Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:09, 31 March 2012

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Mixed martial arts and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months

• WT:MMA

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Mixed martial arts and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Flags of British MMA Fighters

I see alot of British MMA fighters being represented by this flag on Wikipeida pages, and I think that they should be represented by this flag . The UFC uses this flag to represent British fighters like Michael Bisping in their telecasts and their UFC Undisputed video game franchise. I personally have never seen the UFC use this flag to represent a British fighter. I think that all flags on British fighter related pages such as event pages should use instead. The only time should be used is if the page is talking about an event location in England, such as a UFC event held in Manchester, England. I wanna know who agrees with this and who doesn't, I think this would help improve MMA pages on Misplaced Pages. Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with this, even though the UFC does in fact uses the Union Jack to represent a fighters nationality, but for any fighter who lives in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, they would want to represent the actual country they come from. For example, if we look at events BAMMA have put up and see the different nations in their events that are in the UK, we'd see that they are not all cut from the same cloth despite all being under the Union Jack. If we change all their nationalities and have them just under the Union Jack, the page would look ridiculous and would undertone the event as an all British event, not an international event. For this reason I would vote against such motion if it were to ever go to a consensus decision BigzMMA (talk) 10:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look at Misplaced Pages's MOS on the use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations it seems that the British countries are an exception to the 'rule' not to use sub-national flags when used for people, particularly in a sporting context. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Super Fight League

I am debating with myself whether to create a main page for the Super Fight League but I want opinions from others to see if it is worth creating a page for them just yet. They are India's first MMA promotion, and their first event is going to be headlined by Bob Sapp and James Thompson in March, but after that they will hold another two events in early April and early May respectively. They seem to be getting a lot of attention due to being owned by Raj Kundra, Sanjay Dutt, Ken Pavia and Daniel Isaac as well as being a main topic of conversation in Bollywood. Because of all this I believe it is worth creating a page for them, which I will obviously create under my sandbox before hand, but I'd like some opinions before I decide to do it. BigzMMA (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I decided to go ahead and create a rough copy of what the page will look like in my sandbox, for anyone who is interested in this debate please have a look and give your opinions on here or on my talk page. If no-one answers back to this within one week from this message, I will assume that no-one rejects the thought of the SFL having their own page and for this reason alone I will go ahead and create the main page under Super Fight League. BigzMMA (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup of the article in your sandbox. A lot of is/was just minor copy edits and changing references to use {{cite}} templates. I did have to do some changes to the section about their cage because it looks like you simply copy/pasted that section from their website which is a copyright violation.

That done, I have two questions. Does SFL have immediate plans to have championships in all six weight classes listed? If not, they should probably be removed to avoid confusion. (I couldn't find anything on their website stating which weigh classes they were going to have championships for or if they were going to start off with any championships.) The second question is not limited to this potential SFL article, but about all MMA organization articles. Are the rules section, as they are being written now, really necessary? We already have an article covering the Unified Rules of Mixed Martial Arts. Why not shorten this (potentially boring) section by saying the organization follows the Unified Rules with the following exceptions: x, y and z. (Again, that question/comment is not exclusive to the potential SFL article.)

Otherwise, good job. I hope you keep up with it. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The references do look better now, thanks for that, umm, well with the things like rules, I think it makes the page look more professional, and I would like to keep it like that. As far as the Champions section, for the time being I wouldn't disagree removing it until they announce championship bouts or tournaments to crown champions. Remember they are a brand new promotion with currently receiving significant coverage, so that is why I believe they should have the main page in the first place. When they start to crown champions obviously we can add them back in. Who knows, if each event gets a similar amount of coverage it may be worth having a page for each of them? After that small change I think I'm ready to give it it's own page. BigzMMA (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Top10mmaRankings.com: Legit or spam?

I want to be sure that I am not totally off-base here. Does anyone see Top10mmaRankings.com as a legit, reliable source of MMA fighter rankings? An IP has been adding their rankings to several fighter articles and has been attempting to get an article created for the site. The WP:AFC folks rejected the article because it cited no sources (though the IP is apparently trying again, still without sources). I've reverted their edits to fighter articles for link spam. Does anyone disagree that this is potentially link spam? I looked at the site and was not impressed. I can't seem to find anything that suggests they are a reliable source for MMA fighter rankings and/or are used by others in the media. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Junk, delete on sight. --SubSeven (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What rights do you have?

