace provider", "not a directory", and "not an indiscriminate collection of information". Could some editors who know about cage fighting edit to make the pages more appropriate to Wikipedia, or perhaps merge them to an appropriate page or decide if they should be deleted? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Strikeforce Women's Weight Classes

Recently, Scott Coker said that the women's 135 lbs. weight class would be known as Welterweight (as well as calling the 145 lbs. divison Lightweight- which makes it even more sillier imo). A lot of editors have been opposed to this on Wikipedia. My suggestions would be to call them the same as the equivalent men's divisions just was the World Alliance of Mixed Martial Arts and other organizations do. I.E. 145 lbs. is Featherweight regardless of what Strikeforce wants to call it. Thoughts? (Justinsane15 (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

• Second Paralympiakos (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• Makes sense to me, although it may be worth a disambiguation hatnote on the articles for the relevant Strikeforce champs. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I will start making the changes on all the related articles. I may need some help on the best way to make notes regarding the subject.(Justinsane15 (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

Just a heads up. A new user has started to revert your changes. Are we to re-revert whilst explaining to this user? I just ask because I don't want to be too reactionary and revert, but feel that notice needs to be taken in light of the new changes. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I saw that some of the pages were changed by that user and an IP and have reverted them and at the same time discussed it in the user's talk page. We'll see what happens from here...(Justinsane15 (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Some users still have a problem with this system, from user:FemaleMMAFan: They're done renaming them now. They have chosen to use the unofficial "revised" Unified Rules from 2008 that created additional weight classes for both the men's and women's divisions. They had a graphic for this on the latest telecast. What I would suggest doing is leaving the "Strikeforce Champions" page as it is now, using "Bantamweight" and "Featherweight" with the asterisks and the note/reference at the bottom, but have fighter pages naming the titles correctly (Welterweight and Middleweight).

Please discuss(Justinsane15 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Josh Burkman

There appears to be a minor controversy on the Josh Burkman article. Some editors think his record is 10-7, and some people (quoting Sherdog) believe his record is 19-8. If someone knows anything about this discrepancy, your expertise would be appreciated. Chicken Wing (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Sherdog is generally the source used for determining a fighter's record and a history of their matches. Sherdog shows Berkman as being 19-8, and so unless there's a reliable source saying otherwise, the article should probably reflect that. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 5/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

DREAM event subtitles

I just noticed that the names of DREAM's events were misspelled- ie Light Weight or Middle Weight instead of the proper Lightweight or Middleweight. Anyone know if this is something DREAM does on purpose or an error that needs to be fixed? (Justinsane15 (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

Phil Baldacci

Can someone clean up this autobiography? Bearian (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we get an APB on TreyGeek? How is this guy slipped through his sights? David.snipes (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Alessio Sakara

This article is picking up repeated anonymous vandalism from a wide range of IP addresses. I've been undoing most of it, but it keeps showing up every day or so. This seems to stem from a thread on Sherdog's forums about Alessio Sakara. It seems that users from that forum are specifically targeting the article for repeated vandalism as they've been linking their "creations" pretty frequently in that thread.

I'm fairly new to doing anything with Wikipedia so I'm not sure what else to do about this issue. Any advice or help is welcome.

In general the article needs some work. A lot of it is unsourced and seems to be opinion based. If I get some time I'll try to do some work on the article. Any good sources for info on MMA fighter's biographies, etc.? 74.69.177.31 (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as for what to do about vandalism, the first thing is to bring it to the attention of more editors, so it can be reverted more quickly. Posting here has hopefully done that. Next, if it gets bad enough, you can request the page be "semi-protected" which prevents anonymous users from editing it. The vandalism probably isn't bad enough to where that action would be approved, though, and also, as an anonymous user yourself, you would no longer be able to revert any vandalism coming from registered accounts.

As for the sources for the article, biographical data on MMA practitioners typically comes from "feature story" type articles on MMA websites such as Sherdog and MMA Weekly, but the coverage is very spotty. For uncontroversial facts, a fighters own website bio can be cited. gnfnrf (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fight break down

Okay before this goes any further.I have been trying to clean up articles that look cluttered due to the fact that some fights are completely broken down into round-by-round action like some of the MMA websites do.I do not think this is necessary unless something happens in the fight like a DQ or an injury.Some of the articles not only look cluttered but there is also bias language in there. Isn't there a template for this that is posted so people can see this?(MgTurtle (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)).

I looked on the template for the MMA articles and see nothing about how to construct the careers of the fighters.There seems like there is a need for a template for this. (MgTurtle (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)).

2003 Interim Heavyweight Championship Grand Prix mentions

There are strange references and brackets for a fictional heavyweight title tournament on the Total Elimination 2003 and Final Conflict 2003 wikipedia pages. The title match between Nogueira and Cro Cop at Final Conflict 2003 was indeed for the interim heavyweight heavyweight championship, but there was no tournament of any sort. I removed the brackets and mention of this fictional grand prix, and we should watch out for anyone who attempts to add this utterly false, unverifiable information. Edwardtang (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 29 articles to be referenced, a 3.3% reduction from last week. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remco Pardoel

Though it might be of interest here fought @ UFCs 2 & 7 --Nate^t/_c 09:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about notability to put in some basic guidelines

Ok people, I know that a lot of discussion at WP:MMA don't get very far, as there aren't many of us who are regular contributors. However, I think it would be best to set some guidelines about what makes a fighter notable. I'm willing to hear you guys out about non-notability etc and change my views if a compelling argument can be met and compromise can be made.

I've been discussing this process with Papaursa at their talk page and that user replied to me with:

"I find that participating in the martial arts project is pretty time consuming. That said, I'd be willing to put my 2 cents in on MMA notability guidelines. I doubt I'll ever be much of a contributor to MMA articles (I'm not that big a fan), but establishing some guidelines seems like a worthwhile activity. It's clear you and I have different ideas about what makes someone a professional, so perhaps that's a good starting point for discussion. Also, what events are notable--UFC and PRIDE are, what about Strikeforce and WEC? Which European and Asian promotions qualify? Does MMA have to include groundwork? Most people think so, but others would argue any competion that involves multiple traditional martial arts, like sanda, would qualify. I also feel that the results of every event don't need their own article. Papaursa (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)"

Here's my opinion then:

Notable organisations

USA

• UFC - (participation on main card or undercard of numbered events, fight nights, UFC on Versus and TUF, considering WP:ATHLETE and the fact that any participation under the Zuffa banner is as high as it gets in MMA.
• WEC - as is.
• Strikeforce/ShoMMA - (the professionals if headlining or notable, e.g. Tyron Woodley, Rockhold etc, not the amateur bouts)
• Bellator - (participation in the tournament or a fairly high profile non-tournament match, whether that by via facing a highly rated/notable opponent, or being one of the higher billings on the card)

Canada

• MFC (if on the main card, no prelims as MFC isn't quite as notable as it could be; it has potential for growth)

England/UK

• Cage Rage - this was the elite of British MMA and while defunct, if one compiled performances under the Cage Rage banner, they would be notable
• Cage Warriors - now the number one in England, I think.
• BAMMA - a few more events and participants in the main card will be classed as notable.

Japan

• PRIDE
• Shooto Victory Road
• DREAM
• probably some others I'm forgetting

As for event results, I think the most notable ones (e.g. the US ones and DREAM warrant their own pages. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. WP:N clearly says routine sports coverage isn't notable and that's what the individual event articles are--just a list of results. Papaursa (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Fully professional"

• This is a topic where Paralympiakos and I clearly have disagreed. WP:Athlete uses the term "fully professional" and I take that to mean an athlete makes their living from competing. That's why most baseball minor leaguers are not notable and what separates a top-flight fighter from someone who wins $100 at a local karate competition. I grant that it's often hard, or impossible, to know exactly what someone is earning from fighting. However, lacking exact dollar amounts, it's reasonable to look at whether or not a person has another job. If so, they probably aren't "fully professional". If they appear to be supporting themselves solely off of their earnings from fighting, then they are "fully professional". Papaursa (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fighter notability

• If a fighter is fully professional, then he qualifies as notable under the current WP:ATH. I think that's really the primary (if not sole) criteria. I'd say it doesn't matter what organization he fights for--if he can make a living fighting locally, that qualifies. People who have fought for a world title of any notable organization would also qualify, at least to me, but it seems unlikely anyone could do that and not be "fully professional". I think that the arguments of saying "he fought notable opponents" or "he didn't fight anyone good" are irrelevant. Papaursa (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We made it a year since the last time this discussion came up[3]. I agree with many of the things Papaursa suggests. The challenge is getting both a consensus and someone to writeup the guidelines. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It sure would be nice to get input from some more people. If we can reach a consensus, I might be willing to do a rough draft of notability guidelines. If we don't get more feedback, I might even go with what we have (something is better than nothing). Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It appears there may be a push to start using WP:NSPORT for notability guidelines as opposed to WP:ATHLETE. WP:NSPORT does not specifically cover MMA or other types of fighters, but does seem to suggest using WP:GNG as a basic criteria. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

MMA notability page

OK, I took the bull by the horns and created User:Papaursa/MMA notability as a draft of MMA notability guidelines. Please take a look at it and feel free to make comments/changes. I didn't want to put it out as a main page without giving people a chance to see it first. I tried to make some reasonably objective criteria for fighter notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the discussion of your draft. Good work, also. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines have been put into WIkipedia's mainspace and the page is titled MMA notability. There are currently no shorthand links to it. At least we now have a standard reference we can point to. Papaursa (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to put this thing to a vote- then work on cleaning up what we have, then some of us can move on to getting ONE format for the MMA Boxes (as listed above) There are at least 4 different templates on notable fighters. David.snipes (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to David Snipes, if you go through my recent contributions from the last week, you'll notice me standardising the record tables. I'm aiming to go from bad tables like the ones at, say Jason Miller a week ago, to the table at the same page NOW (after my work). Little slow though considering each table takes ages and there are over a thousand MMA fighters. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to start discussing record tables, I point to the current Jason Miller (fighter) page as one that is cluttered, resulting most (6/10) of the cells word wrapping. IMO, flags next to locations are redundant and should be removed (and they also go against the guidelines on the use of flags last I checked). I also personally believe that the record column is not terribly needed and removing it would help alleviate the clutter. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Without a doubt it takes forever, and I'm not saying that it dosn't happen- but we need a bottom line- the table needs to look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waylon_Lowe and not like Fedor's table or so and so's table. I wish we could get a bot with it.

Might not be a bad idea for us to come to a final choice- then make a list of all the fighters - then have us go through and fix them or remove them, or on that note- Pick an event, then go through and fix all the fighters on that card- say go through Pride 1, fix all them, Paralympiakos picks UFC 17, fixes those- and we check them off a list as we go, sure the later ones become easier- but there we go.

