Marty Rockatansky (talk | contribs) |
Marty Rockatansky (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 215: | Line 215: | ||
:::I'd just like to point out that there's nothing wrong with repeating information in the lead and the sections below. In fact, according to various style guides on wikipedia ([[WP:BETTER]] is a good place to start), the lead should touch on each section of the main article. So, if there is a section on the fight, it is perfectly reasonable to mention it in the lead. Otherwise, probably not. [[User:Gnfnrf|gnfnrf]] ([[User talk:Gnfnrf|talk]]) 03:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
:::I'd just like to point out that there's nothing wrong with repeating information in the lead and the sections below. In fact, according to various style guides on wikipedia ([[WP:BETTER]] is a good place to start), the lead should touch on each section of the main article. So, if there is a section on the fight, it is perfectly reasonable to mention it in the lead. Otherwise, probably not. [[User:Gnfnrf|gnfnrf]] ([[User talk:Gnfnrf|talk]]) 03:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
I don't have a problem with the notable wins.I just had a problem with the number of times the people were defeated.I thought it made no sense when it adds nothing to the article.I also thought it makes the page look stupid.That was my point.I think we should '''remove''' it if it's causing so many problems and doesn't add anything to the article itself.([[User:MgTurtle|MgTurtle]] ([[User talk:MgTurtle|talk]]) 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)). |
I don't have a problem with the notable wins.I just had a problem with the number of times the people were defeated.I thought it made no sense when it adds nothing to the article.I also thought it makes the page look stupid.That was my point.I think we should '''remove''' it if it's causing so many problems and doesn't add anything to the article itself.([[User:MgTurtle|MgTurtle]] ([[User talk:MgTurtle|talk]]) 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)). |
||
::::Yep, I'm with a '''remove'''. Full fight record is included to almost every fighter page and all that is "notable". |
|||
== Numbers == |
== Numbers == |
Revision as of 06:58, 4 August 2008
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
- The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
- The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
- A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
UFC Fight Night 14/15
There are currently two pages created for the next UFC Ultimate Fight Night. One has it listed as UFC Fight Night 14, which appears to be correct, and the other pages has it as UFC Fight Night 15. I think the show in Sept. is UFN 14 because the UFC has not advertised Irvin vs. Silva as a fight night. Udar55 (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yep, 14 redirected to Silva vs. Irvin but as it didn't look like the UFC was counting it I moved the info from 15 to 14, leaving 15 pretty much empty. But I'm thinking we maybe should stop numbering them as the UFC (as far as I know) doesn't - and just call them what they do (which would be UFC Silva vs Irvin and UFC Fight Night Diaz vs Neer). We could wait and see what Sherdog does though, but right now they have called both the Silva- and September-event named as UFC Fight Night [1]. --Aktsu (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just like a regular UFC event, the name comes after the announcement. Ex. UFC 80 was made UFC 80, but the final name was UFC 80: Rapid Fire. Wikipedians are not going to wait for the name to come out, but once it does the page should be renammed. UFN 14 is Silva vs. Irvin and UFN 15 is Diaz vs. Neer. So don't make any more changes. Chrisschultze (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not true. UFC.com will list an event in the Fight Night series as "Fight Night." They do not call Silva vs. Irvin that. But they do list Diaz vs. Neer as "Fight Night." Udar55 (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's really strange that they doesn't... Maybe they're trying to trick people into thinking you're getting a "real" UFC for free or something... Anyway, on UFC.com they haven't numbered the events since FN 6, which was the event before Ortiz-Shamrock. It's a pain that the MMA-press (rightly so apparently) didn't count that one, but they are counting the Silva-one. I'm guessing our choices are either to rename all events after 6, making our own numbering (not counting Silva-Irvin, making "our" 14 what the press now calls 15), or we follow the press and call Silva vs. Irvin FN14... --aktsu (t / c) 05:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
An interesting idea would be to give the page a generic title in the vein of most boxing events, despite those being promoted under extravagant banners and having undercards. ("Fight of the Millenium", anyone?) To apply this here, we could just move events with ambiguous promotional banners to titles such as Nate Diaz vs. Josh Neer mixed martial arts bout. east.718 at 11:19, July 16, 2008
- Sorry I did not know there was a discussion here about this. I had checked the actual page of what I call FN14 and FN15 and did not see a discussion on either. How about it being named like other articles. UFC Silva vs Irvin aka UFC Fight Night: Silva vs Irvin. Since the ufc hasn't numbered them sine FN6 but the press always has. After 6 the UFC uses title UFC Fight Night then the names of the 2 fighters on the main card, Such as "UFC® Fight Night™ Sanchez vs. Riggs" otherwise known as FN7 by the media. They just call them UFC fight night. If you search google, in the results you will see the second listing on ufc.com stating Silva Accepts Challenge at UFC Fight Night 14, but when you click the link it carries you to the news page. Also most mma press refer to Silva vs Irvin as Fight Night 14. mmajunkie, yahoo sports, mmaontap, mmamania, mmafrenzy, 411mania, mmamadness, fiveouncesofpain, mmaweekly, mmanews Swampfire (talk) 06:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I just found the page on UFC.com referring to Silva vs Irvin as Fight Night"UFC Fight Night Musings". [2] Swampfire (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Here are how the should be named according to UFC. They are in order, and after six i added the ( ) with numbers in it.
