Talk:The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights

Kevin "Kimbo Slice" Ferguson

Out of curiosity, what is going to be the best way to refer to Kevin "Kimbo Slice" Ferguson? His real name is Kevin Ferguson, he appears to go by Kimbo Slice in MMA. A previous editor used the long version. I'm thinking it may be preferential to use just "Kimbo Slice" as that is what his.... MMA name is. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if what WP:PW does is applicable here, but they have the real name in parentheses behind the first appearance of the nickname. Seems a little unnecessary in this case maybe. You also have WP:COMMONNAME, but I guess that's only for article titles. I think using "Slice" is fine, but a mention of his real name somewhere would probably nice, e.g. 'Kevin "Kimbo Slice" Ferguson' as it's first appearance. --aktsu ^(t / c) 07:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Commonname is the right way to go here. Kimbo Slice is what he is known by primarily, so that is what he should be referred to as in articles. That is technically his ring name.--WillC 08:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Kimbo Slice is his professional name, so i think thats what he should be called here. Also it depends on what they call him on the show, Kevin or Kimbo. Portillo (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Do ya'll have a specific argument against listing him with his full name (Kevin "Kimbo Slice" Ferguson) in the fighter's list and then by just Kimbo or Kimbo Slice in the rest of the article? Or are ya'll simply saying only Kimbo Slice and no reference to Kevin Ferguson anywhere in the article? --TreyGeek (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Noone on the show calls him Kevin Ferguson, his professional name is Kimbo Slice. Portillo (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If the majority of people would rather no reference to "Kevin Ferguson" appear in this article, I will accept that. However, I am unsure why a single reference to his given name in the fighter's list is such a problem. My thoughts were full name in the fighter's list and then nickname/professional name in the rest of the article. But whatever, it's not a big deal in reality I suppose. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Tournament Bracket

I'd like to remind everyone that any filled out bracket at this point in time is highly speculative. By putting fights in as they are now (though commented out) you are making assumptions and guesses as to how the future bouts will be. In past TUF seasons, the bracket has not been added or has been commented out until the semi-finals round. At that point in time, we can create a non-speculative bracket. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

While I understand that the bracket is speculative, would it not be ok to add the first round matches into the bracket? By that, I mean only add the matches taken place, but not add the winners' names to the next round. For example, if one was to add the names of the winners to the next round, logic dictates that Madsen would fight McSweeney next (at least according to any bracket taking place now). However, it seems unlikely that the bracket would remain static, but upon such time as the bracket needs to change, can it not exist with just 1st round fights? --Paralympiakos 00:09, 1 October 2009

I didn't follow all of your logic there. But I would say that even putting up first round matches in a bracket would not be appropriate. My reasoning is that the bracket will show two first round matches leading to a second round. Even if you don't fill in the second round spots, you still show speculation on how the first round will lead to the second round.

The best thing to do is not make brackets show up on the page until the semi-finals. At that point we will know how one round leads to the next without speculating. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about lack of clarity in my earlier message then. What I meant was what you hinted to, in that people will think that, for example, Madsen will now fight McSweeney. On the bracket, those two are the winners of the top two fights, by virtue of HAVING the first two fights. I was enquiring as to the possibility of having the bracket, but not adding second round matches in because, as you rightly say, these are highly speculative.

In my opinion, I wouldn't have thought it would be too much of a stretch to include as I don't think too many people would jump to the conclusion that Madsen vs McSweeney was a second round fight. I guess it's all down to point-of-view though.

.....Did that make anymore sense? --Paralympiakos 00:52, 2 October 2009

I understand what you are saying. However, when I look at a tournament bracket, my assumption is the winners of the top two matches of the first round will meet in the second round. That is irregardless of whether the second round is filled in.

Take NCAA brackets as an example. When the brackets are made you can see the path a team must take to get to the championship before any game is held. That's because teams in adjacent matches/games will meet in the next round.

