Talk:UFC 193

Article content
Gsfelipe94, please do not act like a control freak. You do not own this article, or any articles for that matter. If someone adds relevant, sourced information which improves the article, do not remove it. If you have an issue with something that is added take it to the talk page or message the editor directly. As this article is currently a candidate for ITN, it cannot be on the main page without information on the fight itself/more information than there usually is on these articles. Thank you. Andise1 (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Individual fight descriptions
Why are we adding fight descriptions on event articles? This is an event article. Not a fight article. If the Rousey vs. Holm fight was so significant, then make an individual article for it. Just like there are for Tyson vs. Douglas or Leonard vs. Hearns. As I have stated previously, we do not add fight descriptions on event articles. If you start now, it will be standard from hence forth. That is unnecessary. It makes the article page clunky, arbitrary, and frankly redundant.

To the users who are adding these descriptions, if you want to add them to this event, then you will have to go back to each and every previous event and add descriptions to the significant fights of said events. Unless you are willing to do that, then I will remove the descriptions for this article. Plain and simple.Imhungry4444 (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read Summary style to understand how articles evolve. The event encompasses multiple fights.  That previous event articls are insufficient is not an argument to make this one insufficient. - hahnch e n 16:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the idea of having to describe every single fight. However, one user wanted to be the one responsible to add this event to the main page. He did what he had to do for that objective. I understand that only the description of the main event (and perhaps the co-main) are necessary in this situation. I also don't think we need to do this for every single event for now on. It's just that some stuff was odd on the article, like calling the event "fight" instead of "event", adding two phrases for two fights, that reaction section... All of that gone and the article how it is right now, it seems ok to me and let's move on from that. It's good as it is, no need to add a bunch of sourced content just because they have a source. I believe removing those descriptions is also unnecessary as the event is already listed on the main page. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a first for MMA, isn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Articles evolve", okay so then you are willing to add descriptions to each and every UFC main event, or co-main, from hence forth? If so then so be it. I'll accept the so-called "article evolution". But if that is not the case for every event article from now on, then I will remove the descriptions to this article. Also, don't give me the "well the next series events don't have significance relative to this one", because that's totally subjective. As is this one, just because it's on the main page. Time will tell.Imhungry4444 (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That other articles are insufficient is not an argument to make this one insufficient. - hahnch e n 17:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get why adding some prose to this article is a problem. Have to scroll a bit more I guess, or click the results link in the contents box. I hope this sets a precedent for UFC event articles, it's nice to have prose in my opinion. Though I don't think content being added on one article means it has to be added to others also. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to add anything on wikipedia without promising to continually add content to similar articles. Like adding a plot synopsis to one film article. Doesn't mean one has to add one to all films at the risk of being deleted otherwise.Make91 (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's my point. I don't it is necessary for future articles and it most definitely will not appear in them. I understand the situation for this article, but I feel that the only relevance of adding more content describing the fights is related to the title fights. Other things that were added were completely unnecessary and odd. I believe that it looks OK the way it is now. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "it most definitely will not appear in them". Please stop acting as if you own UFC related articles. If someone wants to add prose, which is a positive contribution to the article, then he or she should be allowed to. Andise1 (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And where did I act like I own something or said nobody is able to add info? You know very well that this is a one situation only and that if you come over for future events it will probably be for a limited space of time and to act stubborn thinking we'll be upset. You know that. I'm pretty sure there won't be people adding info, even if it's one phrase that makes no sense like the Noke/Sobotta bout. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. The mass media love Neil Magny and Kelvin Gastelum just as they do Rousey. They have a funny way of showing it, that's all. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment from someone who landed on this article as it was on the WP main page - I enjoyed seeing the fight summaries. It was great that many of the technical terms were wikilinked. That helps people like me who know very little about UFC/MMA. I was puzzled by the term "stick and move strategy". I felt that the Jędrzejczyk vs. Létourneau description contains too much detail. Rather than describing the overall shape and feeling of the fight it's a blow-by-blow. This description included the technical terms "combination via a kick", "throwing more combinations", "throw some leg kicks, as well as front kicks", "chopped", and "left jabs" without wikilinks. Hopefully some editors know what those means and how to best wikilink them. A suggestion is to reduce the descriptions to overall summaries meaning you don't need to use technical terms at all unless it's for very significant event.

The description also included "continued to hut left jabs" - I assumed the editor meant "hit" and corrected this but maybe "hut" is a technical term in this sport? If it's "hit" then that word should be replaced anyway as it means the word "hit" appears four times in two short paragraphs and is the only times that word is used in the entire article. It make for slightly awkward phrasing.