You have no rights to decide which source of information is relevant to articles. The only thing you are doing is monopolizing sources of information and esentially turning wikipedia into a corporate media proxy. Let the viewer choose which soure of ranking to believe. You have no rights to limit the source of information that reach the viewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasSDS (talk • contribs) 19:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The two Marcus Aurélios

I just discovered that there are now articles about two Marcus Aurélios. The two articles are currently disambiguated by their year of birth. Marcus Aurélio (born 1974) is the more well known of the two having competed in UFC, Price, Dream, etc. Marcus Aurélio (born 1986) is of questionable notability. There are two (three?) reasons for bringing this up.

1. Is the one born in 1986 notable? If not, we should delete it (PROD or AfD) and move the 1974 Marcus back to the original article title.
2. Assuming 1986 is notable, a number of Wikilinks need to be fixed from pointing to Marcus Aurélio to Marcus Aurélio (born 1974) (see what links there). This is not currently something that MMABot is capable of dealing with (and I won't be surprised to see MMABot barf all over it when it comes across the disambig page now).
3. (Again) Assuming 1986 is notable, do we want to disambiguate them by birth year? Is there a better way? 1974's real name is Marcus Aurélio Martins, but it is unknown, to me, if 1986 is the real name or not.

In writing this I've decided to AfD 1986. If the result is delete then I guess most of the issue is settled with #1. If the result is keep we'll need to deal wtih #2 and #3. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a follow up, it looks like all the wikilinks to the disambig page intended for the 'known' Marcus Aurélio have been changed to point to Marcus Aurélio (born 1974). If the AfD is successful, and so far it looks like it is, then those links will have to be changed back. I'm thinking that may require an admin's help. We'll see. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Dean Amasinger

A couple of months ago the page for Dean Amasinger was deleted and the link is now merge into the Ultimate Fighter season he appeared on. I completely disagreed with this, he is highly notable and meets GNG as he has competed for notable promotions such as UCMMA, Cage Warriors, BAMMA and Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (KSW). But don't just take my word for it, just doing a simple Google search under his name will show anyone doubting it that he is as notable as necessary for Misplaced Pages via WP:GNG. I would therefore like to have his page unmerged with the The Ultimate Fighter Season 9 page and reinstate his original page so I can happily update it seen as a fair few things has happened for him since this incident, which included him signing a four fight deal with KSW which is news anyone can find on Google, as well as updating his MMA record. BigzMMA (talk) 13:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Championships and accomplishments sections

Over the last couple of months there have been a lot of additions to MMA fighter articles of "Championships and accomplishments" sections. Glancing around it appears much of this is unsourced. I'm curious about people's opinions of removal of these sections in their entirely? Or at minimum, removal of those items in the sections that are not sourced and not directly obvious from the article? Obvious items, to me, would be number of "Fight of the Nights", "Championships" and similar items which likely appear in the fight record table and should already be discussed in the prose of the article. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

They don't need to be removed, they do need to be sourced like Jon Jones's accomplishment list.--Phospheros (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of things like "fight of the night" or "submission of the night" being listed as an accomplishment. That's like indicating the "first star" of an NHL game. That said, I like lists of accomplishments because it makes things clear and easy to find. Of course, everything on those lists should have an independent source. I believe any editor is within their rights to remove any claim that isn't sourced. Papaursa (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I suppose we could amend it to "Championships, awards, & accomplishments" though for the sake of brevity I'd just leave it as it currently stands. Obviously unverifiable claims can and should be removed.--Phospheros (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I can see Papaursa's reasoning for not including 'basic' awards such as fight of the night (though I did have to look up first star to realize he was referring to the most valuable player ;). I raised this subject because I've noticed through vandalism watch and runs of MMABot a lot of these sections are unsourced in part or in their entirety. I wanted to get a feel of people's opinions (or those who pay attention to the MMA Wikiproject) on this issue before I start hacking away at these sections (I am a deletionist afterall). --TreyGeek (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

UFC 140 AfD

Just a heads up that UFC 140 is up for deletion. --SubSeven (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a slew of MMA articles up for deletion as listed in the MMA WikiProject article alerts section and the martial arts deletion list. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Absurd nomination with flat out lies from at least one of the deletes. God,I can't stand these people who want to ruin things for others purely because they just dont' like,care about, or know about certain things. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculous again that these events are being nominated--Fightloungemike (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

