Talk:UFC 200

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2016
Davidaptor79 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2016
Copypaste of entire article removed

Davidaptor79 (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Please don't copy the entire article into the request. Only copy the part you're changing. If you copy the entire article into the request ... another editor may remove your entire request." This is not a "spot the difference competition" If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ - As it clearly states in the instructions to submit an edit request:-

So called "unified" title
Hello everyone... Long short story: This discussion here regarding User:Greg440's opinion and preference on adding "unified" before the UFC Light Heavyweight Championship led me to follow him into an edit war (despite my good faith in pointing out the proper procedures to request his change and his clear lack of arguments for it as the discussion followed). Anyway, he seems adamant on updating his opinion, edit warring and not respecting the guidelines. Therefore, I'm doing it for him. If he really believes his opinion is right, why not show us some sources or gather other editors here to discuss the matter? That's odd, right? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm asking for some users' opinions here: User:Ppt1973, User:Imhungry4444, User:Alexander Gustafsson, User:InedibleHulk and User:Psycho-Krillin. There may be more, but those are some of the most involved users I remember. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe it should say "UFC Light Heavyweight Championship". The fight is for the title that Cormier owns and that title is called "UFC Light Heavyweight Championship". The winner will unify the title. Should it say "Unified UFC Light Heavyweight Championship", it would sound like there was a third title on the line that would replaced both the original title and the interim title. I went back to check 3 examples wehre champions met interim champions: UFC 194, Aldo vs. McGregor, fight listed as UFC Featherweight Championship unification bout; UFC 154, St-Pierre vs. Condit, fight is listed as Welterweight Championship unification bout; UFC 116, Lesnar vs. Carwin, fight is listed as For the Heavyweight Championship. Therefore, for UFC 200, I think it should only say UFC Light Heavyweight Championship without any reference to "unified".Psycho-Krillin (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Giving Jones the token belt, which will always be an undefended blip in the title history, was intended purely for this sort of marketing. On one hand, it's meaningless, since many championships have been unified with interim championships, and are never called "unified" again. This one will be no different. On the other, the marketing for this show is unusually heavy, and should be reflected.
 * I'll suggest noting that the titles will be unified, in the body, and calling the actual title on the line "the UFC Light Heavyweight Championship", as it normally is and normally will be. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Replying to both of you guys: The original display here was already UFC Light Heavyweight Championship unification bout, but the mentioned user decided to remove it and the rest is history... I waited a while and suggested then "For the UFC Light Heavyweight Championship" as you also mentioned, but he denied it anyway. It was odd, because he also updated the article with that same option in the recent past. He's barely using his opinion and obviously it became something personal to him. It's obvious that the linear title is up for grabs and that is clear when no source calls it "unified". It will be "unified", but that is already mentioned on the background portion of the article and the first option also solved that issue. The "For the UFC Light Heavyweight Championship" is still correct and a valid option if other people feel so bothered like him to see one displaying "bout" and the other two displaying "for the". The lack of arguments was clear at that discussion on his talk page as it progressed. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Stop re-writing history. Yes, I changed the term from unification bout because it ran in contrast to the 2015 in UFC and 2016 in UFC pages where as your "unification bout" wording was inconsistent and did not match the rest of the title fight wording on that page. Your argument that it should match UFC 194 doesn't work because one you edited that page, and two the wording for the middleweight title fight is different from how it would be presented on every other page like UFC 187. Then when I changed it back to unified you started arguing that there should be no mention of the unification anyway which is ridiculous after you had been arguing over the way the term unified should be presented.Greg440 (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Arguments? I see none. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, what do you think about the last revision I made on the main page? Keeps the original wording you wanted for the LHW title fight while changing the rest of the bouts to actually match said wording and not look mismatched. My main problem was always the consistency, if you still have a problem with the term itself still well then it appears most everyone else thinks the term unifying should be somewhere in there.Greg440 (talk) 03:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I just don't get why you can't simply react to procedures already established. I told you to do exactly what we did here. Gather people for a discussion. I wasn't the one who needed to start it, but if I didn't this time nothing would change. I'm fine with that layout, but it seems to me that you only conceded to changes because you can't turn this into a 1-1 personal discussion. I'm not reverting anything right now because I don't want to be mistaken for an edit warrior. I still would like to see all opinions and maybe they'll provide a definitive position on this. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What is there for you to revert? You got your original terminology and I got the consistency between the bouts. Don't forget the reason you got banned is because you reported me and I reported you back. You could've moved this to a discussion before any of that happened. It wasn't until after you were banned that you actually decided to have a public conversation on this.Greg440 (talk) 04:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * All I'm saying is that I wouldn't revert even if I wanted to, because of obvious reason. Don't put the blame on me. You desired change based on your own opinion (as you could see, nobody here shares it) and you didn't come here and started a discussion to see if it was valid. I followed the procedures, while you never did and probably never will based on your comments. I was blocked purely because my good faith blindly brought me into your own game and that's not happening again. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't put the blame on you? You are no saint. You came to my page, instead of openly asking and introducing that we should should have an open discussion on this you decided to call me stubborn. Then you tried to make an argument that this isn't professional when even Alexander Gustafsson here has ironically used the term to describe what to do. Why don't you get mad at him? Also you were trying to remove the term completely, something no one agrees with YOU on. You didn't follow procedures, you tried to get me banned to silence me instead of having a real discussion and that backfired tremendously. You weren't blocked on your good faith, you were blocked because you sought to silence someone you disagreed with again (don't forgot this is the second time you've done something like this) and also broke the revert rule.Greg440 (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Man, you're still delusional. I said you were stubborn because you ignored what I said regarding lack of arguments and sources. You were plain simple with the revert button ready to fire all the time. Regarding Gustaf, you said it yourself: ironically. You kept pushing towards the literal meaning of the word. This is not professional, but it doesn't mean we can't make it look sharp and organized (still different than professional). And nope, you probably didn't check the last time it happened (long time ago) and if you reminded the report I filled (I believe you do, because you didn't do one by yourself, you merely copied mine), all I asked was for administrator insight and I clearly stated that I didn't feel a block was necessary for you. My only mistake was to revert you again after a day and a half. If I simply reported you there, I would still have the arguments and wouldn't be dragged into this with you. 'Remember: you were the one proposing changes to the article, so therefore you're the one supposed to gather the discussion. If we relied on you, this here would have never happened. I hope you learned this. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Btw, they said "UFC Light Heavyweight Championship" or UFC Light Heavyweight Championship unification bout, both of those options already referred by me and completely denied by you. You ended up choosing the latter because you couldn't bear seeing the first option without your "unified" option. The second one (and original) was already there. So how am I supposed to disagree with them if that's what I've been saying/doing all along? It's an unification bout for the UFC Light Heavyweight Championship. Anyway, I don't see any interest in wasting time specifically with you. The discussion was generated here and it's glad to see a consensus bringing an article forward, not just pure opinion of someone who comes out of nowhere to impose edits.Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL, holy shit the spin you are trying to put on the way in which we both used the word professional. The way it is edited now with the bouts following the same format as the first one was never how it was originally presented in your edit. I may have first reverted changed the wording but YOU were the one that wanted to disagree and therefore hold just as much accountability and the admins seemed to have agreed. Anyway keep having fun getting into more Wikipedia arguments in the future, I'm sure the third time is the charm for you. Greg440 (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I would prefer to write it as "UFC Light Heavyweight Championship unification bout". Sounds professional and correct in my opinion. Alexander Gustafsson (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It creates inconsistency though since you can't present the Featherweight title fight as "UFC Featherweight Championship interim bout" without it looking and sounding wrong. Greg440 (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be Interim UFC Featherweight Championship bout. The championship is interim, not the bout brother. Alexander Gustafsson (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it would have the classifying term before the Championship link whereas the unification bout will have it after. If unified and interim are placed before the links will always end up in the same place of the sentence (the end).Greg440 (talk) 01:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But nobody here sees an unified title. Except for you, obviously. The FW title is interim... The LHW, well, it's DC's title. And that one is not unified. The only thing that can somewhat link to your argument is "undisputed". They use that sometimes (even for titles that never had interim champs). Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Except for me and apparently every other person who's ever edited a Wikipedia page on UFC title fights involving an interim champion? They are fighting to unify their respective belts. They are contesting for a unified belt. You went from complaining about how the term is presented to claiming that it shouldn't be in there at all. Greg440 (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem delusional and I still can't see arguments or logic. DC's belt is unified? Create a Gregpedia and feel free to do whatever you want based on your opinion only. So far, it's not so good. Unification bout is totally different than unified belt. Unification means the interim title will be merged/unified into the linear title, which will still be LHW Champ. and not Unified LHW Champ. But it looks like that's impossible for you to understand. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you still not pleased with my last edit? Give me a break, I just kept the original lingo you wanted while changing the rest of the bouts to be as consistent as possible in formatting.Greg440 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't you observe the time of posts? I was typing as you posted stuff here and had your edit. As a matter of fact, I sent that response up there and got an "edit conflict" because you also posted in the meanwhile. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the "For the..." wouldn't work in the case of title eliminators. So, the argument of consistency is thrown out the window. Alexander Gustafsson (talk) 01:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "For the" works for that fight because it is more than a title eliminator, they are fighting for an interim belt.Greg440 (talk) 02:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Usually title eliminators only have descriptions on the background section. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Do we at least all agree that Jones and Aldo will win? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have DC and Aldo. Frankie hasn't shown any improvements when it comes to dealing with leg kicks. Mendes was lighting him up until he got caught. Jones looked awful against OSP and that was Jones at his best and OSP at his worst. Alexander Gustafsson (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * To be fair, OSP only looked his worst in the second half, after Jones literally broke him. After shaking off the rust, the old Jones spirit in the new Jones body (even his chicken legs are turkey-sized now) will be terrifying. Like the Mountain from Game of Thrones, but with much quicker eyepokes.
 * More on topic, I'll remind everyone that only championships are unified. Losers lose those with their titles, but always keep their belt (if they want it). If they defend the championship eight times, they get nine belts. Nothing "unified" about those. You can legally "beat the man to be the man", but if you actually "take his belt", you'll be arrested. Nitpicking, but true. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * And now we wait and see if interim championships need to be stripped or just fade away. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