As Wikipedia grows and attracts editors with varied interests we will start seeing more detail in the early stages of an article simply as we now have editors interested in a subject and willing to put time into writing for Wikipedia. 20 years from now UFC 193 will be a nearly-forgotten historical event. On-line news articles about the event will be hard to find. Thus it will be hard to develop a rich/detailed article. UFC 1 was 22 years ago and articles about events in the early years are close to stub status. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with that the blow by blow description of Jędrzejczyk vs. Létourneau is far far too detailed.  The majority of the prose for the section is sourced to one reference.  I object to this being included in ITN until the section is reduced to the major blows of the fight. Hasteur (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments on the article
I found the sentence "Etihad Stadium was the third stadium venue to host a UFC event ..." to be confusing as I know nothing about the UFC. I look at List of UFC events shows that UFC typically uses much smaller venue. It would make the article clearer if that could be shown. I assume someone's written that the average UFC attendance was 11,017 which is the average for all events in 2015 prior to UFC 193: Rousey vs. Holm versus the planned 70,000 for UFC 193. In reading the comments on this article, http://www.mmafighting.com/2015/8/19/9177503/melbournes-etihad-stadium-set-to-host-ufc-193, it looks like the promoters wanted to sell 70,000 tickets which is quite a jump from their normal 11,017 ticket business model. Anyway, it would make the article clearer if that area could be expanded. I know the comments are not WP:RS but they show a level of interest in this shift of the UFC business model for this event that it likely was covered by WP:RS.

I was surprised that the purse was not mentioned in the article. With boxing there's always news articles about how much money the winner/loser of a fight was guaranteed and/or made. Other than the bonus money does the UFC disclose how much they pay the fighters? --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they disclose that info, but it's not necessarily right after the event. When they do, it's usually added to the article. About venues, the phrase is plain simple: this was only the third MMA event held by the UFC in a stadium. All previous events are held in arenas usually used for sports like basketball, hockey... Or other conventions centers... Anyway, it's that type of venue. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Bold or de-bold awards?

 * Originally from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

Most awards have been bolded, which goes against what MOS:BOLD normally discourages. We don't want to overemphasize them unless there are nominations also. They should be de-bolded in this article as well as every other match article. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bold or not, they're displayed like they were. It's clear when you have "the following fighters won 50,000 dollars" how much each fighter won. They were always bold as all fighters are available for awards, not exactly "nominations", specially after the awards were shifted from Submission/Knockout to Performance awards. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bolding is unnecessary. A reader can already acknowledge what awards the fighters won without extra formatting. --George Ho (talk) 23:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They have always been like that so i think you should just leave them be. Lukejordan02 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop insisting consistency here. There is no MOS guideline about sports-related pages, so WP:MOS all we have left. By the way, what are Good and Featured Articles that you've read completely so far? If you keep ignoring MOS:BOLD without improving Wikipedia at all, this isn't helpful here. George Ho (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Bold, revert, discuss - if you think they should be unbolded then make you case here and wait for others to join in and get a consensus. As of now they should remain how they was. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Prose is better than list format. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The case for not bolding is simple - bold font is meant to highlight the most important aspect. Highlighting everything is exactly the same as highlighting nothing. Having everything bolded except for one "and" is pointless. I recently changed 192 and 191 before seeing this discussion.
 * In any event, as Muboshgu says, the current prose is far better than bullet points, regardless of whether it is bolded. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's still emphasis. We can do italics but not bolding. George Ho (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Lowercase for common nouns
I know there's been a tendency for MMA articles to improperly capitalize weight classes, even when Wikilinking them to clearly lowercase articles. I don't know why that happens, but it does. But this article has a tag on it about bringing it up to standards. So let's not point to precedent, when no other MMA article has ever even been briefly highlighted in "the real world". WP:OTHERSTUFF. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Impact of upset missing
The "In the news" nomination was closed by another editor after lack of progress since it was posted and then pulled. ITN aside (though I imagine a timely update could be grounds for reopening it), it seems the article is lacking for me—a sports fan, but not a UFC follower—background on why Rousey was an overwhelming favorite, and why the upset was considered a big deal. At a very high level, Rousey's background needs to be in this article. Mention of the odds, her record, and dominance in past matches would accomplish that.] Holm being considered new to mixed martial arts and other boxers' track record in the sport would give more perspective. Finally, more post-match reactions, especially independent ones, would add perspective.—Bagumba (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Introduction/Lead section
Per MOS:LEAD, a lead must summarize what the whole article says. Some editor tries to revert our efforts on the intro. I invited him discussion over and over without avail. I hope he can reply here this time. --George Ho (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)