Talk:2013 in UFC

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odd history[edit]

Readers of the page history will observe many edits before 25 December, when this edit was made. UFC 157 was created several months ago and deleted at AFD. At his request, the content was undeleted and moved to Oskar Liljeblad's userspace; using its information, Oskar created this page. Some time later, as a result of a deletion review, the UFC 157 history was undeleted and histmerged here. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Very Difficult to Understand[edit]

Articles should be separated as they are distinct events. Or at least UFC on Fox should have a separate page with all Fox and FX events, normal UFC events should be separate pages, and any other network based events should have their own page. Having to parse this mess is very difficult and makes zero sense. 50.125.167.6 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to improve the UFC on Fox event sections and propose a split out once they've been expanded and well sourced to the levels of the general wikipedia consensus. The reason why they are here is that they would not have enough verifyble content to stand on their own alone. The flip of this is that UFC is notable, and by doing a YEAR in UFC we can provide shelter for events that were in danger on their own while retaining a event to event progression to see how things move forward. I originally thought breaking into sub articles might be better, but I now see that the events that happen at a UFC numbered event have an impact on UFC events that are specialized (On Fox, FX, Japan, TUF, etc.). Hasteur (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is going to be sorted/grouped by year in wikipedia, then let's at least use that set-up to assist in finding stuff, which is currently too difficult. - Date is the only thing driving this layout. Therefore, the date should be as prominent as the event title. Currently, it is buried in the text. Since there are multiple types of events all mashed together (PPV, Fox, FX, TUF, etc.), finding the correct one isn't as easy as looking at the number. (Conversely, if only the PPV events were on the page, then it would be since every listing would be the next chronological number.) - Make a calendar at the top of the article with all twelve months where each day with an event is highlighted & hyperlinked to the location of that event. Real people in the real world use wikipedia to get info on upcoming fights (or at least they used to--the wiki page has fallen off the usual google searches, so it appears that fewer people find it useful). Making it very simple for them to go to the date (particularly through a calendar interface) will improve the useability of this format. I would do it myself, but I don't have the wiki skills to do it, and honestly, I have no desire to get sucked into the pissing contest which has become UFC on wiki. 206.83.48.110 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mess.[edit]

I don't know what caused this UFC page problem at wikipedia but this is just a damn mess. It was great clicking through events and progressing through the UFC but now it is half page of year events and some events have their own page??? STUPID.

These issues with the UFC pages caused me to NOT donate to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.53.172.200 (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2013 in UFC[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2013 in UFC's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fuel9":

  • From Gegard Mousasi: Ariel Helwani (January 19, 2013). "Alexander Gustafsson vs. Gegard Mousasi slated for April in Sweden". mmafighting.com.
  • From UFC on Fuel TV: Gustafsson vs. Mousasi: Ariel Helwani (2013-01-19). "Alexander Gustafsson vs. Gegard Mousasi slated for April in Sweden". mmafighting.com. Retrieved 2013-01-19.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we back to an "omnibus" format?[edit]