UFC 200 scorecard shown is not the offical one
I just followed the link, to the UFC main page and clicked on the tab for "UFC 200" and among the things shown on here that is not on there is Brock Lesnar's name. Perhaps it will be there as we get closer to the show, but for right not this schedule and the UFC.com's schedule conflict. MPA 12:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talk • contribs)

Requesting edit of article "Official UFC Schedule"
1) Delete line: Heavyweight 	Brock Lesnar 	vs. 	TBA. Why? Because it does not appear on the linked official page: MPA 13:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

❌ info stated is false per Daniel kenneth (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

'UFC'?
While it is presumably obvious to those authors who worked on this article, some of us simply stumble upon articles and have no context within which to set them.

This article refers to UFC multiple times, including in its heading - but the only (apparent) spelling out of this acronym appears in a side bar below the first picture. Could someone who knows the words for which 'UFC' is an acronym please add them to the title and - if appropriate - to the first reference contained in the article text? If you are unsure how this should be done, this is detailed in section 5.1 of the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Thank you.Ambiguosity (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing the title of the event is UFC200, not The Ultimate Fighting Championship 200, so the acronym is fine. I guess people can click on UFC if they are curious about what it stands for. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:42, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They couldn't even do that from the old lead. No link. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

There's a precident for these shows. None of them mention the acronym at all. What makes this specifc show so special that it needs it but the others don't?TBMNY (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * They all mention the acronym, this is about the full name. Ultimate Fighting Championship should be first-sentence stuff in all of them because it runs and promotes them. As pertinent as the date or venue, if not moreso. This is much like continuing to capitalize common nouns "Light Heavyweight" and "Women's Bantamweight" in result boxes, just because the rest do. Self-perpetuating errors that should be fixed across the board with an automatic script. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Tweeting? Tweeted? Tweets?
I've noticed in a lot of articles people are starting to write things like "after McGregor tweeting a supposed retirement". I just wonder how wise it is to allow that sort of usage considering that in 5 or 10 or 20 years when there possibly is no Twitter anymore, people will have no clue what "tweeted" or "tweeting" means. I never see "googled" or "googling" being used on wikipedia to describe someone researching via the internet, so "tweeted" seems just as out of place to me. "Tweet", "Tweeting" and "Tweeted", in every instance I can imagine, could easily be replaced with "announce", "announcing" and "announced" respectively and still convey the same message while remaining understandable to people in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.189.4 (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've Wikilinked this one. As long as future readers remember how to click blue things, they should be fine. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2016
Fix troll messages such as

"Diego (im gonna retire) Sanchez"

Ziikutv (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 04:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Fluctuating titles
Even though Tate v Nunes is the most recent and now-official title, shouldn't we mention the previous titles it went by before changing to this? Ranze (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

IP drastic changes.
Well, this is the current layout an IP has been updating for several days: here. He clearly read the messages on the summary, yet refused to start this discussion here. He also hasn't responded the IP's talk page. That being said, I assumed good faith at first, but he reverts disruptively just to put his format there. While we're all open for suggestions and changes, we've been updating these kind of articles for a while and the format he added has a lot of "informal" to it. He removed one sentence that was extremely informal in this latest version, but I have some complains: Anyway, I'm once again gathering a discussion instead of the disruptive editor (in this case an IP). I'd like some input from you guys. User:Ppt1973, User:Imhungry4444, User:Alexander Gustafsson, User:InedibleHulk and User:Psycho-Krillin. Thanks Gsfelipe94 (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The timeline of events is completely broken. He mixes the weigh in part with the Hendricks/Gastelum sentence, instead of putting it after everything.
 * Regarding the timeline, we have part of the main event (with no context) at the top, them mentions briefly the preliminary bouts, then starts talking again about the top fights/stories of the background. Again, with the timeline completely messed up.
 * The disruptive edit by someone who doesn't even create a profile to be better traceable regarding his edits. If he's so committed to them, why not make it according to the rules of Wikipedia?

After reading the article and given that UFC 200 was a special (or, at least, intended as such) event, I think the format can also be slightly different from the usual. Still, the way the story is told can be improved and keeping the timeline can be helpful to understand how things happened. Here's how I see it in my head: *Backgroound **McGregor vs. Diaz 2 **Cormier vs. Jones 2 as new main event **Brock Lesnar announced, Ariel banned and Lesnar's opponent **Jones caught by USADA, out of card, enter Anderson Silva **Final main event format (Lesnar inicially in the main event but then Tate vs. Nunes as feature fight) **Stacked preliminary card I'm fine with the Hedricks weight miss being mentioned twice. I'm NOT ok with disruptive edits so my suggestion was to rearrange the article and then ask for it to be protected against non-registered users.Psycho-Krillin (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was typing an adaptation on the current format, which I'm uploading right now for evaluation from other users mentioned here. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Btw, I think we should add failed tests (after events) in an aftermath session. We've been adding them to background for a long time, but it makes information easy to read if it's placed in that new section as well as keeps consistent with a timeline organization. Should be a thing for future events as well. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree (even if sometimes, i.e. when a fight result is overturned, the tests are mentioned)Psycho-Krillin (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)


 * No immediate comment on most of this, but anything happening after an event should certainly not be in Background. That's just insane. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good now, I think. Aftermath is a good section too. And also nothing wrong with adding summaries of individual fights, if someone wants to do so, like a couple of articles have, e.g. UFC 193 and UFC 194. Make91 (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, what they said. Ppt1973 (talk) 18:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)