These people must be violating some Misplaced Pages policy for nominating pages they clearly know are not going to be deleted. Even if they aren't MMA fans, they should know trying to remove a UFC event page is like trying to delete any year's NFL Super Bowl Finals page, it simply won't happen. And the fact they aren't stopping there by nominating BAMMA 9, SFL 1 and all OMMAC events must mean they clearly are the wrong people to be contributing to MMA topics. BigzMMA (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to point out UFC 94 as a perfect example of how to make an MMA event article comply with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. It includes well sourced prose discussing the background leading up to the event, it discusses the event itself (while the "greasing controversy" helps, there is a lot aside from that), and a discussion of what happened following the event. If you read it, the 'standard' list of fight results is a very minor part of the article. I realize that not every event can have the same detail, but that should be our goal. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Year in UFC article

The AfD for UFC 149 has been closed with the admin saying it should be merged into a list of UFC events article. Now we, as a project, must determine how to meet that admin's direction. We already have List of UFC events which, to me, is a simplistic article and if expanded to include more details of individual events would become way to unwieldy with as many UFC events as there are. The admin suggested doing a list by year. Many other projects do similar kinds of articles and in this case would be something like 2012 in UFC events. It could contain a basic list of the year's events and prose briefly discussing each event. Those events for which a full article can be written, similar to UFC 94, then they can be split off. Thoughts? --TreyGeek (talk) 04:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, what I envision for a 'year in' article would be something along the lines of what I've started in my sandbox. Its goal is to eliminate the raw fight results which avoids WP:NOTSTATSBOOK and discusses significant bouts as sourced prose, thus complying with WP:ROUTINE and WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

With as many events as the UFC holds, the amount said about each card would need to be brief in order to keep the article from becoming unwieldy. Having said that, I like the concept and the layout I saw in your sandbox. Properly done, that's an article about MMA events I could support. Papaursa (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that if every fight at every event is discussed then this idea won't work. Th why I think only the significant/notable fights (championships, tournaments, co-main event, etc) should be discussed with any kind of detail. I think that'll result in only 2-4 fights per event being discussed and likely it will be rare for preliminary fights to have any discussion other than mentions of bonus awards if it occurs. I'll see about fleshing out one event in the sandbox to give a better idea of what I'm envisioning. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Like your sandbox idea, buy maybe add something like this This. Then have major events like UFC 100 have their own page. c.m1994 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

My interpretation of what the closing admin said is that events that haven't happened yet shouldn't have their own page. Thus, a list of FUTURE events was proposed. I saw no directive to stop creating individual event pages for events that have already taken place. There are clearly competing views on this, but the admin has not taken a clear side. Individual event numbers could redirect to a list, with individual event pages being created later. This would at least stop the creation of event pages for events a half a year away, which violates WP:CRYSTAL so long as the events themselves are unannounced. Even when the events are announced, though, the admin believes that the content of the page would feel too much like promotion to be warranted, which is reasonable considering that even pre-event articles with cites offer little more than PR announcements and injury scratches (which typically has no lasting historical significance). I suspect that more significant changes than the ones I've suggested would be met with a great deal of resistance and likely widespread efforts to undo these changes. I suspect there is simply too much interest in having these single event pages exist to try and stop it through AfDs and administrative action. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was the one who first suggested the "Bellator events by TV season" approach in an AfD debate, to keep the events pages from being deleted altogether. I am not opposed to lists, but I also think that the UFC and Bellator are not the same in terms of their significance, nor do I think the sheer number of UFC events promoted lends itself well to this type of merger. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If the admin is suggesting that the article should be 'merged' only because it is a future event, then we can simply redirect UFC 149 to List of UFC events and be done.