- UFC® Fight Night™ 1
- UFC® Fight Night™ 2
- UFC® Fight Night™ 3
- UFC® Fight Night™ 4
- UFC® Fight Night™ 5
- UFC® Fight Night™ 6
- UFC® Fight Night™ Ortiz vs Shamrock (7)
- UFC® Fight Night™ Sanchez vs. Riggs (8)
- UFC® Fight Night™ Evans vs Salmon (9)
- UFC® Fight Night™ Stevenson vs Guillard (10)
- UFC® Fight Night™ Stout vs Fisher (11)
- UFC® Fight Night™ Thomas vs Florian (12)
- UFC® Fight Night™ Swick vs Burkman (13)
- UFC® Fight Night™ Florian vs Lauzon (14)
- UFC® Fight Night™ Silva vs. Irvin (15)
- UFC® Fight Night™ Diaz vs Neer (16)
So actually Silva vs Irvin was 15, and Diaz vs Neer is 16. My guess is UFC stopped using numbers after them so that some people dont get confused between stuff like UFC 6 and UFC Fight Night 6. But I found all of those names of the fight on UFC.com. So how about renaming the pages they way the UFC has them named.Swampfire (talk) 09:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
So this is how they should be done.
- UFC® Fight Night™ 1
- UFC® Fight Night™ 2
- UFC® Fight Night™ 3
- UFC® Fight Night™ 4
- UFC® Fight Night™ 5
- UFC® Fight Night™ 6
- UFC® Fight Night™ Ortiz vs Shamrock
- UFC® Fight Night™ Sanchez vs. Riggs with redirect for fn7
- UFC® Fight Night™ Evans vs Salmon with redirect for fn8
- UFC® Fight Night™ Stevenson vs Guillard with redirect for fn9
- UFC® Fight Night™ Stout vs Fisher with redirect for fn10
- UFC® Fight Night™ Thomas vs Florian with redirect for fn11
- UFC® Fight Night™ Swick vs Burkman with redirect for fn12
- UFC® Fight Night™ Florian vs Lauzon with redirect for fn13
- UFC® Fight Night™ Silva vs. Irvin with redirect for fn14
- UFC® Fight Night™ Diaz vs Neer with redirect for fn15
Swampfire (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also I found this page on SpikeTv.com "On Saturday, July 19th Spike takes you back to the Octagon for UFC Fight Night Live with Anderson Silva and James Irvin in the main event."[4] They also say Silva vs Irvin was a Fight Night event here[5] too. In fact I found plenty more pages on SpikeTv.com that say it was a Fight Night event too.Swampfire (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is, but so was Ortiz vs. Shamrock 3 - and it wasn't counted. Anyway I agree with your proposal for renaming (on the basis that those are the official names), and I'm going to be moving them shortly unless anyone disagrees. --aktsu (t / c) 05:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree so the offical name should comes after Fight Night since it is trademarked such as UFC Fight Night: Ortiz vs. Shamrock 3 - The Final Chapter Swampfire (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Aktsu Here are 2 pages on UFC.com that refer to Silva vs Irvin as Fight Night [6] It states "Tickets for UFC® Fight Night™ Silva vs. Irvin are priced at $450.00, $300.00, $200.00, plus any additional box office or service fees, and are on sale now" then a secong page on the results in under "Fight Night musings" Which is why I changed it. Because the Tickets were sold as UFC Fight Night: Silva vs Irvin. [7] Swampfire (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- The first one was written almost a month before the event though, and after that it was referred to as "UFC: Silva vs. Irvin". Also if you look on the official event page it's listed as "Event Type: UFC Fight Night", no there were never any doubt that it _was_ a fight night. Anyway, I think we got them all right now. --aktsu (t / c) 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Aktsu Here are 2 pages on UFC.com that refer to Silva vs Irvin as Fight Night [6] It states "Tickets for UFC® Fight Night™ Silva vs. Irvin are priced at $450.00, $300.00, $200.00, plus any additional box office or service fees, and are on sale now" then a secong page on the results in under "Fight Night musings" Which is why I changed it. Because the Tickets were sold as UFC Fight Night: Silva vs Irvin. [7] Swampfire (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree so the offical name should comes after Fight Night since it is trademarked such as UFC Fight Night: Ortiz vs. Shamrock 3 - The Final Chapter Swampfire (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is, but so was Ortiz vs. Shamrock 3 - and it wasn't counted. Anyway I agree with your proposal for renaming (on the basis that those are the official names), and I'm going to be moving them shortly unless anyone disagrees. --aktsu (t / c) 05:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also I found this page on SpikeTv.com "On Saturday, July 19th Spike takes you back to the Octagon for UFC Fight Night Live with Anderson Silva and James Irvin in the main event."[4] They also say Silva vs Irvin was a Fight Night event here[5] too. In fact I found plenty more pages on SpikeTv.com that say it was a Fight Night event too.Swampfire (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Rankings
I've noticed someone adding www.fighting-mma.com's ranking of fighters to their respective articles (examples: Josh Barnett and Georges St. Pierre). This begs the question which sites we should regard as notable when it comes to rankings. Only Sherdog and MMAWeekly? --aktsu (t / c) 23:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- I usually remove all rankings unless the fighter is held in a high regard by multiple mainstream outlets (in which case I'll supplement it with Sherdog or MMA Weekly or whatnot). east.718 at 14:34, July 17, 2008
UFC events format
User:SwampfireHas removed a significant amount of information from lots of the UFC event articles as "removed useless info and conformed to other event standards" which seems to be some what arbitrary to me. I am intending to revert these deletions and notify him, unless a consensus is fomred here that event articles should include minimum event details. --Nate1481(t/c) 08:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- On somewhat similar note, what do we think about including fight descriptions? I was writing them for DREAM.5 (see history) but it was removed as there apparently was an agreement that it should be kept to a minimum. Also see User talk:DuO#DREAM.5--aktsu (t / c) 08:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- It depends on the notability of the fight and the level of detail, Forrest Griffin vs. Stephan Bonnar is an article in its own right, but that was a land mark fight. For championship bouts or similar I think a short paragraph is fine but you need to be mindful of WP:NPOV --Nate1481(t/c) 10:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't remove anything that has to do with the results of the events. What I removed was trivia that had no bearing on the results, In fact alot of the trivia I removed was unsourced and some not of a NPOV in the results section. Also describing certain portions of the fight are not necessary, unless it is decribing a stopage. Other stuff such as someone protesting a fight isn't necessary either unless the fight was actually overturned or amended because of the protest. And I removed the useless repeating of names. In an effort to conform the newer event pages to the standard setup of the earlier event pages. In which they did not repeat names over and over. I only removed stuff from the results section that had nothing to do with the results. If I made a mistake on any one thing that was a factor in the result then yes that factor should be added back. But I do not believe the fact that I am placing one single standard on pages be reverted.Swampfire (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Event articles are not scientific reports that should include pure fact in results sections, saying what happen in a fight and subsequent related events are relevent to the event, such as a sourced statment, even to the event its self it the comments were on the broadcast, saying that the result was contravercial. If you read WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia:Handling trivia then you will see that both encourage integrating information rather than having trivia secitons. While I admit that on closer inspection some areas removed were unsourced, you have also removed sourced infomation, and your edit summary seemed abruct; 'useless infomrtion' is a charged phrase as well as being opinon and what Standards are you referring to? The edits started with after this edit on UFC: Silva vs. Irvin and seem to be making a point as there was no related disscussion. Could you also point me, as I initialy asked on your talk page, to where there is a consensus that results section for sporting events should not included any additional information. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I removed some sourced information that had no place in the result section as it was not notable and this is not a newssite. Also trivia is encouraged to be incorporated into an article or removed. Not into the results section. As the results section is to be kept to a minimum. As wikipedia is not a newssite.NOT A NEWSSITE scroll down to #5. Swampfire (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think information such as filing a drug test post-fight is relevent by any standard. Also it seem to me that the heading 'Results' is there for organisational purposes rather than as a defanition, so some details of the fights can be included. As we are not a news site I think including more than the bare bones of the results is definatly appropreate as I still feel some of the removals were abitrary especially as you edited aroudn 30 articles in a simmiar manner without trying to establish a consensus on the matter. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- You need to read more carefully. For starters it was not a POST fight test that he failed according to the statement. And he was not stripped of the win according to the statement. It was a test that was taken at a later date, and this was the last fight before he took the test. Secondly it is not properly sourced as that is not a valid link, and if you had bothered to check you would have seen that. Find a valid source that states it was a post-fight test he failed and not a test at a later date. Because I read it carefully and checked the link before removing it.Swampfire (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is in bad faith to continue with your edits while a discussion is under way, so a am reverting the subsequent ones. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- The test is relevent, stripped or not. If you had bothered to look there were valid sources available, my initial response was that you had removed relvent cited information with no good reason, so I restored it. If you had said it was a dead link then I would have looked for an alternate source or an archive of the original link. Could you explain WHY you think that WP:NOT is relevant? As in my interpretation of it just giving the results is more like a simple news site, then giving the background and related events and especially subsequent events that a news site would not cover in the article.--Nate1481(t/c) 13:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the it is you that has commited bad faith by reverting perfectly logical edits. Also it is not my responsibilty to look for valid resources they should be valid when added. Also the stuff I removed is NOT the actual fights result. It is trivia. Also I have already posted why wiki is WP:NOT#NEWS not a news site you need to actually read it along with this things that are WP:NN not notable before reverting WP:AGF good faith edits. I only removed stuff that was speculative, not notable, not verified, not of a NPOV, or was trivia. Also the only other thing I did was try to conform all event pages to ONE standard that was set with the first event pages in which they do not keep repeating names. Swampfire (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- From what I saw it seemed most of your edits were logical, but I don't agree with removing anything that is not strictly the result. Nothing wrong with additional informations as long as it is NPOV and reasonably notable... --aktsu (t / c) 17:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, as what I am trying to do is improve all the event articles. If someone finds away to incorporate the triva into the main article there is no problem or create a footnotes section. But what I removed did not belong in the results section. As the results section are there for the results, not things that happened after the fights, or descriptions of the fights, unless the thing being described is why someone verbally quit or why the a fight was declared a (ref stopage). Or a protest that resulted in and overturn of the decision or an amend to the decision. Swampfire (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- From what I saw it seemed most of your edits were logical, but I don't agree with removing anything that is not strictly the result. Nothing wrong with additional informations as long as it is NPOV and reasonably notable... --aktsu (t / c) 17:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Actually the it is you that has commited bad faith by reverting perfectly logical edits. Also it is not my responsibilty to look for valid resources they should be valid when added. Also the stuff I removed is NOT the actual fights result. It is trivia. Also I have already posted why wiki is WP:NOT#NEWS not a news site you need to actually read it along with this things that are WP:NN not notable before reverting WP:AGF good faith edits. I only removed stuff that was speculative, not notable, not verified, not of a NPOV, or was trivia. Also the only other thing I did was try to conform all event pages to ONE standard that was set with the first event pages in which they do not keep repeating names. Swampfire (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- The test is relevent, stripped or not. If you had bothered to look there were valid sources available, my initial response was that you had removed relvent cited information with no good reason, so I restored it. If you had said it was a dead link then I would have looked for an alternate source or an archive of the original link. Could you explain WHY you think that WP:NOT is relevant? As in my interpretation of it just giving the results is more like a simple news site, then giving the background and related events and especially subsequent events that a news site would not cover in the article.--Nate1481(t/c) 13:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is in bad faith to continue with your edits while a discussion is under way, so a am reverting the subsequent ones. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- You need to read more carefully. For starters it was not a POST fight test that he failed according to the statement. And he was not stripped of the win according to the statement. It was a test that was taken at a later date, and this was the last fight before he took the test. Secondly it is not properly sourced as that is not a valid link, and if you had bothered to check you would have seen that. Find a valid source that states it was a post-fight test he failed and not a test at a later date. Because I read it carefully and checked the link before removing it.Swampfire (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think information such as filing a drug test post-fight is relevent by any standard. Also it seem to me that the heading 'Results' is there for organisational purposes rather than as a defanition, so some details of the fights can be included. As we are not a news site I think including more than the bare bones of the results is definatly appropreate as I still feel some of the removals were abitrary especially as you edited aroudn 30 articles in a simmiar manner without trying to establish a consensus on the matter. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- I removed some sourced information that had no place in the result section as it was not notable and this is not a newssite. Also trivia is encouraged to be incorporated into an article or removed. Not into the results section. As the results section is to be kept to a minimum. As wikipedia is not a newssite.NOT A NEWSSITE scroll down to #5. Swampfire (talk) 10:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
- Event articles are not scientific reports that should include pure fact in results sections, saying what happen in a fight and subsequent related events are relevent to the event, such as a sourced statment, even to the event its self it the comments were on the broadcast, saying that the result was contravercial. If you read WP:TRIVIA and Wikipedia:Handling trivia then you will see that both encourage integrating information rather than having trivia secitons. While I admit that on closer inspection some areas removed were unsourced, you have also removed sourced infomation, and your edit summary seemed abruct; 'useless infomrtion' is a charged phrase as well as being opinon and what Standards are you referring to? The edits started with after this edit on UFC: Silva vs. Irvin and seem to be making a point as there was no related disscussion. Could you also point me, as I initialy asked on your talk page, to where there is a consensus that results section for sporting events should not included any additional information. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