This was a huge problem in 2012 and I thought it was finally resolved. Who is responsible for bringing this back? Yohaka (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of many event articles is a huge problem and this is the solution. See the many discussions on WT:MMA. Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at this article, I can see why the earlier omnibus articles caused such grief. It's far from done, but isn't User:Kww/UFC2013 closer to what you guys want to have? A big sortable table that shows who fought who, when and where they did it, and what happened? This article isn't an "omnibus", it's just a bunch of little stubby articles jammed together.—Kww(talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is to extend a notability umbrella over stub articles that have a greater chance of being deleted. It recieved a significant buy in by multiple editors so we decided to go ahead and implement. Hasteur (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This format makes them useless, though. It's the reason you get stuck in the cycle of people fighting to have independent articles and the rest of the community putting you under discretionary sanctions and deleting and merging things. If you are going to have an omnibus article, you need to plan out the best way to have an omnibus, not try to format them to make it easy to split out the one or two events that will actually ever meet all the requirements for being standalone and making 99% of them hard to deal with.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This I would agree with. Ravensfire (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the draft I worked up at User:Kww/UFC2013. It's not perfect, or even done, but I think it's a lot better start than this.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Okay, maybe expound a bit on my simple reply. If (huge, massive if) we can get some clear event notability guidelines out there, Kww's comment becomes especially true. Personally, I think most events aren't that notable. There needs to be something unusual about them first. That's easier in some sports than others, with newer (upstart?) sports having more trouble than more established sports. I think the desire from some to see articles for all events makes something along the lines of what Kww envisions difficult to implement, even if it conveys the exact same information in a more readable manner. Hmmm, popped some ideas in my head that I need to experiment with.
BTW - I looked at your page, Kww. I'm not totally sure I like having the massive results table if only because that could get extremely unwieldy. I like the idea (and personally would be interested to see a List of UFC Fights in XXXX would be possible or informative) but for an annual article I'm just not sure about it being there. The overall format and layout looks interesting. Ravensfire (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you are trying to do is aggregate the information in the event articles and the omnibus (2012/2013 in UFC), and produce something else. To me, it seems your formats assume that there is a separate article for every event. Don't think for two seconds that AfD outcomes are going to be different just because some users, like Mtking, are gone. The article deletions is what made us create this page in the first place. In my opinion, this is the only way to move forward. It is good for everyone if individual articles and the omnibus look the same. Especially if the event just contains an infobox, some event card/results table, and a little info about cancelled bouts, like most of the events on 2013 in UFC. osklil talk 08:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason seperate articles for individual UFC events should be deleted. These are events attended by thousands of people. There is also a strong historical precedent of allowing these individual articles. Individual UFC event articles have been around since the beginning of Wikipedia. These omnibus articles are horrific to look at. Yohaka (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't think for two seconds that AfD outcomes are going to be different just because some users, like Mtking, are gone." I'm entitled to my own thoughts, thanks. One of them is that if the primary impetus for the AfD campaign is gone that would certainly would change outcomes, especially if the allegations of sockpuppetry were accurate. "The article deletions is what made us create this page in the first place. In my opinion, this is the only way to move forward." The only way? We can't ever go back? That idea seems absolutely antithetical to the core of wikipedia. Of course we can move forward in many different ways. When we make mistakes they can be corrected. I'll say it again: individual UFC articles are much more popular than Super Bowls (http://stats.grok.se/) and deleting them on notability concerns is not just laughable, it's bananas.66.162.252.10 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If only that claim was true ... see Super Bowl XLVII vs UFC 156 as the next iteration of each event. Whoops. Even going back a few interations. Whoops. And let's also ignore the countless uninvolved admins that have pointed out the notability problems for MMA articles. *sigh* Not even sure why I bothered ... Ravensfire (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Each and every UFC event is notable. This is a sport followed by millions of fans. Yohaka (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Based on the general consensus from both inside and out, not every UFC event is notable. Each time this argument gets brought up it's backed up by the same tired arguments of WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:NOHARM, WP:VALINFO, WP:GHITS, WP:SUPPORT, WP:ASZ, WP:IKNOWIT, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:INHERITED, WP:EFFORT, WP:ATTP, WP:NOTAGAIN. Seem like insurmountable policy arguments? Perhaps that's because the unified article as well reasoned arguments for each of those cases, where the individual event articles rarely (if ever) have responses to these arguments. Hasteur (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, this article is virtually impossible to read on mobile. This is a huge problem for those who want to look at the history of an individual UFC event while on their phone.Yohaka (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a debate to have with the mobile access group (Wikipedia:MOBILE) about why does the stylesheet not do things nicely. The page size isn't that bad and it's not unreasonable to navigate. This argument for splitting has been offered multiple times in the past and every single time, it gets pointed out that the mobile preferred version (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_in_UFC) is easily navigable and viewable. Hasteur (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What needs to be split is future UFC events and events less than two weeks old from past UFC events.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The setup is a total mess now; put it back to individual pages for each event. It was simple to navigate with the now and next events listed in the information bar. If you really want an "events in UFC 2013" page, just list the events with hyperlinks to each individual event article. You guys realise there's going to be 50 odd events this year, right? As much as anything, it's impractical having them all on a single page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.105.111 (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the setup is a total mess. I once again draw people's attention to User:Kww/UFC2013 as a prototype. Not perfect, but much better than this.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mainly use wikipedia for the MMA info, and I have to say the big yearly summaries are just useless. I get that this is a much discussed topic, and i do not want to enter all the wikipedia politics. But looking at this suggestion User:Kww/UFC2013, I really don't see how a yearly summary may ever be comparable to the split events. Just to throw in a my opinion, split events are useful and easy to navigate. The alternative is a big messy article that I personally won't use.
I'm sorry Kww, but I don't think your page with the huge table with repeated data (the event names) is an improvement over the current 2013 in UFC page. It's going to look even worse on small screen devices. osklil talk 18:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing is that the editors who push for omnibus articles are the ones that have no interest in reading, editing, maintaining, or updating articles, and dont even have an interest in the subject. Portillo (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TO FAZENDO UM COCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.235.236.240 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


BRUNO PUNHETEIRO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.235.236.240 (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

Given that it seems everyone is complaining about the current format, it is undeniable that there is NOT consensus in favor of it. 206.83.48.110 (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny to see that someone who doesn't care to log in (or register) has determined there is not consensus... Perhaps you should better go to WP:MMA since the format change involved multiple articles. And I don't agree with your conclusion. osklil talk 18:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny that a deletionist complains about someone who does not want to sign up for an account. Relax and allow non account holders to continue creating the UFC and MMA pages please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy 70.127.227.92 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are completely wrong. Osklil is not a deletionsit, he just tries to save info which gets deleted in this omnibus article. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 24 February 2013[edit]

Brock Jardine's loss is not a Knee Bar. It was a Hamstring Stretch submission. I take Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and there was no knee bar. 71.94.20.219 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I completely agree with you, but if you don't provide a reliable source we can't do nothing. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone changed it to leglock. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.mmafighting.com/2013/2/24/4023604/ufc-157-bonuses-robbie-lawler-kenny-robertson-dennis-bermudez-and "a modified hamstring crank ".109.64.0.29 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GoingBatty (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to restore UFC 157 as a separate article[edit]

Such articles as this are referring to the main event as "the most historically significant fight of the year" even "20 years from now" and it received mainstream coverage: "SportsCenter was Tweeting all night about the fight. They’ve never done that before. It was on the front page of CNN, Sports Illustrated.com". How on earth could this article be deleted? --24.112.187.219 (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - But first we should add more third party sources to the article. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm a little late, but since the article hasn't been created yet, I figure I'd chime in. With all the mainstream coverage focusing on the historical significance of the event in the weeks leading up to it, even the most ardent deletionist would have a hard time making a WP:ROUTINE argument. The article definitely needs to be better sourced, though, with more prose describing the significance. CaSJer (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and make the article. Portillo (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question: What coverage about UFC 157 in mainstream sources is substantially different in nature or intensity than the coverage about earlier UFC events? If WP:ROUTINE isn't a problem, that question should be easily answered.—Kww(talk) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few that go into detail on the historic nature of the first women's fight in the UFC and the positive impact on the future of women's MMA, in addition to the usual routine results: [1], [2], [3]. I could find more similar ones if you wanted me to. I'm honestly curious since you're about as strict as they come in applying WP:ROUTINE - do you consider that to be enough to demonstrate there's more there than the typical sports reporting? CaSJer (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline. I'd have no argument including that material in Ronda Rousey, but the out-of-the-norm coverage all seems to focus on her. Doesn't the New York Post run a recap of every UFC event?—Kww(talk) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was just going to post about this. UFC 157 featured a title fight (not to mention a historic title fight) so I see no reason why it does not have its own page. In fact, I see no reason why it didn't have its own page in the first place, it was known months in advance that this would be a notable event. --NINTENDUDE64 20:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The purses on the UFC events[edit]

I like how the UFC events are now organized---much more efficient. One thing that is missing are the purses/pay outs for the night. That used to be on the old version of the 72.48.160.154 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)articles. Why is that gone now? Of course I want to know how much money they get paid![reply]

And yes, I did look to see if this was already brought up. I apologize if it was and I missed it. I'm new to this so don't hound me.

Kyle (Did I do the signature thing right?)

Rankings/Stats[edit]

Rankings and stats are an official part of the UFC now and should be included.

Official Rankings[edit]

Key
⇧ Moved up in rankings
⇩ Moved down in rankings
NR Not previously ranked
This is great, but this information should (and is going to; see WT:MMA) appear in the fighters' biographies, not here. Also we need a source. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the information is going to be placed in the individual fighter articles, does it still need to be at the bottom of this article? Rankings will be fluid over time and more than just a single year. Therefore, current rankings in a 'by year' article seems out of place to me. Thoughts? Opinions? --TreyGeek (talk) 06:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image edit war[edit]

I've noted that an edit war has broken out on this page. I need to state two things:

  1. The images being used are an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC, specifically WP:NFCC#8
  2. Removing images that are an unambiguous WP:NFCC violation is a specific exemption to our edit warring policy.

Expressing that in plain English without acronyms, that means that the people that are removing the images are immune to being blocked for edit-warring. People that insert the images can be blocked for edit warring. I'm watching the edits, and will begin issuing blocks if this persists.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, can you also apply the same cluebat at 2012 in K-1 Events ? Werieth (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And can you comment on User talk:Werieth#March 2013? Werieth (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not including event posters really takes some of the integrity away from the articles. Portillo (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

small name[edit]

Why their names are on the small font?!!!!! Rafael dos Anjos, Khabib Nurmagomedov, Joe Lauzon

Propose delete or merge[edit]

I propose we delete this article as it does not conform to wikipedia notability guidelines. As far as I can see this is only a regular year in some sport organization and does not warrant a seperate articale. I suggest we merge the 2011, 2012 and 2013 articles into 2010s in UFC to resolve this problem and make Wikipedia more user-friendly. Thank you. 89.143.73.201 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose A yearly omnibus article covering a promotion's events in that year is an acceptable alternative to individual articles about potentially non-notable events and a decade (or greater time-span article) that will be large and unmanageable. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose For the same reasons as TreyGeek, the yearly format is working well as a compromise to save non-notable event articles from being deleted entirely. The only real drawback to the current format is size - it's already long and can take awhile to load. Merging more years into a bigger omnibus will only make that problem worse. I see no advantages to this proposal. CaSJer (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have no objection to merging the list events for smaller promotions (or the early history of UFC) but there's at least 20 events scheduled this year, there were at least 20 last year, and there will probably be 20 next year. This makes for even more complicated and difficult for the average reader. Hasteur (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I see no reason to make this omnibus more cluttered than it already is. Luchuslu (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this style sucks. - each event should have its own page. far more information was provided - this way is horrible because by the end of the year there will be too much to look through. why would someone change this from what it used to be- it doesn't make sense - if anything you should have a site thats called ufc 2013 and provide a list of events and links to their wiki pages. this is just plain stupid - are actual ufc fans in charge of this craziness or nerds that don't know the difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.44.45.98 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose It is painful enough to have all of a year's events on one page, but now a decade? No.

From the discussion above, there's clearly no consensus to merge the articles by decade instead of by year. I went ahead and removed the merge templates from the article. CaSJer (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • People are really too dense to recognize that as obvious satire...? HeyDecency (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^ What else is new? Ever since months ago the format's been a complete mess, and looking at the history it looks to be work of the same incompetents who were screwing it up over a year ago. They're about as aware of sarcasm as they are of MMA. 174.31.163.200 (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't Disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point", If it was satire and to prove a point, I think the responses above were a very generous extension of an assumption of good faith. If not, then the fact that nobody has called a point violation yet clearly indicates that our non-policy based arguments are out of order. Hasteur (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's so funny about this controversy is that nobody supporting this eyesore ever talks about making the pages useful to readers. No wonder the format is such a piece of shit now. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toe and critique[edit]

The footnote explaining how Jon Jones broke his toe has no citation and is counter to an explanation given by Fox Sports. Thus, my edit. Also, I'd like to note how awkward this talk page is since we have comments on all the different UFC events in 2013. It would be cleaner to manage information for each event on individual pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevori (talk • contribs) 07:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll: the current format is less useful as an encyclopedia than the previous individualized format.[edit]

Wrong page. Discussion should be held at WT:MMANOT not on the page of an individual year. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 16:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

While mindful of WP:POLL, I feel that a rough survey is necessary to show the severely limited effectiveness of this "yearly" page when compared to the previous format, and am not aware of such a poll having been conducted previously. I hope that one of the two formats, or another to be proposed, will establish itself as a clear favorite. If there exists significant disagreement, discussion can hopefully lead to agreeable consensus. Following that consensus, I think a detailed reiteration of policy arguments that have been made previously is long overdue.

Strongly Agree - The current page as it stands is overly complex, poorly navigable, and near unreadable- and I see no way to easily remedy that. And yet, roughly half of the year still awaits addition. While many have acknowledged this problem in discussions that exist already on this page, little contribution has been made towards fixing that problem, in my personal opinion due to WP:FAIT. In reading previous discussions and their culmination to this point, WP:BURO factors most prominently to me: "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." The current format is a direct result of strictly enforced rules whose application in this instance has been significantly more detrimental to Wikipedia than alternatives, and because of immaturity and moderation it is thus difficult or impossible for contributors looking to improve the encyclopedia to be BOLD.HeyDecency (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Asking the same question over and over with the exact same reasons (Mobile compatibility, User desires, Uglyness, etc.) only further divides the community. Wikipedia is built on a simple premise, collecting and organizing information. A significant majority who want the status-quo-ante make the argument that no harm is being done. There is harm being done in littering the namespace with thousands of substandard articles that don't meed our basic guidelines and rules. Being that the last argument for this discussion started April 13th, this is much too soon to re-litigate the same arguments again. This attempt clearly is trying to get a easily vote stacked question put forth as gold pressed consensus. Even if we were to accept the premise, the shattering into many separate articles would not be an improvement for Wikipedia therefore the majority of WP:IAR does not hold up. Hasteur (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, the simple premise of Wikipedia is collecting and organizing information. Thus, the question above is directed purely at the usefulness of this page in that role- an intentionally limited scope. I am not aware of any such poll conducted previously, as I said, so I apologize if I'm duplicating information. This straw poll is not intended to solve or even address policy disputes, merely to collect how people feel about the usability of the page. HeyDecency (talk) 06:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Usefullness" argument has been disproved 4 times already. Would you like to come up with another good yarn? Hasteur (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very interested to see how something so obviously subjective was able to be proven. Please link me to that discussion! HeyDecency (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree as the result of individual event articles would be the deletion of non-notable events. (Yes, UFC has events that are not notable as per Wikipedia's guidelines.) Suggestions for breaking up the yearly article have been proposed in the past, such as dividing the article up into (US) broadcast method (ie 2013 in UFC on Fox, 2013 in UFC on FX, etc). --TreyGeek (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable idea. I'm personally more partial to grouping fights by weight class. Either way, this poll is strictly about usability, as I replied to Hasteur above. Notability and other separate discussions should be exactly that- separate discussions. Trying to combine all of the debates that have been had into a singular thread is an obvious recipe for disaster that's nevertheless been baked many times previously. Hopefully having a more encapsulated approach will be more useful. HeyDecency (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Agree - The UFC 2013 page blows chunks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.248.249 (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
False dichotomy: Yes, this page "blows chunks". But the reason for that is the UFC community's reluctance to actually build an article that summarizes a year in the UFC. Instead, people are stuck on this format of a section per match in the hopes that they can individually break those sections in to articles. That's a really bad format.—Kww(talk) 01:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - From a reader's perspective, the current format seems to have lost content, is difficult to update, rather large, and hard to navigate compared to the individual articles. The edit war over the format has also resulted seems to have resulted in the loss of information rather than the format. The edit war also seems to make it difficult to update as everything becomes contested. Notice the lack of non editors voting in this straw poll. From an editing point of view, if the above editors would quit warring and put the flags back onto the fight cards and start to contribute as a fan rather than edit to enforce policy then I would Disagree. All I want to do is check out an athlete's history before he goes into a fight (Today is a day before another non notable event), so in this aspect TreyGeek has a point. I'd say this would be the main use of these pages...to do research. BTW when I find something good to contribute (that is not likely to be deleted) then I will sign up for a screen name. Peace. 70.127.227.92 (talk) 01:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree The issue that bothers me is that the majority of editors who support omnibus articles have no interest in the subject, nor are they interested in editing, updating, and maintaining articles. That is left to the editors who are MMA fans and actually take pride in the coverage of UFC and MMA on Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you think articles like UFC on Fox: Johnson vs. Dodson and UFC 158 are something to take pride in compared to UFC 94 and UFC 140, there is a major problem in my opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - This page looks to be made by people who think the UFC operates on yearly seasons (see KWW remark above) like the NFL or NBA. It's a ridiculous joke when Dunning-Kruger types (who can't even bother to read UFC) with a bit of e-power are allowed to run these articles into the ground. 174.31.163.200 (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - I'm not saying this page should be deleted (I kind of feel like it could serve as a redundant back-up if nothing else, given all that's happened), but it's not nearly as useful as the individual page format, and it's downright bizarre that UFC 157 of all things does not have an individual page despite the staggering amount of mainstream press that event received. If another beyond-insane two-year edit war breaks out, count me out, but my opinion is that the single-event format is easier to navigate, more user friendly, reduced bandwidth usage, and UFC events usually were able to pass notability guidelines after proper effort was expended to find said sources (something that in my opinion should always be the first offered solution or request, as opposed to an automatic AfD nomination). I think most sane people would prefer a reasonable, low-drama solution this time around. Beansy (talk) 10:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any Wiki review board that investigates page quality? I can't imagine this garbage those worthless politicians put up after they deleted the UFC events pages could pass any sort of review. I've never seen worse editing, if you can even call it that, on any area of wiki. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP Address is incorrect regarding de-archiving this thread SPECIFICALLY WP:TPNO says Do not misrepresent other people, Do not use the talk page as a forum. Discussion long passed into staleness and WP:SOAPBOX long ago and any reasonable user would have made that determination. I invite the IP address to check their BIAS at the door and consider what benefit there is in letting this straw poll (which has been definitively asserted Polling is not a substitute for discussion) become a backdoor attempt at overriding the consensus built on Wikipedia Rules/Policy/Guidelines/Best Practices/Manual of Style. If the supporters want to remove this compromise that is built on that consensus, then the next step would be to effectively gut any event that by itself did not meet the notability guidelines as interperted by a neutral party. I really doubt that is the desired goal, but the ball is now in the supporters court. Hasteur (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP address refuses to accept policy and instead is much more interested in edit warring for their viewpoint. I have dropped the GS/MMA notice on them for seriously failing to adhere to WP's purpose in addition to failing to read and UNDERSTAND the rules in place. That they use "illegal" in edit summaries suggests that they intend to bring legal action (which is a violation of WP:NLT) or that they intend to cause themselves a WP:BOOMERANG situation. 75.172.12.104 is free to start a new consensus building discussion but this discussion is over and so far from whatever pupose of the section was it no longer serves any purpose to improve the coverage. Hasteur (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty interesting that user Hasteur here is unilaterally closing down discussion as "involved editor" in clear violation of rules, and deleting my comments over and over while keeping his own which I'm pretty sure is against the rules, too. But I'm glad he linked me to Administrators' noticeboard, where I gather these rules are enforced. 75.172.12.104 (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

UFC 157[edit]

UFC 157 should have its own separate wikipedia page, NOT a redirect from "2013 in UFC." UFC 157 was a landmark event as it had the first ever women's fight in UFC history. One of these women is Ronda Rousey, the most dominating female mixed martial artist in the world. Please understand that UFC 157 will always be remembered as the first UFC event with women fighting AND headlining the event. Anyone who works for Wikipedia and is capable of doing this, please change it so UFC 157 has its own separate Wikipedia page and NOT a redirect from the "2013 in UFC" Wikipedia page. Thanks. Theepicwarrior (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 157[edit]

Hello,

Please allow the "UFC 157" page to be edited. Currently, "UFC 157" is a sub-article of "2013 in UFC." Unfortunately, this is unacceptable since UFC 157 was a landmark event as it headlined the first women's fight ever in the UFC, one of the women being Ronda Rousey. Also, every other numbered UFC event has its own separate Wikipedia page, so there is no excuse why "UFC 157" should not have its own separate article. Theepicwarrior (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The things that have changed since the deletion discussion is that Ronda Rousey has become the famous female athlete of all time. At the time of UFC 157, Rousey was hardly known to the general public. Now, she is a global phenomenon, being the third most searched person on Google last year. Again, please allow the UFC 157 page to be edited. Theepicwarrior (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theepicwarrior (talk • contribs) 08:08, 18 April 2016‎ (UTC) Theepicwarrior (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This article was deleted after a long discussion. Please review that discussion. I suggest you write your article at Draft:UFC 157 taking into account all comments made at the discussion. The next step would be to file a deletion review. Let me know if you need help — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I please need your help over on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2016_April_25#UFC_157 Theepicwarrior (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 in UFC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2013 in UFC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_in_UFC&oldid=1196650997"