User talk:156.204.81.181

BMF belt
It’s not a part of history and has no business being listed along side actual championships that are actually a part of history. Additionally, I’m not the only person against the inclusion because I’m the 2nd person to revert you for the addition of it. Any additional objections must be taken to WT:MMA before reverting again.-- Rockchalk 717 06:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense. It is part of UFC history and does have business being listed as a symbolic accolade that was awarded by the company (UFC) which is the subject matter of the article. If you want to challenge and remove sourced material, the onus is on you to go ahead and take it to WT:MMA. 156.204.81.181 (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Rockchalk 717 is correct. The 'BMF' belt is not considered an actual title belt. It has no associated weight class, there will be no defences and it cannot be awarded to anybody else. Any additional objections must be taken to WT:MMA before reverting again. Gilbert.JW (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * He is not correct, and neither are you. You haven't been paying attention, it's never been claimed to be an undisputed title belt. It is what it is, a symbolic one time belt and its omission reduces the quality of the article. Like I said, the onus is on the editor who wants to remove sourced content. 156.204.81.181 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed on Nate Diaz talk page. Feel free to read. There is no real argument for including the BMF belt in. It does not reduce the quality of the article at all as it is not a real belt - it's a one-off. We will hopefully come to a vote with other MMA editors to help arrive at a consensus. Until then, the BMF belt should not be mentioned anywhere on List of UFC champions. Gilbert.JW (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we will continue this conversation there since it’s already being discussed, IP, please take this conversation there as I will be.-- Rockchalk 717 23:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)