<-You think it's trivia I do not, so why did you continue with controversial editing after I tried to start a discussion? It is logical in your opinion that results should include only the bare bones NOT a consensus. The consensus was for the pre-existing version that you changed, I asked you to point me as a discussion that said you had support and you didn't but kept editing, so I have reverted your edits. As I dissagree, please note I did not change anything until you kept editing after I had disagreed with you. I initially replaced only source information, but as you seemed to revert even that I decided that i sould revert the lot as you seemed to be ignoring comments and would do more damage than I could fix.--Nate1481(t/c) 09:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've just seen what you did on UFC 66 you are Creating a trivia section! That is explicitly the opposite of the recommended format, why are you doing this when two editors are disagreeing with you and none supporting? --Nate1481(t/c) 09:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- A related discussion on the format page --Nate1481(t/c) 10:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have cited policies/guidelines that support the removal so NO it is not my opinion that I am Using to decide. However you are only using your opinion to revert. I can cite even more that support removal. I suggest you read these guidles thoroughly. Also I did not create that section on UFC 66. It was already thereSwampfire (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- And I am disputing your interpretation of them. So please stop editing everything based on your interpretation and form a consensus. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is not my opinion. I repeat: you are breaking WP:AGF, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NN, this is not the fight results. If you insist on trying to add them back. Then incorporate them into the article and you won't have a disagreement from me.Swampfire (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the discussion or policy stating that "results sections should only include the results nothing more"? Until then it is your opinion not policy or guidelines. --Nate1481(t/c) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- In one of you notes you agree unsourced should be removed. And yet you try and add it back.Swampfire (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK since you dont want to read the guidleines and actually do some work and be able to keep the stuff. I now stating a policy that supports the full removal of most of the stuff I had removed. WP:BLP Bare in mind now it shouldn't be added back at all.Swampfire (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Uhm, this is becoming very difficult to follow as you (you as in both of you) seem to be switching back and forth on what you're disagreeing on. I think we have two disagreements here: 1) Results-section = only results nothing more and 2) What is trivia, what is notable. We shouldn't confuse the two. From what I saw (I might be wrong though) you also removed some which you might call trivia - and that has nothing to do with WP:BLP. My point is there isn't one policy which covers everything in your edits so I think we should calm down and try to agree on both points first, and then readd/re-remove anything which we have agreed should go/be kept. --aktsu (t / c) 19:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK since you dont want to read the guidleines and actually do some work and be able to keep the stuff. I now stating a policy that supports the full removal of most of the stuff I had removed. WP:BLP Bare in mind now it shouldn't be added back at all.Swampfire (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I was not saying it all was against BLP. But stating how someone was knocked out until the were removed from the ring minutes later. While looks great on a highlight reel, it is against WP:BLP. Other stuff is trivia. If you notice I did not remove stuff but from a few of the over 100 events. As I had stated some of it could go in a miscillenea or footnote section as suggested by the format page. Stating how media outlets or Dana White scored the fight, is trivia and has no merit in the results. Stating how the judges had the fight scored, Until someone was knocked out has no merit in the results and is trivia. Along with so much more stuff like that. Stating that someone at a later date (not a post-fight test)testesd postive for something. Had no merit in the results unless it was used to change the results. If a valid source is found stating it was (post-fight test) then it is ok to stay. But they way it origannly is it should not. My only problems with most of it is placement, and context. But just because someone places it in the result section even with a source does not mean it belongs. I have even placed guidlines stating as such WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NN, only a few things are against the policy WP:BLP, However I did point out that some of the stuff I removed could be included in a WP:FOOTNOTE as long as it is worded properly doesn't go against BLP. However a full description is not needed before the footnote, but can ne included in the footnote. What I mean by that is say talking about someones knockout, when you note the knockout add the footnote so that it can be read by clicking. That way you don't go against BLP. In fact I will go do that right now on the Martin knockout in UFC 54 so it can be seen. Same type of thing can be done on the other things of the sort so BLP is not violated. But on the cases of trivia it just needs removing.Swampfire (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have intergrated the ones that arent useless trivia within the results section.Swampfire (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- How is stating someone was knocked out and carried out on a stretcher violating WP:BLP when it in fact happened and the statement is sourced? I agree with you on that some of the things you removed was warranted (trivia), and that the event-pages shouldn't describe things which happened a long time after (longer than post-fight-test etc.). Still, my view is that we should strive to expand the articles (even) with descriptions of fights etc. and not cut them down to the bare bones dooming them to be stubs... --aktsu (t / c) 04:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- In the context that it was written even though it is true was demeaning to Martin whether intentional or not. I have it included in a footnote now.Swampfire (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- How is stating someone was knocked out and carried out on a stretcher violating WP:BLP when it in fact happened and the statement is sourced? I agree with you on that some of the things you removed was warranted (trivia), and that the event-pages shouldn't describe things which happened a long time after (longer than post-fight-test etc.). Still, my view is that we should strive to expand the articles (even) with descriptions of fights etc. and not cut them down to the bare bones dooming them to be stubs... --aktsu (t / c) 04:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have intergrated the ones that arent useless trivia within the results section.Swampfire (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- In one of you notes you agree unsourced should be removed. And yet you try and add it back.Swampfire (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Where is the discussion or policy stating that "results sections should only include the results nothing more"? Until then it is your opinion not policy or guidelines. --Nate1481(t/c) 17:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is not my opinion. I repeat: you are breaking WP:AGF, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NN, this is not the fight results. If you insist on trying to add them back. Then incorporate them into the article and you won't have a disagreement from me.Swampfire (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- And I am disputing your interpretation of them. So please stop editing everything based on your interpretation and form a consensus. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have cited policies/guidelines that support the removal so NO it is not my opinion that I am Using to decide. However you are only using your opinion to revert. I can cite even more that support removal. I suggest you read these guidles thoroughly. Also I did not create that section on UFC 66. It was already thereSwampfire (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- A related discussion on the format page --Nate1481(t/c) 10:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Policies involved(UFC events format)
You have sited WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:NN, WP:BLP, WP:AGF so point by point:
- WP:NOT#NEWS talks about what articles should be created (event and individual notability) and the importance of recent breaking information; many of these event are years old so it's not relvent.