Another thing we need to do is get with the other projects and get ONE table- If Patrick Berry's K-1 table looks different than his MMA box, we got issues. David.snipes (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely against removal of tables. The thing is though, whats the difference between the Waylon Lowe table and Fedor table? All I can see the font size and central alignment of certain rows. Atm, anyway, I'm going through the majority of lightweight fighters first, sorting them out so that they look like that of Jim Wallhead, with the neutral date function, rather than 2010-08-08, which looks horrible to me as an Englishman. Paralympiakos (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable MMA organizations

People have been adding organizations/promotions to the notability page without any discussion. I'm not saying whether or not these organizations should be listed, however additions are supposed to be discussed here first. The purpose of the notability criteria is to represent consensus, not an individual opinion. I have left the notability page as it is, but others may want to see if they agree with the additions. I believe organizations listed should represent the top of the profession--akin to Major League Baseball. Papaursa (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are so few active members that follow the project page that achieving consensus on anything is difficult, that said I agree that just adding names without at least attempting to discuss them makes the list itself worthless. Phospheros (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue with listing organizations that, as you say, are akin to Major League Baseball is that there is no objective criteria for deciding this. Dana White believes that the UFC is the only notable organization in the world, and frequently makes comparisons to the UFC being like the NFL. Obviously, this is not an unbiased viewpoint, but he points to the fact that the UFC is the only organization that has pushed to legalize MMA in every state and is growing the sport in multiple countries around the globe. So, while an organization like Strikeforce may have some great fighters and puts on some interesting cards, by this criteria there is a huge difference between the UFC and other promotions. Of course, Strikeforce can turn around and say that they are notable for having signed the top heavyweight (and maybe pound for pound) fighter in the world. Bellator can claim that they are one of the few, if not the only major promotion that determines all of their champions in a tournament format. Japanese organizations like Dream and Shooto can say that, unlike the UFC, they put on fights with fighters competing at flyweight, all the way up to super-heavyweight, on the same card. Wikipedians can certainly speculate as to what the major promotions are, but it doesn't seem sensible to expect a short-list that everyone agrees on to arise because "top of the profession" is not an objective criteria. It would be more sensible to score each promotion on a scale across multiple dimensions like those outlined on this page. Not every characteristic would have to be weighted the same. The notable organizations would be those that have a score above a certain threshold. Get consensus on what the criteria are, how those criteria should be weighted, the ratings on these criteria for each promotion, and the threshold for notability - after that, it's simple math to see which organizations rise to the top. In order to challenge how an organization is ranked, it wouldn't be sufficient to just say that a group is "ranked too low" - the person would have to get consensus in order to reexamine some part of the formula.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 05:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I like this suggestion, although the devil is clearly in the details. If you'd like to take a shot at getting things started, please go ahead. Perhaps I should change my analogy to golf. It's clear the PGA is the top tour in the world, but there are top competitors on a number of the other circuits. If there was an independent world ranking system we could use that to determine which organizations the best fighters fight for and claim those are the notable organizations. Just a thought. Papaursa (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This look promising for fighter rankings, unfortunately the got-to source Sherdog is horribly our of date. --Nate^t/_c 08:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I found two sets of world rankings that are current, seem to be independent, and are transparent. Both rely on the votes of a panel whose members are clearly identified. The two are at http://www.independentworldmmarankings.com/ and http://www.mmamemories.com/2010/06/04/june-2010-mens-independent-world-mma-rankings.html. I think these seem like a good starting point for determining organizational notability. Any comments? By the way, I was thinking of only using the men's rankings since that is where the bulk of the sport's popularity is. Papaursa (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon a closer look these seem to be the same rankings, which gives them more credibility since several sites are using the same rankings. I went through the list of 70 fighters listed (top 10 in 7 weight divisions) and looked at Sherdog to see which organization sponsored their last MMA fight. Here are the results: UFC 34, WEC 15, Strikeforce 12, Shooto 3, Dream 3, Sengoku 2, Bellator 1. I believe this gives us an objective criteria to determine which organizations are truly notable--the ones where the top fighters fight. I propose these be the only active organizations we consider top-tier. I will wait a few days to see if there are any comments on this. If not, I will amend the notability guidelines to reflect this. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What about defunct organizations such as Pride? --TreyGeek (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pride is the easy one in that it was notable for many reasons and then was merge to the UFC. For others you could still use the oldest (June 2009) and go by looking @ where their ex-fighters are, eg Cage Rage has several ex guys in that ranking. Historic Rankings for a given year from multiple sources are available so we could use the rankings for the year the promotion folded as a guide. --Nate^t/_c 12:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On a side note that count also neatly splits the orgs into tiers; UFC is tier 1 WEC & Strikeforce are tier 2 and the other are tier 3, you could also say undercards are a tier lower than the main cards. Not use if its useful but you could use it with the fight counts some how. All this is a bit too rule based but in some ways but it would be a handy guide. --Nate^t/_c 12:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to keep things simple--not looking at where on the card someone fought, weight division differences, or how many fights they fought with each organization. I wanted to know where the top fighters are fighting now. For example, the heaviest classes are dominated by UFC and Strikeforce, while WEC predominates in the lightest classes. Nor was I looking to create a lot of tiers--that might seem reasonable, but I was trying to get a simple yet objective criteria. If an organization has a top 10 fighter in any weight class, it's notable--otherwise it's not. I don't think that sets the bar too high, just 1 top 10 fighter in any class, yet it shines a light on where the top fighters fight. In a nutshell--if you're an organization and don't have any top-flight fighters, then you're still a minor league. Papaursa (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

By that token, was EliteXC ever notable? How does Moosin have a page? Or King of the Cage? Heck, I don't think Dream even counts anymore. I think the MMA section is more worried about being EXclusive more than INclusive. I'd rather have a page on a borderline notable like Bobby Southworth, than have every card look like the undercard of Feder vs Werdum David.snipes (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

<aybe its me, but it seems like fairly easy to tell what should and should not be included. UFC , WEC , Strikeforce , Shooto , Dream , Sengoku , Bellator are all world-known and fairly obvious. others in say Europe can be added if they start exporting fighters overseas. Other than that- I would take each one on a case by case basis. I added the USA-MMA organization to the template, and I feel it is notable due to the level of fighters they bring in, the attendances they pull, and the upcoming HBO documentary. I have not added Cage Rulers, due to them not running shows that are notable, and once I get verifiable evidence on Ring Rulers, I will make a case for notability there as well. Considering Moosin has a page . . . .

One thing that needs to happen is any red-linked organization in the box needs to be removed ASAP. If the editor that placed them has not made a page for them, then no way are they notable. David.snipes (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at it more from a fighter notability side and re-reading it is a little "if,then,else" ish.

For active/new orgs this works well, my only issue is that it is US focused with a nod to Japan. From a quick look ALL the panel are US based, so would not be expected to know the MMA scene in other countries as well, this coupled with the UFC being the top of the sport so fighters from smaller orgs anywhere in the world gravitate towards it means that orgs of similar size to Bellator or Stikeforce with UFC prospects, will be less likely to get in.

Before people start deleting red links, here's one thing to consider. For the box "Professional mixed martial arts organizations," we could only include those organizations that already have a page and meet consensus for notability. A separate page can be created called "List of mixed martial arts organizations" that is meant to be more comprehensive. I personally see value in having a list of organizations that contains promotions that don't currently have a page, as well as defunct promotions, because it gives a nice snapshot of the industry as it currently exists, as well as highlights pages that should be created, but perhaps haven't been yet. Too many small organizations are included in the box, for sure, but that doesn't mean we have to get rid of them from WP entirely. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is that you'll get IPs adding every tiny "Bloodshed" or "Mayhem" organisation (by that, I mean the smallest of promotions, even more so than the likes of Brutaal or Palace Fights.) Paralympiakos (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you rather see them here though, rather than in the box? It also doesn't seem like it would be too hard to come up with an inclusion criteria for the list. If a promotion holds professional rather than amateur fights, features more than just regional fighters, follows the unified rules, holds multiple cards in a year, has a linkable website, and is licensed by state governing bodies than I would have no problem with its inclusion. Certainly, seasoned editors could clean-up the list periodically to make sure that all organizations meet these criteria. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And again, my issue: Let me give you 3 examples; 1} USA-MMA Does 3-5K attendance (far more than the UFC did when it was in south LA, Had fighters like Ken Shamrock, Ricco Rodreguez, and about half the Bellator 7 and 18 undercard has fought on its shows- Does it qualify? I would say with its rate of growth and fighters, yes. 2} Cage Kings - Averages 3K fans in 4 states runs 6 shows a year- no notable fighters other than 4 TUF-level fighters (Mike Wessel etc) Does it qualify? i would say no. 3} Ring Rulers - Averages 2-4K fans in 6 states, runs 25 shows a year- Will Campuzano being the largest star to ever appear on its shows- about 90% amateur talent, Does it qualify? I would say so just on attendance over 52K in 2009 - in 6 states. David.snipes (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have taken all the comments made so far and tried to incorporate them into the notability page. I put organizations into 2 tiers--the organizations with highly ranked fighters and everyone else. I wanted to be inclusive as far as organizations go, due to the volatility of the business. However, I wanted to be clear that not all organizations are equal and to make it clear where the notable fighters are. When you look at the criteria for athletes and traditional martial artists the bar can be set fairly high--Olympics and world championship competitions. I don't think it's unreasonable to have similar conditions for MMA fighters--compete against the best. Papaursa (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pound-for-pound problem

Some time ago "Pound-for-pound" was changed to redirect to "Ring Magazine pound for pound" this is a problem as lots of MMA pages link to it. --Phospheros (talk) 11:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a HUGE Problem with pound for pound rankings- and Feel they really have no place in MMA (considering its really only merging two lists for any rankings) Boxing is a whole other world. I do not feel rankings have ANY place in wikipedia - other than historical basis (from 1999 to his loss in 2003 he was considered the number 1 super-heavyweight in the world -SOURCE) and pound for pound rankings even less so. David.snipes (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Based upon the contents of the articles just before it was redirected[4] I don't have a problem with it. (Regardless that MMA pages may now link to it.) If you have a problem with the redirection, perhaps you should rewrite the article such that it isn't a stub or a simple definition. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the redirect as it amounted to an advert when the term 'Pound-for-Pound' is so widly used. The fact that the article lacks any mention of other combat sports means that it is a bad choice, I've add some stuff from the history but the origin of the term and sources for it use other than Ring need adding (shouldn't be hard to find quick google turned up BBC sports ones). --Nate^t/_c 16:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:25, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

10th planet jiu-jitsu

Was created & taged as a hoax (unsurprising with a name like that) I've made it into a good stub, but it should be easy to bulk out to a C or B if you have some free time --Nate1481

UFC 81

I am totally new to editing wiki and have added some info about UFC 81 I would appreciate a little feedback in terms of how I have done this, is my referencing adequate etc cheers. Please tell me if I am doing anything wrong....**** --Paul (talk)

Justin McCully

Hey guys, I'm having to revert vandalism from the Justin McCully article on what seems like nearly a daily basis. Apparently, there is quite a bit of humor in adding to the article that his nickname is "American Fedor." These edits usually go without reversion because only a mixed martial arts fan would see it and assume it's incorrect. As a result, by the time I revert it, the bad edit has usually stood for hours or even days. If even a couple other people watchlist that article, it would probably help out a bunch. Thanks. Chicken Wing (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm watching it- if the vandalism continues we can report it at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. (Justinsane15 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

Uh, just to point out, i believe in his last fight for the UFC, he embraced his nickname as "American Fedor" at the weigh ins for that event.