As for the Bellator event articles, I'm not wild about how they look. The raw results seem to be primary focus of the article and lacks well sourced prose. That would not comply with WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, WP:ROUTINE, WP:SPORTSEVENT. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with redirecting upcoming events to the List of UFC events. This preserves the page's edit history and makes it easier to edit the page after the event takes place (than if the page were simply deleted). I'm a bit confused, though, when you say that you aren't wild about how the pages look. because you then cite WP guidelines to suggest that perhaps they shouldn't exist at all. The argument I made with Bellator is that we should treat each season as being a season of a television show, which it is. There is plenty of precedent for having lists of episodes of TV shows, which is why I think this format ultimately won out in the debate. UFC events are a bit different, but I also think there are many more reliable sources that can make a case for the notability of these events. I've never been convinced by comparisons to football, hockey, soccer, etc. because while the UFC (the premier league) will generally only hold one event in a weekend, the NFL, NHL, NCAA, etc. will each hold dozens of contests on a single day. And it is not similar to golf, tennis, or even NASCAR, because the competitors are quite different from event to event, rather than the same field of competitors each time. In some ways, each UFC event is most similar to a movie release, where a single broadcast is released simultaneously in many countries. So really, UFC 1, 2, and 3 is like Jaws 1, 2, and 3, except the action isn't scripted and the shark is Royce Gracie. Many more people watch a UFC event than many of the films listed on WP (without issue), and I suspect they get more press coverage as well. You can't tell me that major UFC events don't feel like a red carpet event, or that highlights aren't likely to show up in an end of the years awards show . Nic Cage releases more movies in a year than GSP usually fights, but no one is trying to say that Nic Cage movies don't belong on WP (whether they belong in the theaters is another question entirely). Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We're straying from discussing what to do with UFC 149 as a result of the AfD. However, if the Bellator article(s) are primarily "well sourced prose" discussing the events and fights as opposed to primarily a list of fight results then my complaints will be resolved. Contrary to others, I do not believe that any and every UFC event is automatically notable. Each event should be judged individually. If an article about an event (UFC or otherwise) is judged to meet Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies then an article about the event can be kept. I think we (OSU and I) agree on that. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We do agree on that. The other arguments I made are consistent with my general approach to AfDs. After seeing Libstar put nearly the entirety of the kickboxing pages up for deletion, I saw the writing on the wall. I have since nominated a slew of pages for deletion that were for minor events and promotions to try and increase the average notability level of remaining MMA pages. Nearly all that were nominated were deleted as a consequence of those debates. I have, however, argued for keeping pages relating to the UFC, Dream, Strikeforce, Bellator, and to a lesser extent Sengoku. People posting in AfDs don't always know the difference between Strikeforce and Brutaal (self-described as mid level cage fighting events in the Midwest run by a beauty school drop out, see http://twitter.com/#!/brutaal), and I could see that deleting one UFC event following the debate of a few editors was going to create a precedent for dismantling all of them. There is still too much disagreement about what constitutes a independent, reliable source, for me to think any event stood a chance against folks with deletionist tendencies (particularly those not involved in the MMA Wikiproject or without any interest in the sport). So, yes, I'm off track a bit, but this is why I don't intend to vote to delete UFC event pages and will argue for retaining them, even if I agree that not every event is inherently notable. It is also why I think a simple redirect is the easiest way to satisfy the admin without disrupting the status quo. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with this idea entirely, the fact is that ALL UFC events has been able to and still provide sources that strengthens their own separate pages.

Now I've had an idea about how to sort this out PROPERLY. What we can do instead is simply rate a promotion between 1 star and 5 stars (1 being lowest, 5 being highest) and with that rating it determines whether the promotion is strong enough to have separate event pages. I'm thinking anything between 3 to 5 stars are safe whereas any promotion with 2 stars or less can be debated on through a different means but ofcourse rules will be written for those rated promotions the conditions of possible event pages (i.e merged pages). Now as we all can agree on, the UFC is the NFL of MMA, so it can be safely said that all UFC events will remain safe, but once I work out a system which we can determine on, then I will write on here what I think, then we can tweak it where-ever necessary and ultimately, come up with a workable system that can survive the test of time and pretty much end the need for this idiotic AfDs for event pages. BigzMMA (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is not to propose new notability guidelines or whether events for a particular promotion are inherantly notable thus deserves an article. It is to discuss how to handle an admin's closing of Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFC 149 which is requiring us to merge or redirect UFC 149. If you want to disagree with an admin's decision in closing the AfD that is a completely different issue and you should take that up with them. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Opppose merge and denutting of results. Per WP:FIVE, Misplaced Pages is in part an almanac and encyclopedia. Almanacs and encyclopedias list results in statistical charts. I have sets of specialized encyclopedias from everything from military history to Lost as well as The World Almanac and Book of Facts, Britannica, Compton's, and their yearly update issues and guess what, all of these have tables and charts of statistics showing results from games to Olympics etc. There is no reason why Misplaced Pages shouldn't also include such information. And yes, some things are inherantly notable. All NFL championship game are notable. Well, the UFC is the premier MMA league. At a minimum all events featuring championship fights are notable and especially these days are going to be covered in mainstream press after that FOX deal and all. --63.3.19.129 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)Note : Blocked as a sock of a blocked editor. Mtking 03:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)