- WP:NN States that "...in a nutshell: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.". In the detail is goes on to say that Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content
- WP:BLP states "...in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. This gives us an ethical and legal responsibility. Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious." The information is rarely contentious (in content, if not in locations) and is frequently reported speech, and/or something that was broadcast to a million+ people and has since been re-broadcast & sold on DVD. It is not somthing that would be a supprise to readers of they were looking into the subject in any detail, so is not harmful and is sourced for verifiability.
In regard to you comments about assuming good faith while I have disagreed with you but have not refeerd to your edit as vandalism, I have asked you to stop editing and asked for a wider consensus here. I assumed that you would not change futher articles with out establising support for you view, when you did not I felt that you had not acted in good faith and said so explaining what I would do. I admit stating my belief that your continued edits were in bad faith was not most productive way forward and I appolagise for the confontaional phrasing. While I was annoyed at your actions I should not have reacted in the heat of the moment. --Nate1481(t/c) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sneaky vandalism
Hey, guys, I just caught this IP address user:205.154.26.39 making subtle changes to the records of MMA fighters. I tried to clean up the mess, but someone else might want to double check to make sure that no nonsense remains. I've actually noticed quite a few articles are having phantom fights and "vanity" fighters added to the profiles. Just a reminder to be vigilant. Chicken Wing (talk) 18:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
124.178.51.217 is another one who have been having fun the last two days :) --aktsu (t / c) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Petition to remove user from WikiProject
I am nominating User:Swampfire to be formally removed from this wikiproject for making bad faith edits and vandalizing the article on Forrest Griffin. --Xander756 (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have not made bad faith edits. In fact what you have done is actually bad faith edits. The word you have in the conyext it is used not only goes against WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE, and WP:BLP. Since you continually think your personal POV is higher than policy. I think it is you that should be removed. So I formally nominate Xander756 be removed. Also during the talks over wording Xander756 violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL twice by making personal attacks here [8] in the discussion and here [9] in his comment while removing the warning for for violating policies by making the first personal attack. The bout was not only a unanimous decision. But if you view the CompuStrike scores Forrest also clearly won. The only person causing a stink about Rampage losing is the one man {Juanito Ibarra} that went on record with the UFC saying he will retire from mma training if Forrest wins. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a newssiteWP:NOT#NEWS, the word controversial does not belong in unanimous decision. So I am not making bad faith edits by stopping you from violating policies. I personally am a Rampage fan, but in this case he clearly lost, and he even admitted so after the fightUFC.com. Agreeeing with CompuStrike and the judges.
- CompuStrike results
- Takedowns
- Griffin 0
- Jackson 1
- Submission attempts
- Griffin 4
- Jackson 0
- Reversals
- Griffin 0
- Jackson 0
- Dominant Positions
- Griffin 2
- Jackson 0
- Total Arm Strikes
- Griffin 48
- Jackson 67
- Total Leg Strikes landed
- Griffin 51
- Jackson 3
- Ground strikes landed
- Griffin 46
- Jackson 14
- Total Strikes landed
- Griffin 145
- Jackson 84
- Judges Scorecards reflect what CompuStrike verified
48-46, 48-46, 49-46. The only possible way for there to be controversial decision would be if the judges went against CompuStrike. Because when you look at the CompuStrike data, the numbers are closely in favor of Griffin when you consider the rules of the UFC. Also Griffin completely controlled round two; Rampage never got an offensive maneuver during that whole round. On top of injuring Rampage’s leg in round two, he secured a take down and landed 44 strikes while Rampage landed none the entire round. Forrest also secured several submission attempts during that round. This round played a key factor in awarding a unanimous decision to Forrest. Rampage strikes did more damage, but the rules do not award points for the severity of strikes. Points are awarded for “aggression” and “octagon control” of which CompuStrike shows Griffin with clear advantage[10]. Swampfire (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't think the (most) controversial part is Griffin getting the win, but more how the fight was scored... Anyhow, we can't say "Griffin clearly won, therefore it was not controversial." Sherdog clearly says it was ("Griffin Snatches UFC Title with Controversial Win"), and several other outlets have questioned the scoring. How about instead of calling it a "controversial decision" just mention the fact that many outlets thought the fight was close and that Ibarra is (/was) planning to protest the decision. Also I think the section needs a rewrite as as of now it's very biased towards Forrest, giving the impression that the fight was nowere near close (as both Forrest and Randy Coture said it was, for the record). Another small thing: "Griffin successfully executed his gameplan by pushing the pace of the fight from the opening bell, keeping his distance with long jabs and leg kicks.". How do we know that was his gameplan, and who says he susessfully executed it? Just something to keep in mind if anyone wants to have a go at editing it. --aktsu (t / c) 14:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am kind of distraught over the sentence that "the only way for a decision to be controversial is if the judges go against CompuStrike." This is very disturbing not only as a fan of MMA because it seems you do not know how MMA is judged but as a person in general because it seems you do not understand how the world works. If anything, I think that this sentence should serve as evidence for why you should be removed from this WikiProject on MMA. Something is deemed controversial by the public at large and in large part due to the media reporting. aktsu, I think that your suggestions are a little overboard, there's no need to talk about how it is being protested and how all these media outlets are disagreeing when it could all be done in one simple word "controversial" and then referenced by the material which has been referenced. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) definition of controversy is: "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views: dispute." It does not mention statistical numbers. --Xander756 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Still, it should be explained why it was controversial don't you think? --aktsu (t / c) 16:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I thought that this is what the references would be used for. Perhaps a sentence in the article such as "Griffin won a unanimous decision in which the judges scoring was controversial" might suit it? --Xander756 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, now I'm no longer sure how much info is appropriate on articles on fighters :P If you look at Fedor Emelianenko (probably the best and most worked on biographical article in WP:MMA, IMO) the fights are described very sparely, so I guess that's how we should go about it too? I'd like it a bit more fleshed out myself, but now I don't know anymore... Anyway, something along those lines would probably be okay assuming we're taking the "Fedor" approach... --aktsu (t / c) 16:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is supposed to be written in Encyclopedic form not news journalism form. Which is why footnotes are to be provided. I will do the same with Forrest Griffin as I have did with others. I will change it back to unanimous decision but include the footnote, with link in the footnote. That way it is in encyclopedic form, and yet someone can read the footnote too.Swampfire (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes I agree that there is no need to go into depth about one single fight but as the decision caused quite a bit of controversy in the MMA community I figured that it should be at least noted in the article. --Xander756 (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are assuming it has caused as you say quite a bit of controversy in the MMA world. When in fact only a tiny faction has even talked about it which is how it goes against WP:DUE. Also Wikipdia is an Encyclopedia, not a newssite or tabloid and is held to higher standards which is further evidence of why it does not belong. the mere fact that someone uses the word controversial does not make it noteworthy WP:NN. I have stated not only reasons for removal but policies. you have stated none other than your personal opinion. Which is why the policies exist. Also now you have went on to violate the WP:3RR too. You have proven yourself to ignore policies. Even if we leave out WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE and WP:BLP. You have broken WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and now WP:3RR with warnings for the last 3 on your talkpage. With the evidence of violating them. Although you have tried to hide them, They can still be retreived with evidence viewed. Ok so you might not have broken 3RR if the 4th was reverting a blanking. Swampfire (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)#
- "Griffin Snatches UFC Title with Controversial Win" - kind of says it all internet argument aside that is a reliable source that it was controversial. The fact the judges decision matches an external rating shows the judges were right, not that people were not debating and discussing whether is was the right decision i.e. it was controversial. Also that count mkae not note of the power or effectivenss of stirkes or third maker of 'Octagon Control'. --Nate1481(t/c) 07:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- one WP:Due, Sherdog is the biggest MMA site, not a negligible comment. --Nate1481(t/c) 07:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I will however point out something that you: Xander that you don't seem to understand. Pointing out that one reporter on one site thinks a bout is controversial. Is only a tiny faction. Heck even if it was 3 reporters on 3 sites. That is still not even big enough to be a tiny faction. You need to actually read WP:DUE for future reference.It doesn't matter who says it. It matters how many say it. But it is now a mute point once the head of the NSAC shot down Ibarra. Informing him his complaints was pointlessSwampfire (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I just posted a proposal for the description of the fight at User talk:Swampfire#Griffin article. Any thoughts?We integrated it into the article. Does it look OK? --aktsu (t / c) 08:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- You are assuming it has caused as you say quite a bit of controversy in the MMA world. When in fact only a tiny faction has even talked about it which is how it goes against WP:DUE. Also Wikipdia is an Encyclopedia, not a newssite or tabloid and is held to higher standards which is further evidence of why it does not belong. the mere fact that someone uses the word controversial does not make it noteworthy WP:NN. I have stated not only reasons for removal but policies. you have stated none other than your personal opinion. Which is why the policies exist. Also now you have went on to violate the WP:3RR too. You have proven yourself to ignore policies. Even if we leave out WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:DUE and WP:BLP. You have broken WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and now WP:3RR with warnings for the last 3 on your talkpage. With the evidence of violating them. Although you have tried to hide them, They can still be retreived with evidence viewed. Ok so you might not have broken 3RR if the 4th was reverting a blanking. Swampfire (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)#
- Hmm, now I'm no longer sure how much info is appropriate on articles on fighters :P If you look at Fedor Emelianenko (probably the best and most worked on biographical article in WP:MMA, IMO) the fights are described very sparely, so I guess that's how we should go about it too? I'd like it a bit more fleshed out myself, but now I don't know anymore... Anyway, something along those lines would probably be okay assuming we're taking the "Fedor" approach... --aktsu (t / c) 16:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I thought that this is what the references would be used for. Perhaps a sentence in the article such as "Griffin won a unanimous decision in which the judges scoring was controversial" might suit it? --Xander756 (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Still, it should be explained why it was controversial don't you think? --aktsu (t / c) 16:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- I am kind of distraught over the sentence that "the only way for a decision to be controversial is if the judges go against CompuStrike." This is very disturbing not only as a fan of MMA because it seems you do not know how MMA is judged but as a person in general because it seems you do not understand how the world works. If anything, I think that this sentence should serve as evidence for why you should be removed from this WikiProject on MMA. Something is deemed controversial by the public at large and in large part due to the media reporting. aktsu, I think that your suggestions are a little overboard, there's no need to talk about how it is being protested and how all these media outlets are disagreeing when it could all be done in one simple word "controversial" and then referenced by the material which has been referenced. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) definition of controversy is: "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views: dispute." It does not mention statistical numbers. --Xander756 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- WP:Due does not apply to the biggest MMA site as Nate1481 calls it. It is obviously written from an objective point of view. There is no reason to assume Sherdog or the other sources are biased simply because you want them to be. The re-write on the article is far too long for one fight and I am surprised that you put it on there after saying we should take the Fedor approach and write as little as possible. As Nate1481 says, the fight is clearly controversial and should remain noted as so. --Xander756 (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- One site does not overrule WP:DUE. The only way for that to happen would be for a majority of sites to state such. Also you cited early references to the fight. The head of the NSAC said that Ibarra's accusations were pointless (which means not controversial). And as such no petition was filed by Ibarra. Facts have already been proven. Just because it did not go your way does not mean. You get to remove valid statements and sources provided by Aktsu and myself. You need to get over it. As what you are doing is not positive to this WikiProject, but detrimental to it.Swampfire (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't think the (most) controversial part is Griffin getting the win, but more how the fight was scored... Anyhow, we can't say "Griffin clearly won, therefore it was not controversial." Sherdog clearly says it was ("Griffin Snatches UFC Title with Controversial Win"), and several other outlets have questioned the scoring. How about instead of calling it a "controversial decision" just mention the fact that many outlets thought the fight was close and that Ibarra is (/was) planning to protest the decision. Also I think the section needs a rewrite as as of now it's very biased towards Forrest, giving the impression that the fight was nowere near close (as both Forrest and Randy Coture said it was, for the record). Another small thing: "Griffin successfully executed his gameplan by pushing the pace of the fight from the opening bell, keeping his distance with long jabs and leg kicks.". How do we know that was his gameplan, and who says he susessfully executed it? Just something to keep in mind if anyone wants to have a go at editing it. --aktsu (t / c) 14:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- What do you mean "one site does not overrule WP:DUE? This policy is a policy to control and measure the quality of references. It doesn't make sense to say you can overrule it with multiple sites. WP:DUE applies to individual sites only. I don't know why you are so obsessed with this Ibarra thing. The fact that his trainer was going to file a protest was only one small piece of evidence to the fact that this decision as believed controversial. You cannot ignore and remove multiple references based on your own will and one other user possibly agreeing with you. How long have you been on wikipedia? You should know better. --Xander756 (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here is an interested tidbit I found: "Some fans on Internet message boards are so angry about the controversial decision that they have promised to never buy another UFC pay-per-view ever again." Sourced from: http://dwizzlesworld.blogspot.com/2008/07/rampage-loses-belt-in-controverisal.html. While obviously this source would not meet the criteria needed to be a reference on an article, obviously the fans in general are torn between this decision. --Xander756 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, NOT a news article or blog, and WP:DUE clearly states "Articles will generally not include tiny-minority views at all" You are talking about a tiny view. In fact it has been proven various times the statement hold no real merit. Including the fact that Rampage himself admits defeat. But the bottom line is this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, blog or newsite. And now you have clearly expressed the reason you are trying to add such and it is in direct violation of WP:BLPSwampfire (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- The articles linked there are not tiny minority views. The views expressed in the article are not simply the views of the journalist. By claiming WP:DUE you are calling into question the reliability of Sherdog as a source that can be sourced in MMA articles here on wikipedia. If you are doing this then we would have to remove ALL references from Sherdog on every article here which would be absurd. Saying that Sherdog, the biggest MMA site, is unreliable and slanted is quite a difficult positionf or you to defend. If you are not trying to say this, you cannot claim WP:DUE nor can you claim WP:BLP nor that wikipedia is not a news site. To claim these things you have to say Sherdog cannot be used as a source at all. --Xander756 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is obvious that you do not understand the policies. I know that now. You also try to say Aktsu said things. Which even Aktsu himself said he did not have all the facts. And after he did, the rewrite was done by HIM not me, as evidenced on my talkpage. So you are trying to say his views (which are against the rewrite he himself did) Which makes no sense. It is evident that once your case was disproved you know want to try and grasp at straws of something that was said before all the evidence was revealed. You also fail to realize that a few sites does make them a mjority. Ther are over 120 billion websites in the world 3 websites is in fact a tiny minority. WP:DUE is based on amounts, not the name of the site. Also you have since expressed that you want it on Forrest page for reasons of demeaning the victory by Forrest. Which clearly is againt the Human diginity portion of WP:BLP. Also as pointed on by the head of the NSAC Griffin won the fight either way. So the only possible controversy would in which manner Forrest won. Not whether he won. Which is how it was worded before your needless reverts. Which is why the vandalism you did by removing the links to what the head of NSAC said will be reverted.Swampfire (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- The articles linked there are not tiny minority views. The views expressed in the article are not simply the views of the journalist. By claiming WP:DUE you are calling into question the reliability of Sherdog as a source that can be sourced in MMA articles here on wikipedia. If you are doing this then we would have to remove ALL references from Sherdog on every article here which would be absurd. Saying that Sherdog, the biggest MMA site, is unreliable and slanted is quite a difficult positionf or you to defend. If you are not trying to say this, you cannot claim WP:DUE nor can you claim WP:BLP nor that wikipedia is not a news site. To claim these things you have to say Sherdog cannot be used as a source at all. --Xander756 (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, NOT a news article or blog, and WP:DUE clearly states "Articles will generally not include tiny-minority views at all" You are talking about a tiny view. In fact it has been proven various times the statement hold no real merit. Including the fact that Rampage himself admits defeat. But the bottom line is this is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, blog or newsite. And now you have clearly expressed the reason you are trying to add such and it is in direct violation of WP:BLPSwampfire (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- Here is an interested tidbit I found: "Some fans on Internet message boards are so angry about the controversial decision that they have promised to never buy another UFC pay-per-view ever again." Sourced from: http://dwizzlesworld.blogspot.com/2008/07/rampage-loses-belt-in-controverisal.html. While obviously this source would not meet the criteria needed to be a reference on an article, obviously the fans in general are torn between this decision. --Xander756 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Drugtesting
I think that it would be interesting to list the different drugtesting that different MMA organizations use. One of the theories why MMA fighters that are successful in Japan and not in the USA, is because of no drugtesting in Japan. Also would be interesting to find out when different organizations started to get drugtested. How does UFC handle drugtesting in non sanctions cards, like in the UK?. The impact of random training testing before fights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realshompa (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"Spoilers"