This is why I don't believe any bracket should be published in the article. And this is the reason why all season articles have avoided putting a bracket until the semi-final rounds. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I understand the problem then. I personally wouldn't take the path as 100% truth, but I can see how easily it could be presumed to be real. Short of stating that the bracket is subject to change, I guess there's no other way of filling this in until the semi-finals. Thanks for the explanation anyway. --Paralympiakos 01:50, 2 October 2009

I realise that this is old discussion, but I'm just wondering; with the final first round matches being finished next week and quarter final matches being announced (I think the preview said), is there any chance we can add in the bracket with a message saying "bracket subject to change and not indicative of future matchups" ? Currently, I have the bracket up-to-date in my user page, but am just wondering when it can be added to the wiki page, in people's opinions. Paralympiakos (talk) 14:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Brackets are traditionally added once the semi-final matches are announced. At that time we will know how the bracket should really look including what matches lead to which matches and will no longer be speculative. If they really do announces all of the semi-final matches next week (in recent seasons they have announced them all at one time) then the bracket can be added after the announcement on next week's episode. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it's the quarters being announced next week, which leaves just one more round remaining. Like I say, whilst speculative, isn't a fair amount of wiki like that anyway? I'm sure acknowledging that would be adequate if the bracket was added next week. Paralympiakos (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Aussies

Episodes get played in Australia on a 3 day delay and the word on the street is they didn't have a week delay for Thanksgiving like North America did. They got both 'Demise Me' and 'Battle Tested' so anything that is posted on this page in terms of Brackets/Episode Info isn't just speculation. Should we leave this stuff since it has already aired somewhere in the world? No doubt the IPs and Aussies who have seen it will be coming to this page to edit stuff in. [1] Don't read unless you like spoilers. (pinchet (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

If Australia has seen the final episodes then yes, they can update the article with that information. Brackets can go up, assuming they have seen the semi-final matches or announcement of them. I reverted changes earlier today on the final episodes, partly not knowing others in the world may have seen it, and partly because it was horribly written/formatted. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

REMOVE THEM! i checked this site to see what time the next episode was on and bam...youve spoilt the final show you bunch of idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenbo1981 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also the page claims that fighters had to have a pro MMA record and Matt Matrione was 0-0 coming into this.

Why should we remove them? The Aussies and Brits, in fact, anywhere in the world get results after you yanks. Should it be removed for the Brits sake? I don't think you'd like that!

Anyway, why in the hell would you check HERE for the time of the episode? Why when you see text below "episode 11" did you continue reading? This is not a TV guide. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, fighters who tried out had to have a pro record. Matt clearly didn't try out and got an invite regardless. Do some reading. Paralympiakos (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Episode 12 was not shown in Australia unless you can show proof of this, removing the uncited details. -Lapinmies 12:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Final episode titles

First of all, I want to say I'm WP:AGF that the information on the last episodes in the article is correct as viewed in Australia. There is a possible issue that may need to be handed, and that is the titles and how the final "two" episodes are/were aired. My first question is, were the final episodes aired as a two hour block in Australia or as separate episodes? The reason I ask is that above there are two episode titles mentioned. However, according to the TV guide put out by my cable company, they are being aired on Spike as a single episode titled "Road to the Finale." If there is a difference in how the show was aired between the US and Australia then we need to decide how to address it. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Finale Lineup

{{editsemiprotected}}The fights for the Finale will be: Main Event Heavyweight Bout: Marcus Jones vs. Matt Mitrione
Light Heavyweight Bout: Matt Hamill vs. Jon Jones (fighter)
Heavyweight Bout: Kimbo Slice vs. Houston Alexander

This was announced at the end of the double episode. Can someone please edit? --Muadeeb (talk)

No. We only add the finale fight Paralympiakos (talk) 20:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I see it belongs in the main finale article. Apologies. Muadeeb (talk)

Article Incorrect

The semi-finals are still to come, Marcus Jones has net been defeated yet, there is an error on the TUF 10 (on spikes website). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.224.64 (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

He has. He's fighting in about an hour against Mitrione. Paralympiakos (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin Wren

Justin Wren's page links back to this. I don't understand why. You can't find out any of his credentials, fight statistics, or anything like that. More importantly, it doesn't say anything about his huge amount of work in The Congo freeing slaves (featured on Jimmy Kimmel, Today Show, TMZ, and others). Can we stop this redirect and get his own page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.143.200 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Ultimate Fighter: Heavyweights. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010221231634/http://www.ufc.tv/Index1.htm to http://www.ufc.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20010221231634/http://www.ufc.tv/Index1.htm to http://www.ufc.com

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) 08:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)