Might want to check out the mmaunderground to confirm.

HalfGuardMike (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Gary Goodridge

The Gary Goodridge article could use some attention if anyone wants to check it out. I cleaned up his fight record a bit which had some odd things in it. It also needs some sourcing especially in regards to his martial arts background as there's some debate as to whether the claims being made in the article are accurate. I plan on doing some stuff with it myself, just thought I'd throw something here in case someone else is interested in it. Also I notice the Goodridge article isn't part of this wikiproject, is that something we could add on that page? I'm not sure how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlahnum (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing championship lists

Okay. Just about every article has a list of the person's championships. I was wondering should we source/cite these also even if there is a source already in the article? Just wondering because it seems like it could be redundant but maybe necessary also. (MgTurtle (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC))

I don't think it matters too much, as long as it's sourced. The real problem is that most championships aren't reliably sourced at all. Papaursa (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to use the same reference multiple times in an article (keeping the same citation number throughout). So simply using the <ref name="whatever" />. to re-cite something isn't a problem. As for redundancy, I would relate it to wiki-links. Generally, you should link to another article only once. The exception is if the last link is far away from the the 'redundant' link it is okay. (As an aside, with as little references that exist in MMA articles, the more the better to serve as good examples of what to do, IMO.) --TreyGeek (talk) 23:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I thought about using the sources multiple times. Okay thanks for your opinions. There's also a problem with editors not using the proper citation forms when they do try and source information. (MgTurtle (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC))

Okay another question about the championship lists. Should they go before or after the mma record? I think the pages look better with the lists after the record but I wanted to know if anyone else thought that way. (MgTurtle (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC))

After. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Roger Huerta

I'm about to go offline but I think there are going to be issues with this article. Roger Huerta was involved in an out of the ring fight. An IP has added it to ths fight chart. I reverted it once, he just reverted me. I'm going to set it back but I'm not going to be able to check back or ask for protection if it keeps up. Hoping one of you see this.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if vandalism warnings were given to IPs as it speeds up the process to get them blocked from editing. At this point they are in violation of the WP:3RR and making BLP violations. I'll put in a request they be blocked now. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

UFC Fighter Profile Links Broken

The UFC has overhauled its website and now all the pages that link to a fighters profile must be updated.
Example 1: http://www.ufc.com/JuniorDosSantos is now http://www.ufc.com/fighter/Junior_Dos_Santos
Example 2: http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=fighter.detail&pid=521 is now http://www.ufc.com/fighter/Frankie_Edgar
--Phospheros (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Jeez....that's a pain. Where's a bot when you need one? Paralympiakos (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Also any links to events or results on UFC.com need updating as well.

Example: http://www.ufc.com/index.cfm?fa=eventdetail.fightCard&eid=1558 is now
http://www.ufc.com/event/UFC_90_SILVA_vs_COTE/ however the actual results are on a different page at http://www.ufc.com/event/UFC_90_SILVA_vs_COTE/results

--Phospheros (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Are the new links working for you Phospheros? I don't know whether it's just because I'm in England, but the replaced links you've just put down at Junior dos Santos don't work for me. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you've added "ufc.com/fighter/X" to it now and it works now. I'll start up with the events if I can, but it froze for me when clicking the UFC 90 link above. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There loading, just very slowly as UFC.com must be prioritizing there main page as it's fight day.--Phospheros (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Social Networks/Trainers

Okay I have two questions/statements. First I have noticed some pages have links to Myspace, Facebook and Twitter pages of some fighters in the external links section. I personally don't think they need to be there but if people want them, they need to be verified somehow or just taken off. I don't believe that they should be used as reliable sources though but I don't see much of that now. The second thing is that the trainers and teams of fighters need to be kept updated in the infobox with reliable sources. Brock Lesnar's page was the first page I show an update on his trainers but other pages have followed. This keeps everything accurate even though some sites have not updated quite as quickly. Just some suggestions. What does everyone else think? (MgTurtle (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC))

Speaking of Lesnar, the citation on his page states he replaced Greg Nelson with boxing guru Peter Welch, Greg Nelson is the owner of Minnesota Martial Arts Academy. I would assume we need to delete Minnesota Martial Arts Academy from "Team" and Greg Nelson from "Trainer". --Phospheros (talk) 23:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Social network sites in the external links section should be avoided as per WP:ELNO. As far as trainers and 'teams', this is a difficult one. I'd be willing to support anyone who wants to be a hard-ass as far as cite it or delete it. However, due to the nature of MMA articles and anon IP editors (specifically their carelessness to adhering to Wikipedia policies and guidelines), I think that would be a never ending battle. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Weight classes

It has come to my attention that several infoboxes in the section weightclass/division use a number instead of the weight class name, i.e. 265 instead of heavyweight. I thought that it was a mistake made by people who didn't read the instructions of Template:Infobox martial artist. But when I read the front page of the project, I noticed that the instructions there clearly say that a number should be used instead of the name of the class. According to the article mixed martial arts weight classes and the Nevada State Athletic Commission, the classes are a word (heavyweight, welterweight, etc.), not a number. Has this been discussed before? What was the consensus? Personally, I disagree with the usage of a number to name a weight class when those classes already have a designated name by the rules. Jfgslo (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've been around the longest of those that comment here. I cannot remember this being discusses before. I would also agree with you that the weight class should be spelled out rather than a number. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never messed with the representation of weight classes, but I thought that the alphabetical representation was ambiguous for fighters who participated in multiple promotions that have differing partitions of weight classes. For example, the UFC middleweight is equivalent by weight to the Shooto light heavyweight. —LOL ^T/_C 03:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose using names as they are not encyclopedic, any promotion any where in the world can link any weight to any weight name. Further the NSAC does not even require a promotion in the state of Nevada to use a standard, for example bantamweight is 145 in King of the Cage. Finally the info box is meant to provide the most amount of info in the briefest form, numbers do that names don't. --Phospheros (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree numbers are better, esp as the UFC changed it's division names the potential for confusion is too great. --Nate^t/_c 08:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

One argument I have against using a single number is that generally the weight class is a range of weights. Using a single number is slightly inaccurate. For example, the Heavyweight class is for fighters weighing in at 205/206 up to 265. Stating he competes in the 265 weight class could be confusing and is slightly inaccurate to state. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thing is that using a number for the division when the weight of a fighter is already given is redundant. I got confused several times when I first saw them. A weight class using a name is more comprehensive than a class using only the upper limit of the class. Also, the name of the championships reflects the division, i.e. heavyweight championship instead of 265 championship. And if divisions in a promotion are different from others, that information is already on the linked article of each weight class. If it's such a trouble, we could simple add the promotion alongside the weight like this: Middleweight (Pride FC). The weight class articles already state the changes suffered in each promotion through the years. And, more important, outside of Wikipedia, no other source that I know of uses a number to name a division, which is also something that goes against WP:MOS#Follow_the_sources, WP:MOS#Global_view and to a minor extent WP:V. Jfgslo (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

TreyGeek: The numerical representation isn't "slightly inaccurate"; it's misleading for those who assume that weight class = weight. However, shouldn't most readers who are familiar with a combat sport already be aware of that distinction?

Jfgslo: If "265" appears in the infobox, it's not implied that we should say "265 championship"; it simply means that the fighter competes in the 265-pound division. Anyway, I'm not sure why you say that a name is more comprehensive or how the numerical representation violates #Global_view, but the "Class name (Promotion)" format seems the most technically sound to me. The main problem I can see is it's quite lengthy compared to the numerical representation, so fighters who have competed at different weight classes in several promotions (e.g. Dan Henderson) would have a lengthy weight class field, but I'm not sure if that's any more than a minor concern. —LOL ^T/_C 04:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia users shouldn't necessarily be familiar with combat sports. Wikipedia is not exclusively meant for people familiar with a topic, which is why it avoids vague wording or jargon and follows the global view in a topic.

A "265" might be implied as the name of the division by people who know nothing of MMA and only read an infobox, particularly when similar infoboxes are used for other combat sports. When one sees a boxing infobox, one sees, for example, "Heavyweight", but in a MMA article one sees "265". People not knowing of the sport could get confused and start to believe that the division in MMA is called 265. I think it's fair to say that most people know weight classes from boxing, not at which number they have the upper limit. The usage of a single number to designate a division is rarely used even by MMA publications or organizations. And precisely because of that, I think that a name is far more comprehensive than a number.

Regarding global view, it means that the content should be presented from a "global view" without bias towards any particular culture or group. In other words, it should use the most used terms around the world, not a particular definition that's rarely used by a small group of experts. As I said, rarely MMA publications or fans use a number to refer to a divison/weight class, even for practical purposes. The usage of a number is, as far as I know, a particularity of the English Wikipedia. The Japanese Wikipedia doesn't use numbers for the weight classes and it actually says the promotion alongside the division in most cases, even for fighters who have fought in several weight classes and organizations. Check Kazushi Sakuraba's article for an example of how it works. Jfgslo (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find where I picked up this rule of thumb, but I remember being able to assume that the reader has basic knowledge of the sport in which the subject competes but none of the individual. The distinction between one's weight and division should be basic enough, and a number isn't jargon; it's just an unambiguous (although sometimes misleading) way to identify a weight class. The weight classes of boxing can't be compared to those of MMA because among all the major boxing organizations, there does not exist a weight class whose name refers to two different weight divisions in two organizations. In MMA, "Middleweight" for example may refer to Pride's 167 lb division or the UFC's 185 lb—an ambiguity that makes "Middleweight" alone inappropriate in the infobox of a fighter who has fought in both Pride and the UFC, in the Middleweight division of either organization. Of course, specifying the promotion solves that. The prevalence of the alphabetical representation of a weight class in MMA publications doesn't make it more "comprehensive"; it simply makes it more appropriate for Wikipedia.

Regarding global view, I don't recall numbers being esoteric, but only a solution to the ambiguity of weight class names. A good number of MMA publications write, "n-pound division"[5] (for the upper weight limit n of some weight class) in lieu of the actual name of the division for that promotion, so I don't see any bias. However, it would be biased to list "Welterweight" under Dan Henderson's weight classes without specifying the promotion(s) to which it applies. Anyway, neither of these are important to me, so feel free to drop me a message if you want to continue this discussion with me. —LOL ^T/_C 07:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the reason why numbers were preferred is that, when the guidelines were written, there was no consensus on weight division naming. The UFC (and other American Unified Rules orgs) called a 205 lb division "Light Heavyweight", but PRIDE called it "Middleweight". Similarly, there was a 185 "Middleweight" and a 183 "Welterweight", and both a 155 and 161 "Lightweight". I'm not currently in touch with Japanese promotions, so I don't know if Dream has this system, or another, so I don't know if this reason is obselete. gnfnrf (talk) 03:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently, most organizations inside and outside of the US use the Unified Rules weight classes as a base for their divisions. Unifying a single set of rules was one of the efforts made by the WAMMA, with which Dream, Strikeforce and most other major promotions (except the UFC) agreed. Right now, most organizations follow the unified rules weight classes with some particularities in some organizations (Dream doesn't have an upper weight limit in the heavyweight division and so there is no super heavyweight class.) Pancrase also adhered to the unified rules weight classes some years ago and even Sengoku recently revised their weight classes to match the unified rules. Shooto is one of the few exceptions nowadays. Jfgslo (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it just be simplist to list them as: "Heavyweight (205-265lb)" etc, clear and info dense, with a footnote for fighters in historic weight classes not using the unified rules (e.g. Pride & older UFC) --Nate^t/_c 09:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I find Nate's solution to be acceptable --TreyGeek (talk) 13:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nate. Was about to suggest this method. One thing that needs to be watched for is "weight" though. The "heavyweight (206-265) is fine for DIVISION, but weight is another thing entirely. Weight would, for example, be way over division. Look at Anthony Johnson. He weighs something stupid like 220lbs. His weight is not 170, he only competes at that weight and frankly, he only weighs 170 for about half an hour every six months (replace six months with frequency of competition). Paralympiakos (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do we want to change the parameter to "fight weight" (pointless except for heavyweights) or have their 'walking around' weight, if it can be sourced e.g. 'fighter X' cuts around 20lb etc. --Nate^t/_c 13:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. For any combat sport with weight classes, it should already be readily understood that the weight of a fighter is just what they weighed at the weigh-ins, and there aren't any sources for most fighters' "normal" weight. So anyway, regarding Nate's solution, what would Dan Henderson's infobox look like exactly with the footnotes? —LOL ^T/_C 14:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nate's suggestion for weight classes sounds reasonable to me and I think it will help people who know little about MMA promotions. I still think that having the promotion added would be helpful, though. Regarding a fighter's specific weight, one of the problems with it is that it will be always changing from fight to fight and once said fighter retires, it will no longer be useful information. And there are fighters which will demand a higher level of activity because they change weight classes (like Dan Henderson.) I suppose that's the reason why people from the boxing project decided not to use a field in the boxer infobox for specific weight, only one for the weight class in which a boxer was more prominent. The only thing we can do in the weight parameter is report what MMA publications report as his fight weight on a fighter's most recent fight, because we can't reasonably know the exact regular weight of a fighter outside of his reported weight and we can't speculate about his regular weight.

I think Dan Henderson's division would look something like this:

Division

Welterweight (74 kg - 83 kg)n1

Middleweight (84 kg - 93 kg)n2

Middleweight (171 lb - 185 lb)

Light heavyweight (186 - 205 )

Notes

n1 Under Pride FC rules

n2 Under Pride FC rules

Of course, the notes section wouldn't be right below the divison field. Alternatively, instead of notes we could simply add the promotion for divisions that differ from the unified rules, for example:

Heavyweight (93 kg and over)(Dream)

Open weight (UFC 1993-1996)

Lightweight (199 lbs and under)(UFC 1997-2000) Jfgslo (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm in order to add these instructions to both the infobox template and the project page. Are we in agreement to use the format proposed by Nate? Jfgslo (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Agree Nate's solution seems to be the best general solution. In terms of the corner cases suggested by Jfgslo, how many fighters are actively competing in multiple weight classes? Perhaps the infobox should list the weight class the fighter actively or primarily competes in? But other than that issue, agree with using Nate's suggestion of <Weight Class Name> (Lower weight - Higher weight). --TreyGeek (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Agree, but follow MoS and don't use different symbols for the same note. For example:

  Division

  Welterweight (74–83 kg)ⁿ¹

  Middleweight (84–93 kg)ⁿ¹

  Middleweight (171–185 lb)

  Light heavyweight (186–205 lb)

  Notes

  n1 Under Pride FC rules

and

• Heavyweight (93 kg and above; Dream)

  Open weight (UFC 1993–96)

  Lightweight (199 lb and under; UFC 1997–2000)

—LOL ^T/_C 22:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I support Nate's compromise. Just one question, should dates when fighters were active in a given weight class also be included in the new format? For example Mark Coleman is currently listed as:

• 205 (2009–present)

  265 (1996–2006)

Under the new format he would be something like this:

• Light heavyweight (186–205 lb)

  (2009–present)

  Heavyweight (93 kg and above; Pride)

  (1999–2006)

  Heavyweight (200 lb and above; UFC)

  (1997–1999)

  Open weight

  (1996)

--Phospheros (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's correct if the weight class has changed over the years, like UFC heavyweight. If it complies with the current Unified Rules weight classes, which are followed by most MMA organizations in the world, it's not necessary to indicate the organization. In Coleman's case, his infobox could benefit from using notes on each class (except light heavyweight), which could trim the text a little bit. Alternatively, you could use symbols to replace words, i.e. instead of "93 kg and above; Pride" you could use "≥ 93 kg; Pride". But these are only some minor tweaks. The way you mentioned is correct. Jfgslo (talk) 22:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

MMA gloves

I've created MMA gloves as it seems long over due, articles were pointing at a (until now) dead section heading in Boxing gloves. --Nate^t/_c 11:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Nationality vs ethnicity in the lead

Could folks please see this and comment. TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a legitimate issue for discussion and I am disappointed to see how quickly this edit dispute has spiraled into incivility. The arguments being made appear to me to look like this: Threeafterthree says that a fighter's ethnicity is not notable enough to be included in the lede (and let's please use the correct spelling of that word from now on); the argument is that Wikipedia:MOSBIO says ethnicity "should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Paralympiakos seems to be saying that mentioning ethnicity is not the same as emphasizing it, and mentioning it is appropriate since it is encyclopedic content and can be verified. Both of these perspectives seem legitimate to me and suggest that further guidance from WikiProject members is necessary to minimize confusion about this.

Here is my suggestion:

• Nationality (referring to the country or countries where a person is a legal citizen) is always appropriate information for the lede. If a person is a part-time resident of another country, such as someone from outside the US who trains in the US, then this information would be appropriate to include in the biography (but NOT the lede).
• Ethnicity is not a clear-cut construct like nationality, since it refers to how one identifies oneself. If a fighter doesn't identify himself as being "Polish-American", then it makes no sense to describe the person that way (even if other people describe him that way - citations should demonstrate that the person has used the term to describe himself). Similarly, it would not be appropriate to call someone African American if that is not how the person identifies himself. A Black man born in the US to two parents who were born in the US, may not view himself as African American, and so should not be referred to as such. Black is a legitimate racial classification (used on US census forms, etc.), but race should be avoided in the lede altogether (and it's debatable whether it should be included at all).
• It WOULD appropriate to include ethnicity in the lede if the fighter describes himself with that classification, and if that information can be cited. So, even though Marcus Davis is an American citizen, it would be appropriate to refer to the "Irish Hand Grenade" as an Irish-American. In Davis' case, his ethnicity is a prominent part of his professional image on which his notability is based. If someone can find a source that indicates that Diego Sanchez considers himself to be a Mexican American, I think a case could be made for including this information in the lede. Whenever people talk about UFC expansion into Mexico, his name always comes up, so this shouldn't be too hard to find.

Take Cain Velasquez as an example...His nationality is currently listed as Mexican. I am pretty sure he is an American born to Mexican parents - if so, then his nationality should be corrected. Nationality generally has to do with legal citizenship, and I don't think he is a legal Mexican citizen. Ethnicity is different. There are numerous sources to document the source of his "Brown Pride", so it would be absolutely appropriate to describe him as a Mexican-American mixed martial artist. He is not notable because he is Mexican, but he IS notable AS a Mexican. Weigh in with your thoughts below. It seems important for frequent editors to understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity, and for them to have guidelines (like those suggested above) to follow. Thanks to Threeafterthree for raising the issue. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to comment on the last paragraph. Velasquez is Mexican despite being born in the States. He holds American citizenship, but was born to Mexican immigrants and is called "Mexican" is the sources provided at his page. Mexican is correct, though he does hold U.S. citizenship. Paralympiakos (talk) 19:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

If Cain was born in the US, then he has US citizenship. If he has US citizenship, then he is an American. If he is not formally recognized by the Mexican government, either through birth or naturalization, then his nationality is not Mexican. However, his ethnicity would absolutely be Mexican American. Nationality is not decided by the person, it is decided by the nation. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see now where a bit of the confusion is coming from...children born abroad to one or more Mexican parents may be recognized by Mexico as having Mexican nationality under Mexican nationality law. Since he was born in the United States, however, he would have US citizenship and be considered an American.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Osubuckeyeguy, thank you for your analysis. If I might add. I think there is a difference between nationality and citizenship. The link you provided points out that Mexican nationals are expected to go to school, pay taxes, serve the country, ect. Whereas citizenship would give them the right to vote or play for their national team, ect. If a person was born to a Mexican national in the US, but never even set foot in Mexico there entire life, I would consider them dual citizens with singular American nationality for purposes of WP:MOSBIO. Please see the Herculez Gomez talk page where this is discussed.--Threeafterthree (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

This is where I disagree. Dual citizenship, definitely. However, primarily, Mexican. The source I had up even has him saying "I'm proud to be Mexican" - surely an indication where his own preference lies. This N character is becoming a pain now though. Reverting sourced additions for something that only says where he lives......adding that THREE TIMES. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Paralympiakos, this is not an easy or cut and dry deal. N iam sure is as frustrated as you and feels he is in the right just as you do. there are many bios that have had, and still do have these issues. many famous folks were born in Europe and came to the us as infants before gaining notability, and we try our best with these bios. Also look at Bruce Lee who has a very interesting path. Folks are very proud of their heritage which is fine. I guess we need to take this on a case by case basis and do our best.--Threeafterthree (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Paralympiakos, you do not seem to understand the difference between Nationality and Ethnicity. If a Chinese-American(born and raised in the United States) states "I'm proud to be Chinese", but never steps foot in China, is that person's Nationality Chinese? You could substitute any ethnicity for the 'Chinese' variable(Black, Irish, Italian, etc) and it would not make a difference, that person would be American. Their Nationality would be American. That is the situation here. Can you point to a source that describes how much time Velasquez has spent in Mexico, or if he's even ever been there at all? He was born in America, he went through his school years in America, went to an American university, lives in America. He's American. Dave Dial (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, granted, but I'm just aware of what seems like Americans trying to claim everything, no matter how small or large the link may be. To me, being born somewhere is secondary nationality or citizenship, whatever you want to call it. If I was born to English parents but in America, I'd class myself as English, but with secondary nationality of American. Going off my own criteria, the Velasquez thing is Mexican, then American. As I've said, I believe the biggest part of this is him describing himself as Mexican, not American. I dare say that if he said "I'm proud to be American", that Yanks all over would be pointing that out and using that as an argument here.

Regardless, I've tried to edit the page enough under the rules. I won't be doing again for a little while now. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Last one was in reply to Three. DD, where I come from, we have some Indian-based people. Indian parents, English born, schooled in England. Classification (self-classification too)...Indian. That's how I've seen it work here. Paralympiakos (talk) 02:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Paralympiakos, I do not believe that's true, at least not in the sense of Nationality. I think you are confusing Ethnicity with someone's Nationality. Perhaps the UK has/had some different rules because of India being a former colony or such, but from everything I've read the people born and raised in the UK are considered English and their Nationality would be English. Their ethnicity may differ, but their Nationality would be the same. And I also believe you are incorrect as to what you would classify yourself as if your were born and raised in America, whether to English, Italian, Mexican or French parents who immigrated to America. America is a pretty diverse nation and it is common for Americans to be proud of both their ethnic heritage and nationality. Dave Dial (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no....a million times no. "People born and raised in the UK are considered English." People from Wales, Scotland and Norn Iron aren't considered English whatsoever. Paralympiakos (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Puhhh! The wording was wrong, because of American shortening(like you referring to Americans as 'Yanks'), but the facts are right. Substitute 'English' for 'British' or UK citizens. Really, you have to know the difference between Nationality and Ethnicity to further discuss the issue. Otherwise it's pointless to continue. Dave Dial (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dave, actual see Andy Murray. Folks in the UK are a "special" case :). I think there is more of a confusion over nationality vs citizenship, see Herculez Gomez talk page. I agree about having lived in a country and schooling, taxes, military service,ect makes one a national.--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I agree with the edits and the talk page discussion on the Herculez Gomez article. I'm surprised that Murray doesn't have a Scottish flag too. heh :-)... In any case, from the rules I've seen you're right(about born, raised, taxes schooling), but there may be exceptions. To me, Nationality seems obvious, no matter what ethnicity a person is. Perhaps it's from living in America with so many people with different ethnic backgrounds, but everyone is 'American'. Dave Dial (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's avoid hypotheticals and talk about specific fighters, since that's what this talk page is for. I agree with Threeafterthree that nationality and citizenship are not the same thing - I have conflated the two here for the sake of simplicity. In the US, all citizens are US nationals and children born in the US are automatically granted citizenship. Nationality and ethnicity are also not the same thing. I'll say again, nationality is not decided by the person, it is decided by the nation. A "Brown Pride" tattoo does not tell us anything about a person's nationality. If Cain Velasquez, Diego Sanchez, Ulysses Gomez and any other fighters of Mexican heritage were born in the US, then their nationality is American. This is a legal designation by the US government. Whether or not these or other fighter have dual nationalities depends on the specific laws governing nationality from their parents' country of origin. I do not know enough about Cain Velasquez or Mexican law to know if he satisfies the requirements for Mexican nationality, so I'll bow out of that discussion. But, whether or not he is American should not even be up for debate. This is a matter of public record, not subjective opinion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Osubuckeyeguy, no one I think, besides one editor, is even questioning that Velasquez is an American national, or wants to remove "American" entirely. The dispute is over whether to include "Mexican-American" in the lead sentence of his bio. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We're fortunate that this one dedicated editor does a great deal of otherwise good work on MMA articles. I'd really love to see him come around on this point (nationality is such a prominent aspect of the fighter templates that we should really be sure to get it right). I think my first post in this thread best speaks to your primary concern about writing the lede. I'm curious what other editors think about the proposed guidelines. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC) comment updated to remove poor word choice that may have caused unintended offense

As explained at Osu's talk page, I didn't take any offense. Was just wanting to know whether my contribs (minus this matter) were viewed negatively. As for this issue, I'm backing down. I still believe I'm right, as the case I mentioned with England/India previous is usually how these matters are dealt with where I'm from. However, I know where to quit, to avoid an edit war. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A potentially helpful resource is the page on Hyphenated Americans. In American English, the country listed first generally indicates the person's ancestry or ethnicity and the second denotes their nationality. So, a Mexican American martial artist would be someone who identifies themselves as Mexican (ethnic identity) in addition to being an American (their nationality) by birth or through naturalization. A reference to both of these characteristics would seem appropriate for the lede under the conditions I previously described. If this sounded like a lecture, please forgive me - I'm a college professor and can't help myself sometimes. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This debate still is going on at Bellator 27 page please give your opinion.--N2492004 (talk) 08:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

MMA rankings

While looking some rankings to add this info in articles, I found several, but some of them I don't consider reliable. Have rankings been discussed before? Are all considered acceptable? For example, with women, I think that the Unified Women’s Mixed Martial Arts Rankings, which are the successor of WAMMA Women’s Rankings, are a reliable source for women's ranking. Also the Independent World MMA rankings. But others don't convince with their methodology (Fight Matrix Computerized Mixed Martial Arts Rankings, computers don't take context into consideration) or I simply do not know how they are created or how reliable is the organization that ranks them (ISCF Pro Women's rankings.) All women pound for pound rankings are even more dependent on the publisher. With men, I suppose Sherdog's rankings are a great source, but besides them, what about other rankings? Which MMA rankings are considered reliable and which not? Jfgslo (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This was a topic discussed previously in regard to determining the notability of MMA organizations (see archived discussion). We haven't mentioned women's MMA rankings--it was hard enough to reach some agreement on the men's. I don't believe in pound for pound rankings since they're both subjective (like all rankings) and fairly meaningless. Ounce for ounce an ant is stronger than an elephant, but which animal would you choose to move a fallen tree? I'll admit I'm not a big rankings fan--they're good for generating discussions but the question can be settled in the ring. I don't see a good reason for putting rankings into articles, but if you feel you must--I'd favor www.independentworldmmarankings.com and sherdog.com. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for quality ratings

Hi... Paralympiakos has been working on new MMA articles, and I have been helping him a lot with DYK nominations. I would be interested in seeing ratings for three articles on which we have worked: Mairbek Taisumov, Pat Audinwood‎, and Sako Chivitchian‎. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 12:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Mixed martial arts articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Mixed martial arts articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Record tables

I think that the fighters record tables should be changed to this:

it includes a fighter non-mma stuff and looks better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mollica93 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 May 2010

It's a no from me. Paralympiakos (talk) 18:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I personally like the MMABOX (Justinsane15 (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC))

In my opinion I don't like that one. It seems way too big. Falcons8455 (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Works perfectly for fighters with a record in more than one discipline. You can make it smaller by changing the %. and gives you an option to hide sections.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Professional record breakdown

11 matches	10 wins	1 loss
By knockout	5	0
By submission	3	1
By decision	2	0

It is way better —Preceding unsigned comment added by KEWLONION (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with the current layout of the records except that they go most recent to oldest - top to bottom. It makes much more sense to go in chronological order - top to bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.37.20 (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor appears to be uploading copyrighted images to some MMA biographies

User Asadsindher seems to be uploading copyrighted images as his own work and he's adding them to some MMA articles. While he claims to be the owner of the copyright, I've at least seen that the images of Frank Mir and Brock Lesnar are from MMA websites. Be warned and prepared to revert the changes since the images will be deleted as soon as they are detected. Jfgslo (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Need help with Mousasi and a troublesome editor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Doku1 - incorrectly stating that the flags around here are for country of residence, not nationality. Paralympiakos (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Flags are for nationality but all of Doku1's edits are done around Gegard Mousasi. Mousasi has both nationalities, doesn't he? And in his fights in Japan, he's always billed as Dutch, not Armenian. I suppose that would be the contentious issue here. Does he have or not the Dutch nationality? If he has both, is he ever billed as Armenian? If he isn't and he has the Dutch nationality, I'd say we should keep it as Dutch or use both flags. Jfgslo (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

He is Armenian, but has lived in the Netherlands for several years. However, the user seems to think that country of residence is what the flag is based on. If so, Brad Pickett would be American, Georges St-Pierre would be American. As he has lived in Holland for several years, he holds citizenship, but nothing more. Armenian flag needs using and always has been until today. It's just this one editor causing problems and edit warring. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think people are misunderstanding the proper use of flags for sports people as per MOS:FLAG. Legal nationality, ethnicity, etc doesn't matter. What matters is what country the fighter represents for a particular fight. However, I don't know what that is for this particular case. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Granted, but surely people represent the country of their nationality, which would be Armenian in this case. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Got a WP:RS to prove it. Solves all the problems with situations like this. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the real question is does that user? They are the one changing what has been accepted for years. They are the ones who require RS. I've yet to see any, just non-sensical arguments and false accusations. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Flags will always be controversial. There was a short discussion in the past [6] that all flags should be sourced or be subject to removal; when you look through the discussion archives you'll see lots of issues regarding flags including suggestions in the past to not use flags at all because of all of the problems. Perhaps if people don't want to find sources to prove which flag is correct, they should stop being used. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be impossible to enforce. IPs would just re-add the flags. The important thing here is that the user needs to be reverted and I can't do it anymore or I risk seeming as though I'm edit warring. I've attempted to discuss it, but the user refuses to. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Mousasi is that several sources do state that he's from Netherlands, not Armenia. There is no trouble with Brad Pickett or Georges St-Pierre because most sources claerly state their correct nationality but that is not the case with Mousasi. For example, the most used source for MMA, Sherdog, has England in country for Pickett and Canada for St-Pierre, while with Mousasi it has Netherlands in country, not Armenia. Mousasi's own website states Armenian Dutch, which doesn't help but validates the Dutch claim. Dream uses Netherlands. And Strikeforce says Iran as country where he was born. While these sources do not seem to agree with each other, the point is that I don't see a strong reason to revert it back to Armenian when most reliable sources that I've seen bill him as Dutch. Could anyone point me to a source where Mousasi directly says what nationality he has? I'm sure he would be the first to complain with Dream when they played the Dutch anthem instead of the Armenian one before his last championship match. Jfgslo (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting debate. Mousasi displays both the Dutch and Armenia flags on his website. He was born in Iran, but has lived in the Netherlands since he was four. He is ethnically Armenian, by nature of him being born to Armenian parents, but is a Dutch citizen and resident of the Netherlands. I am in favor of not reverting the edits in question - it would not be incorrect to his his nationality as Dutch. He should be referred to as an Armenian Dutch fighter in the article, though, if editors choose to acknowledge his ethnicity as well. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Another person related to the born/raised/nationality argument is Alistair Overeem. Born in London, lived there for six years. Now, I wouldn't claim he was English whatsoever, but under the arguments that a lot of you quote, he would definitely be. He only has citizenship to my mind, but something tells me others will think more, if they're using the exact same criteria. Paralympiakos (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But, contrary to Mousasi, Overeem has never claimed to be Anglo-Dutch and all sources always put him as Dutch, so there is no discordance like with Mousasi. All we can do is follow the sources and, since all of them say that Overeem is from Netherlands, we use that data. Similarly, since most of the sources (and all the reliable ones) say that Mousasi is Dutch, we only follow that information. You will find that a lot of Dutch people, like Overeem and Mousasi, actually come from different countries originally, such as Remy Bonjasky, Melvin Manhoef, Ernesto Hoost, Gerard Kleisterlee, Ramses Shaffy or Mitja Zastrow, for example. In all those cases the sources designate them as Dutch. Take notice that the sources put Badr Hari as Moroccan and Hesdy Gerges as Egyptian, despite both having a strong Dutch background. In fact, you can note that in Hari's championship bouts in K-1, the Moroccan anthem is used, contrary to Mousasi's championship bouts in Dream, where it's used the Dutch anthem, and both events are held by FEG. So, unless enough reliable sources clearly set Mousasi as Armenian, we must follow what they say now, that he represents the Netherlands mainly, just like sources clearly state that Zastrow represents Netherlands instead of Germany. Jfgslo (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

But that argument doesn't really wash. Cain Velasquez really talks about the Mexican heritage more than the American, but apparently he isn't at all Mexican, because of ridiculous definitions on here. Paralympiakos (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Velasquez may have both nationalities, but he has always represented the United States in competitions, not Mexico. To the best of my knowledge, talking about one's heritage doesn't mean that one forcibly represents it in sports. Otherwise, it would be like saying that Wagner Lopes represented Brazil in the World Cup, despite never playing with Brazil's national team. Velasquez is the same as Oscar De La Hoya or Rey Mysterio, Jr., American sportsmen proud of their Mexican heritage, but American nonetheless. And, like Mousasi, most reliable sources state that Velasquez is American, not Mexican. Jfgslo (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to point to MOS:FLAG where for sports-persons we shouldn't care so much about where a person was born or what their "legal" nationality is. Rather, what country do they represent? More specifically what country do they represent for each particular event. If Cain Velasquez claims at UFC 150 he represents Mexico, then we use the Mexican flag for him. If at UFC 155 he claims he represents the United States, he gets the US flag, for that event. Then at UFC 120 he claims he is representing China, we use the Chinese flag for that event. My point? Legal nationalities shouldn't mean squat for the MMA Wikiproject. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, neither Velasquez nor Mousasi have ever been billed as Mexican or Armenian in any MMA event or fighter introduction. And Dream events have been clear in showing Mousasi as Dutch. Jfgslo (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"UFC debut" and "MMA debut"

Recently, there has been an unfortunate spate of additions of "UFC debut", "MMA debut" and "[X company debut]" to fight record notes. I'd like to appeal to the more experienced members of the project that we remove these notes. They are utterly pointless. I'm sure anyone who isn't brain damaged can look a few inches to the left of the notes and work out that a certain fight is their "UFC debut". Even worse is "MMA debut".....for their first ever bout.....it's just unneeded and makes the pages look condescending.

Another problem with this is exclusivity. Why should we only have "UFC debut" or "WEC debut" ? Why not "Ring of Combat debut" or "Brutaal debut". They're both MMA organisations, so why not have notes for them? Just because UFC are bigger, doesn't mean squat. In other words, it's either none or all, and all would look farcical. I ask therefore that people keep a look out for these ridiculous notes on fight records and act accordingly. Thank you. Paralympiakos (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ariel Helwani

Ariel Helwani's page (he's a prominent MMA journalist) was full of libelous info and he complained about it on his twitter account. I have deleted most of the article leaving only the factually sourced stuff, which isn't much. Any help expanding the page would be appreciated. Phospheros (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Is he even notable? (Meaning could be pass WP:GNG?) --TreyGeek (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

There are multiple interviews with him as the subject from different MMA sites and he's likely the most well know MMA interviewer in the sport. --Phospheros (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Grappling and kickboxing in MMA articles

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Kickboxing is essentially inactive and there is no WikiProject for submission grappling, I would like to know if MMA events that feature kickboxing or grappling matches are only overseen by this project or if they should also be watched by Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts.

Specifically, I've been creating some articles about Jewels and Valkyrie events which had some shoot boxing and grappling bouts and I've been adding Template:WikiProject Martial arts in the talk pages since those bouts would be part of another project, I believe. But someone took it out of some articles because in his opinion it was redundant to have Template:WikiProject Mixed martial arts along with Template:WikiProject Martial arts since Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts is dependent of WP:WPMA. Ideally, I would have added a template for Wikipedia:WikiProject Kickboxing, but since that project has no activity I decided to use WP:WPMA and also because I have no idea which project is in charge of grappling.

Any suggestions on how to handle kickboxing and grappling bouts in MMA events? Even more, how do I handle project templates that oversee biographical articles that feature prominent kickboxers /grapplers who are also mixed martial artists? Jfgslo (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

MMA is clearly a subset of MA. If possible, people or events should be listed under both projects. I would comment that most individual events fail WP:N and that is why WP:MMANOT reads as it does. As far as biographies go, famous kickboxers like Bill Wallace and Joe Lewis are listed under martial arts, not MMA. For grapplers, if you must choose one, then you might want to go with MMA since that seems to be the current popular choice. Papaursa (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

So, is it okay to have to maintenance tags for MA and MMA wikiprojects at the same time? Because the problem with using Template:WikiProject Martial arts and Template:WikiProject Mixed martial arts at the same time is that it's redundant in categorization, since MMA is part of MA. For example, Roger Gracie currently is not overseen by this project or the martial arts project, but he has had a prominent career as a grappler before being an MMA fighter, therefore he theoretically should be overseen by both, shouldn't he? Semmy Schilt is more prominent as a kickboxer than as a MMA fighter, and he is currently overseen by the MMA project but, shouldn't he be also watched by the MA project since the kickboxing project is currently inactive? I would like to hear more opinions on this matter because I'd like to have solid arguments if the redundant tags are removed again. Jfgslo (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Mike Pyle

I was updating Mike Pyle's page and noticed that the numbers didn't add up. He has a fight on his record that is only listed on his website, not on Sherdog or Mixed Martial Arts. Should it be kept or deleted? Also his first loss is listed on Mixed Martial Arts as an amateur fight to Quinton Jackson but Sherdog has it listed as a pro fight.--Phospheros (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Pyle's site would be a self-published source and should generally be avoided as a sole reference. As for your other point, does Sherdog make a distinction between professional and amateur fights? Or is it assumed they only list professional fights? --TreyGeek (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Sherdog only lists professional fights but because of the nature of the sport (poor reporting of results by promoters) amateur, kickboxing, and even pro wrestling bouts sometimes end up on fighter records.--Phospheros (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the fight that was listed from Pyle's site but left in the Jackson fight. --Phospheros (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Rob Broughton

The picture on Rob Broughton's page claims to be released under a Free Art License but has a MMAWeekly logo on it.--Phospheros (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I found the original image, tagged the image on Commons as a copy violation, and removed it from the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Kenny Florian

I just wanted to post a heads up here about this. Some people on Sherdog have decided it's funny to vandalize the Kenny Florian article, I guess they got tired of Alessio Sakara. I've already reverted some of the vandalism, but I'd expect that there will be more before they get bored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlahnum (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Smackgirl events

Could someone check out the article List of Smackgirl events that I created? I was only going to add the events directly in Smackgirl's article, but since I added references for each event, the list ended up being too long. I'm particularly concerned about mistakes that I could have made with event names, since I used information from Sherdog, and, as I was adding the data, I couldn't help but notice several glaring mistakes made in the event names at Sherdog. I also didn't follow exactly the Japanese names because some of them didn't make sense (i.e. grappring) or I took some liberties in order to make them more clear (like the Smackgirl-F 1-12 events.) Jfgslo (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Tone in Aleksander Emelianenko article

I've been recently editing Aleksander Emelianenko's article and, with those edits, I couldn't help but wonder if the tone in the article is appropriate. I'm an admirer of his career and therefore I may be biased here.

First of all, I believe that there is too much focus on the problems that he has had with his MMA career since the Affliction incident. Nothing has ever been proved and the topic is rarely touched by the big MMA publications like MMA Junkie, Sherdog or MMAFighting since most of what is know is speculation. Yet, a portion of his biography in the article is dedicated to said speculated problems. And the California State Athletic Commission (CSAC), which is where all the rumors initiated, has a story of having controversial test results, like with Bas Rutten and Cesar Gracie. But even the CSAC didn't officially announce anything. Recently, news surfaced that he tested negative for the rumored hepatitis, so it was added to the article with some struggle. But in retrospective, I believe that nothing of the controversy should be there because all of it are rumors and speculations caused by the unofficial declarations of some members of the CSAC, all of which Emelianenko always denied. So, I want to remove everything related to the controversy other than what he has officially stated, if at all.

Secondly, the tattoos sections has nothing to do with his career or his biography in my opinion and all of it should be removed despite the fact that some of the text there is sourced.

Before I make changes to the article, I would like to hear your opinions because I don't want to ruin the content of the article with my personal bias. Jfgslo (talk) 23:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A Commission member going on the radio and stating:

"The one thing that I can absolutely say is that he (Emelianenko) was not and will not be cleared to fight in California. He is officially denied a license and that will stand for all of the United States of America".

Is in my opinion very article worthy. But I can get behind the removal of the tattoo section. --Phospheros (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I will remove the tattoos part when I edit the article. On the other point, that's the thing. As far as I know, that declaration was given by a member of the CSAC, but was not forwarded by the CSAC. Furthermore, as far as I know, the CSAC has nothing to do with what other commissions in the US might say. And Emelianenko denied having failed the tests by the CSAC, merely saying that he was late. A similar opinion was given by a member of the CSAC, saying that Josh Barnett would never fight in California again, yet another member confirmed recently that that was not the case. They can say "officially", but it was not issued by the CSAC, it was a comment in a Radio show and the CSAC has had some other cases in which they have handled poorly the cases (like with Bas Rutten.) Also, as I said, no big MMA websites followed that news. In any case, I'm not completely opposed to having that info there as long as there is a balance, with having both Emelianenko's comments on the case, the problem with a polish promoter and the recent testings which cleared him to fight (which, by the way, have been removed because Middle Easy was not considered a source reliable enough by an editor.) But adding all this information seems pretty tedious, because nothing was ever proved and everything is mostly speculation.

In other words, I believe that, if the information regarding his licensing issues in the US must be in the article, Emelianenko's position on the case, the problems with his possible fight with Mariusz Pudzianowski and his recent tests must also be there, but, since none of the controversies was followed by big MMA publications because it was mostly speculation, I don't think that it's worth having anything regarding the controversies. Kind of what happened recently with Shane Carwin. He has never tested positive, yet there is some controversy but all is speculation, something that should be avoided in biographies of living persons.

Anyway, I'm a fan of Emelianenko and I can't help having that view. I have particular problems with the controversy because I believe that it falls into WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:BLP#Avoid_gossip_and_feedback_loops and WP:UNDUE and therefore should be completely covered or not covered at all by the article. But I'm biased and I definitely appreciate as many opinions on this as possible. Jfgslo (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The detailed information about his tattoos seems irrelevant. However, I think a sourced comment by an official about Emelianenko's inability to be licensed in California is worthy of inclusion (as are any sourced comments he made). Papaursa (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Taking into consideration what you told me, I've basically rewritten the article. I was only going to address the tattoos and the controversy regarding his health, but, when I was doing that, I noticed several mistakes in the article and decided to rewrite it almost completely. I'd like to request you to verify that the information, references and the tone of the article in in compliance with this project standards. Since it was a big change from the previous version, I probably won't be able to spot the mistakes I could've made when writing the article. Please, check it out and let me know what needs to be added, removed, modified or corrected. Jfgslo (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I like this version better than the previous one. One thing it could use is an independent source verifying his national and world sambo titles. His website can hardly be considered a reliable source. Papaursa (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, there is a whole mess in Sambo organizations prior to 2005, which makes kind of difficult to find results prior to that year in online sources. Perhaps someone who is knowledgeable in Sambo could help me here. Jfgslo (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Mambers may be interested in this discssion. Rich Farmbrough, 01:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor in Wanderlei Silva article

IP 4.157.68.112 keeps adding unreferenced text about Silva's winning streaks in the championships section. I have asked him twice that he first must reference that information from external sources, because adding that information without external sources is against WP:NOR. Furthermore, that text would be in the main article text, not in the championships section. I need help reverting his edits until he adds the proper references. Jfgslo (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reason you haven't been putting warnings on the IP's talk page? You could have easily had the person blocked from editing at this point, along with what appears to be related IPs. I've put a WP:3RR warning on the IP's talk page. If they edit again during the next day or so they can be blocked for it. --TreyGeek (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Lack of experience on my part. I hadn't encountered that kind of problem before, at least not with persistent IPs. I'll remember your recommendation from now on. Thanks for your help. Jfgslo (talk) 06:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Strikeforce: Henderson vs. Babalu II

The MMA project needs to address the title of this event. MMA project member Paralympiakos continually changes the event box title to Strikeforce: St. Louis: Henderson vs. Babalu II. A previous precedent was established with the Strikeforce event prior. He constantly changed it from Strikeforce: Diaz vs. Noons II to Strikeforce: San Jose: Diaz vs. Noons. The general rule (as he explained to me in previous contact) was that the event was referred to by the name MMA media used, which led to a permanent change of Strikeforce: Diaz vs. Noons II. Not one single outlet in the MMA media has referred to this upcoming event as Strikeforce: St. Louis: Henderson vs. Babalu II. I hope the project will address this issue as consistency between the pages is imperative. Udar55 (talk) 19:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Provide a source stating what the name of the event is and the controversy ends. Or am I missing something? --TreyGeek (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Several sources (all considered among top MMA media sites):

http://www.sherdog.com/events/Strikeforce-Henderson-vs-Babalu-14750

http://mmaweekly.com/strikeforce-henderson-vs-babalu-ii

http://mmajunkie.com/event/761/strikeforce-henderson-vs-babalu.mma

http://mmajunkie.com/news/21297/herschel-walker-meets-scott-carson-at-strikeforce-henderson-vs-babalu.mma

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2010/11/2/1790691/strikeforce-dan-henderson-vs-renato-sobral-winner-gets-title-shot

Not a single one call it Strikeforce: St. Louis: Henderson vs. Babalu. Udar55 (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've explained this at the talk page of the actual event. No idea why you had to put this in several different places. See fighter profiles for example. Page name = common name. Within that, their full name. What is hard to understand about that? Paralympiakos (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You would have a point had the Strikeforce: Diaz vs. Noons II not been permanently changed from your desired title of Strikeforce: San Jose: Diaz vs. Noons II to the correct (and currently in use) title. I had to make this post here as it seems a consensus from the MMA project was the only way to settle this and, hopefully, provide consistency. Accordingly, I have provided enough evidence above that no one in the MMA media - per your rules - refers to it as Strikeforce: St. Louis: Henderson vs. Babalu II. Udar55 (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Just because some IP likely made the change on the page, doesn't make it right. Fact is, page name should be the most common name, i.e. "Strikeforce: Diaz vs. Noons II", but on the page, it should say "San Jose: Diaz...etc" at the top right area. Why are you still going on about it being changed? Paralympiakos (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor in Vitor Belfort article and others

IP 97.89.108.100 keeps vandalizing the article. I've already warned him but I don't want to keep reverting back his edits to avoid an edit war. I need help reverting his edits and keeping watch on him if he keeps this up. He is also vandalizing Roy Nelson (fighter) and Frankie Edgar. Jfgslo (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's blatant vandalism, so feel free to undo their edits whenever possible. You can also stop them with WP:AIV (after warning them adequately), so edit warring isn't an issue. I can help by watching those pages for a while. —LOL ^T/_C 01:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Shine Fights & Tachi Palace Fights

Hey, I'm pretty new to editing articles, but today I put a couple together for Shine Fights and Tachi Palace Fights. I just wanted to make sure that these promotions (Shine Fights mostly) are sufficiently notable to warrant articles in the minds of others.

I'm also somewhat curious to see if there are many others actively editing MMA articles out there.

Lastly, I haven't the slightest clue what I'm doing when it comes to adding images and most of the involved editing processes, so if anybody else feels like making things that I've done look a little better, that would be great.Beejaydee (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Shaw (fighter)

Since the original creator of the article is no longer active, I wanted to let this project know that I have prodded Charlie Shaw (fighter) for deletion for not meeting WP:MMANOT or WP:BIO. However, this project may have better skills at searching out references than I do with general searches, so if you can improve the article with references to show Shaw meets one of the notability guidelines, feel free to do so and remove the prod. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Yoko Takahashi (fighter) verification request

I recently created an article about this female MMA fighter. I need some help in verifying the factual accuracy of her fights, because her record at Sherdog is incomplete and it has several mistakes, such as counting a grappling match as MMA or changing the result of a fight. I referenced all her fights, but I have some doubts with a few of them, particularly those before 2001.

For example, I'm including her fight at Daido Juku since Japanese publication Bout Review mentioned it in her 1999 fight record (which also included kickboxing matches), but I'm not completely sure that Daido Juku is accepted as MMA by this WikiProject. Also, I included her fight with Megumi Yabushita in 1998 but I still have some doubts if it was MMA or grappling. There are some other fights prior to 2001 in which I have some doubts.

I would like to request that other editors check the article and verify that the information in the references is correctly expressed in the text. Please, let me know any mistake I may have made. Jfgslo (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

TJ Grant Entrance Music

TJ Grant entered the Octagon to the song "Welcome Home" by Coheed and Cambria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeb1988 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankie Edgar's record

Where are we getting the amateur loss from? His amateur record at MixedMartialArts.com only has one fight, a TKO win. --Phospheros (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If right now there are no sources to support that claim about a loss, remove it as it is unreferenced material in the biography of a living person. Jfgslo (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright I removed it.--Phospheros (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Sako Chivitchian/GA1

User:Paralympiakos nominated this article for GA, and I posted an initial review five days ago, and notified him. It still needs quite a bit of work. However, Paralympiakos has just one edit in the time since my review went up, so he may not be active right now. Ideally, he as nominator would be the one to respond to the review, but someone should, so I'm posting here to try to get someone to come answer the review. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 21:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:The Ultimate Fighter 12 is broken

User Green-eyed girl pointed it out in her review of Sako Chivitchian's page. I believe it's because the name was changed from "Template:The Ultimate Fighter 12" to "Template:The Ultimate Fighter: Team GSP vs. Team Koscheck" --Phospheros (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah that was it, fixed. --Phospheros (talk) 00:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Gracie Barra

Hello wikipeople! Can someone who is more knowledgable about martial arts stuff take a look at this article? It was up for speedy deletion as spam, but the article is actually like four years old and was heavily edited relatively recently by someone with a COI. I have restored it to the pre-spam version but there's not much left and with my limited knowledge of martial arts and such, I'm not sure if this is really even notable. Thanks guys! l'aquatique[talk] 03:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

UFC / WEC Bantamweight merger in List of UFC champions#Bantamweight Championship

This dispute (Talk:List of UFC champions#BW Champion) needs a little help with the decision. Should the championship be marked as if it was won at WEC 53 or should it be marked as if the fight was only for the WEC belt and he was later promoted to a UFC champion.

So should the table look like this:

No.	Name	Date	Location	Defenses
1	Dominick Cruz (def. Scott Jorgensen)	December 16, 2010 (WEC 53)	Glendale, Arizona, US

or like this:

No.	Name	Date	Location	Defenses
1	Dominick Cruz (promoted to undisputed champion)	December 16, 2010

--Tuoppi gm (talk) 14:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be the first one, because Dominick Cruz fought for the inagural/vacant UFC Bantamweight Champion unlike Jose Aldo who was given his UFC Championship. Joe712 (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the first should be used.--Phospheros (talk) 10:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed on this page that Frankie Edgar only has 1 win against B.J. Penn listed, not two. He took the belt from Penn the first time and then won a title defense with Penn a second time before his title defense against Gray Maynard. This needs to be fixed and I'm not sure how to do so. (Meaning: I don't want to screw up where I should put that information) Also, I noticed some of the names you can click on to take you to their respective pages, and some you cannot. Not sure if this is by design or if it was just not caught. Again, I won't change it and let others decide what to do there. Just thought I'd point this stuff out.Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but Edgar's title defense against Penn is already listed. :P

I think the links for some names are missing by design, but could be added because WP:REPEATLINK allows for repeated links in tables. —LOL ^T/_C 20:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

My apologies. I guess I read it wrong somehow. Thanks for the prompt response. UPDATE: Oh, I see why it looks wrong. Underneath Frankie's name it should say: <def. B.J. Penn> and it doesn't. This is what I think I saw missing. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 21:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the list of champions, but I think the "def." line underneath one's name is only supposed to exist for special cases like interim or vacant titles. —LOL ^T/_C 21:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then I get a gold star for epic fail then. Again, my apologies and thanks again for setting me straight. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

TUF 13 Articles

I was peeking in and noticed that there are two separate TUF 13 articles: The Ultimate Fighter: Team Lesnar vs. Team Dos Santos and The Ultimate Fighter 13. For those of you who are still actively involved in editing, someone may want to re-direct one to the other. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the one to do it, but I just checked and both links now point to the same article, so I guess we can consider this closed. Thanks to whoever linked them.

Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 19:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture Out Of Place

Now I've only looked at recent UFC events, and UFC 1, but I can assume all the ones in between are messed up as well, the picture is on the left side and above everything else, also the TUF wikis are having the same issueTmt2393 14:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any pictures "on the left side and above everything else" in the UFC 1 article. Perhaps your browser is having issues? What are "TUF wikis"? —LOL ^T/_C 18:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"TUF" is the abbreviation many MMA fans use for, "The Ultimate Fighter". I assume Tmt2393 was talking about those articles related to various "The Ultimate Fighter" seasons as well. Not for nothing, but I checked the UFC 1 article and also some of the "TUF wikis" and didn't see the same problem as Tmt2393. I have to conclude that LOL is correct and Tmt2393's browser might have been minimized or somehow distorted in such a way where the pictures appeared on the left side instead of the right. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) Dachknanddarice 02:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

List of MMA Wikiproject Guidelines and Rules

Hey everyone. I'm pretty new to this sort of thing, and have essentially just kept myself busy by changing MMA records to reflect a certain style (which has now become a bit of a debate, but that's not what this is about). I'd like to start taking on a more active role perhaps by expanding articles and maybe even creating a few. I've read the MMA Notability which is listed as a "guideline" to making articles regarding MMA. (I'd like a little more depth in that too, but I'll put my concerns on that talk page) What I'd like to hopefully see, being a new guy here, is a list of links to actual Wiki Rules that must be followed when it comes to MMA articles, as well as a list of links to actual Wiki Guidelines (Such as the MoS, MMANOT, etc. etc.) that we should be looking at following so that new people to the MMA Wikiproject will have a list of things to look into before making changes. The only reason I know about the MoS is simply because I've heard people mention it in regards to MMA. Is it possible for people who are more knowledgable about Wikipedia to add these links? I'm not talking about links to general Wiki rules regarding civility and such... I'm talking about links to rules and guidelines specifically geared toward the MMA Wikiproject. I'm also willing to create this list myself here on this article if anyone wants to give me some links to look at in regards to adding it. I appreciate your time, thanks for reading this giant wall of text. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 18:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Judging from this list, the only pages that appear to be worth checking out are Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Event pages format and Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/quickbio (the latter is already linked from WP:MMA). —LOL ^T/_C 22:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh man, my apologies once again. I'm so new to this that I didn't know that page existed. I will be sure to look at those in detail before expanding or adding any articles. I appreciate you showing me this, and I hope we can keep this little section up so that other new folks can use this as a bit of a guide. Thanks again. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, you don't have to apologize for everything you don't know. You seem new, and we understand that. I'm just glad to have a new fellow showing enthusiasm in article maintenance according to consensus-driven styles and formats, because we could always use more. —LOL ^T/_C 23:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-promotion?

What do you think of the article about Kevin Howell and similar edits by its creator?--Razionale (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources are definitely insufficient to establish notability. victorybelt.com and fightzoneusa.com are affiliated with him, the "Orange County Judo Training Center" appears in no other Wikipedia articles, the "Kid Peligro" page only mentions Howell under a schedule, and the others are blogs (see WP:SPS) or other non-notable media. —LOL ^T/_C 17:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What caught my interest in the connection to the article subject was this edit that I don't how how to deal with.--Razionale (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The addition is entirely unsourced, does not have a neutral POV and contains peacock terms, so I would be in favour of simply removing those sections. —LOL ^T/_C 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have cut it down to this. Just go ahead if it's not enough.--Razionale (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by user Eyriq86

User Eyriq86 keeps editing MMA records despite that I have already pointed out to him the appropriated Manual of Styles related to that. He simply ignores them and marks them as minor. I have already warned him three times and I was about to report him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but I may be overreacting. I would like to request that other editors verify his edits in the articles of Alistair Overeem, Kazushi Sakuraba, Junior dos Santos, Brandon Vera, Todd Duffee, Ricardo Arona and Georges St-Pierre. I'm under the impression that, although he appears to be trying to improve articles, he makes unreferenced changes, removes referenced text, ignores policies, guidelines and manual of styles, and also always marks his edits as minor without summary despite that they rarely are minor and several times they include the removal of some reference. I believe that he is not acting in good faith as he simply ignored the warnings and keeps doing changes the way he likes. I would like to read more opinions before I take further actions. Jfgslo (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on dealing with anti-MoS rebels, but it seems to me that you'd be justified in reporting the user to ANI. The user hasn't made a single edit on any talk page,[7] and I'd state this fact if you do report them. It doesn't appear that they've made any attempt to communicate with you or resolve the conflict. —LOL ^T/_C 06:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reported Eyriq86. But since his edits aren't technically vandalism and administrators have their hands full at the moment, could someone else revert his edits? I don't want to give the impression that this is something personal by being the only one reverting his edits. Jfgslo (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that Eyriq86 is at it again. This time attacking Keith Jardine's page. Twice today I've had to undo changes made to Jardine's MMA record. One was by an anonymous IP address and the other was by Eyriq86. I suspect the anonymous IP was him also because the changes to the record were similar. Both times today, there was no explanation for the changes and no reason behind them other than, what I believe, to stir up trouble. Maybe Eyriq86 is just an individual looking to subvert the MMA Wikiproject? In any case, I think someone smarter than myself should probably start looking into an "RfA" (I think that's the proper term?) for this guy? I don't think he'll give up and quit on his own. Could use some input, please. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 20:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we definitely need to take the next steps regarding Eyriq86 and his non-constructive editing. However, since he has never responded to anything on his talk page, I'm not sure what the best solution would be at this point. I'm going to see if there is someone that can give us an outside opinion on how to handle this. ZephyrFox (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I really think we should do something to notify the admins of this guy's behavior. Twice today I've had to revert this guy's changes on Keith Jardine's page again. He always marks them as minor, and he never provides an explanation. It's clear to me that this guy just wants to cause trouble and I think it's high time it got addressed by people who have the ability to do so. Is there anyway we can notify the admins that this guy is causing problems? Someone more experienced than myself should take whatever steps are necessary to see this through... I simply don't know where to begin and don't have the time to gather up "evidence" here at work. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

ShoMMA

This has come up on the ShoMMA discussion page and I figured I would bring it over here to get a consensus from the project. Strikeforce is currently at 15 events for this show and the page is getting crowded. Someone proposed individual pages for each show, which I agreed with. Basically, they are like Strikeforce's version of UFC's Ultimate Fight Nights and those get their own pages. Also, Showtime appears to have dropped the ShoMMA name and lists them on their website now as Strikeforce Challengers. I would be more than willing to do each individual page if the MMA project agrees it is worth doing. Udar55 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the ShoMMA article is definitely becoming unwieldy, especially with the large amount of duplicated heading titles. The only thing I worry about is whether individual ShoMMA events are notable enough to have their own article, as Strikeforce still seems pretty far from being as big as the UFC. —LOL ^T/_C 14:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think the shows should start getting their own pages. I'd like to make sure we don't forget to intersperse links to them from the other major Strikeforce events in the infobox for "previous and next events". Meaning, the UFC on Versus event links can be found in the info box in between UFC PPVs... I'd like to see the same thing (in date-correct chronological order) for the ShoMMA (Which we should rename, Strikeforce Challengers 1, 2, etc. etc.) events that happened in between major Strikeforce events. I'm willing to help Udar55, if he wants it, create these pages and make sure they link up properly with other Strikeforce events.

@LOL: Strikeforce is currently the number 2 MMA organization in North America, and with its co-promotion with Dream in Japan, makes it a well-known organization overseas as well. Considering they put on the most shows other than the UFC, I'd like to think that makes it notable. There are no reports of Strikeforce having financial issues like FEG has had with Dream and K-1, and there's no reason to believe Strikeforce is going away any time soon. There's lots of reasons to believe Strikeforce is notable enough to add their ShoMMA events as seperate articles, especially since they continue to put them on. Just my .02. Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 16:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I figure if smaller shows like Bellator, MFC and KSW can get individual events pages for their small shows that these should be okay. Thanks to everyone for the input. Udar55 (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

That those MMA events have their own article is not a good measure by itself. The real problem is that there isn't a consensus on how notability applies to MMA events, at least as far as I know. That is to say is, how do we define when an sport event related to MMA is notable and when is not? Per the general notability guideline (GNG), there needs to be significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. That is, there must be at least two non-local media that covers an event in detail and that media must not be related in any way to the event itself. For example, a publication dedicated to UFC related media, even if it's not affiliated to Zuffa, would not be good enough to verify the notability of an UFC event since it is not independent of the subject. Any fansite or publication that does not have editorial integrity would also be meaningless for notability. Under this criteria, the event reviews given at Sherdog, MMAFighting or any of the other major MMA websites should work for notability, and I believe that all the events discussed here would qualify for the GNG. If there is no significant coverage for individual ShoMMA events, those events can be covered in a single article.

However, there is another guideline, notability (sports), which has a different criteria for that and the problem is that MMA events are not included there. Not even boxing is there. The major objection that I see is routine coverage and the interpretation of it.

With that said, as far as I know, no one has contested the notability of UFC events or argued that they fall into routine coverage, so it would be a matter of proving the notability of events from other organizations with reliable sources and citations when creating an article of an MMA event. Of course, UFC shows are also TV shows and they are also covered by other guidelines that other MMA events are not. But I assume that, since WrestleMania and similar wrestling events have not had objection from routine coverage, the same would apply to MMA events that have significant coverage.

All this is speculation, though. Perhaps it would be a good idea to request for comments at Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard to know for sure how to qualify the notability of MMA events or to generate the criteria ourselves. Jfgslo (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Appreciate the feedback. It should be noted that ShoMMA (Which should really be referred to as Strikeforce Challengers Series now) is actually shown on Showtime all the time, and has always been since Strikeforce Challengers 1. Sherdog.com routinely covers their events with upcoming information, weigh ins, and event results. Even MMAJunkie covers the events, here, and here. I think notability for Strikeforce Challengers shouldn't exactly be too tough to prove. What does everyone else think? Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 23:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)