Should the full bracket of tournaments be listed on all the articles of events where it featured (e.g. DREAM.1/DREAM.3 and DREAM.5), and should the winner be mentioned on event-pages before he was crowned (as it is on DREAM.1 right now)? --aktsu (t / c) 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. The winner should not be mentioned before he was crowned, same goes for the brackets. just my 2 cents.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. What would be a good alternative though? Just have the bracket only go as far as it was after the event (even though that is a little misleading as the following matches weren't set before later), or simply only have the bracket on the article of the event where the tournament finished? --aktsu (t / c) 08:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
- yeah i think the bracket should be added only to the events like DREAM.5 when the champion was crowned. Previous events should only mention for example when the champion will be crowned and the winners qualified for the next event. Instead of using spoilers there would be only links to the next events. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think there should be a page created for each DREAM Grand Prix (and for that matter, every PRIDE GP) tournament. Putting them on every page seems excessive and for one event to have a greater claim over the whole tournament doesn't seem right either. It may seem excessive to give each tournament its own page, but WP:PAPER and there were times when I wanted to look up a PRIDE GP tournament and ended up having to consult three different articles. As for content beyond a bracket, I think we should be able to fill a page out for each GP tournament as long as, say, 1933 World Series. hateless 23:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Would something like this be a start? Feel free to add something, or create the actual page. --aktsu (t / c) 16:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- How about adding the summaries of each GP under the main DREAM page instead of creating all these extra pages. All the necessary information could be covered in a one paragraph and eventually will develop to a full history section over the years. only the bracket takes a lot of space. maybe there is some other bracket layout we can use. this one is originally from a basketball and if you ask me is a waste of space.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 829 articles are assigned to this project, of which 220, or 26.5%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place a template on your project page.
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawing From Project
Even though I just joined (so it's probably not a big deal for anybody) I will be withdrawing from this project. I have stood alone against MMA article vandalism for far too long and I refuse to dedicate my time and efforts to a project that does not care about article integrity. For my troubles standing up for this I have had my rights stripped and threatened other sanctions by admins. I will continue to stand up for what I feel is right on the Forrest Griffin article because I will not allow a user to have his way by simply using brute force but I will no longer be contributing to other MMA articles. --Xander756 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"Notable wins" sections
All I have seen on my watchlist over the course of several months over various articles is a slow edit war involving adding or subtracting "twice" or "3 times" from the notable wins sections if the fighter beat that particular person more than once. I don't particularly care which way it is, but we need to come to a consensus to do this or not so the edit warring can stop. Additionally, who decides which wins are "notable" or not? All professional fights are inherently notable, but it is POV to decide which fighters are more higher profile than others without some sort of source saying why it was a particularly notable win. Also to be factored in would be when in their careers they beat them (can Dan Severn's win over Forrest Griffin really be considered a notable win, before Forrest had hardly even started his career or learned anything?). I think we should have a discussion over what to do with these sections, and perhaps remove them entirely if a consensus can not be reached over the issues surrounding these sections. VegaDark (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I say we just remove it. It doesn't really add much to the articles, plus then we don't have to deal with the problems you mentioned. --aktsu (t / c) 14:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with removing notable wins altogether, Because if was truly notable there should a section over that fight on the profile. And then again if you do that, then you don't need to say it a second time. So I say remove, If you look I didnt really add the (twice) I just made them small. But the arguement that MgTurtle made in an Edit Summary while removing made no sense. Because Mg stated it didn't need (twice) because it stated that in the stats. Well it also states their names in the stats as being defeated so If you use that logic to remove the number of defeats, You should also use the same logic to remove the names altogetherSwampfire (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Swampfire (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'd just like to point out that there's nothing wrong with repeating information in the lead and the sections below. In fact, according to various style guides on wikipedia (WP:BETTER is a good place to start), the lead should touch on each section of the main article. So, if there is a section on the fight, it is perfectly reasonable to mention it in the lead. Otherwise, probably not. gnfnrf (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm fine with removing notable wins altogether, Because if was truly notable there should a section over that fight on the profile. And then again if you do that, then you don't need to say it a second time. So I say remove, If you look I didnt really add the (twice) I just made them small. But the arguement that MgTurtle made in an Edit Summary while removing made no sense. Because Mg stated it didn't need (twice) because it stated that in the stats. Well it also states their names in the stats as being defeated so If you use that logic to remove the number of defeats, You should also use the same logic to remove the names altogetherSwampfire (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC) Swampfire (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with the notable wins.I just had a problem with the number of times the people were defeated.I thought it made no sense when it adds nothing to the article.I also thought it makes the page look stupid.That was my point.I think we should remove it if it's causing so many problems and doesn't add anything to the article itself.(MgTurtle (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)).
- Yep, I'm with a remove. Full fight record is included to almost every fighter page and all that is "notable".
Numbers
Do the pages really need how many times a fighter beat another fighter in the opening paragraphs?Like Tito Ortiz's page saying that he beat Ken Shamrock 3 times.I don't believe that it should be in the opening paragraphs since it's on the mma record.What does everyone else think?(MgTurtle (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC))