Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 11

UFC Champions footer template aka fixing what's not broke
Hey guys, I had the idea to see what it looked like if you put all the past champs in the UFC Championships template. I'm not sure that i like it but i think the idea might have merit, personally if i like any of them it's the 3rd one. Perhaps this will spark an idea in someone else and it will be worth making the change. The big reason i wanted to do this would be to make use of some of the white space, and the third one isn't really that much larger, has very little white space, and also has lots more info. so anyway, here are the three versions in the order that i made them.

Kevlar (talk) 02:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Carina Damm
Carina Damm was the first pro WMMA fighter to get busted for PED does that make her notable? Dwanyewest (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Jakejr (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest (if such a copyvio is present).--Lucas559 (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Hello WP:MMA. Someone should tidy up the source guide for reliability, especially the unsorted sources. I removed unreliable stuff like user-submitted (bleacherreport.com / wikipedia.org / twitter.com / youtube.com) or blogs (bakal.wordpress.com / blog.chron.com / ivansblog.com / prosportsblogging.com / truefighting.webs.com) - there might be more nonsense in there. starship.paint ~  KO  02:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

UFC 1 traffic spike
Does anyone know of any way to determine what would have been driving traffic to UFC 1 on June 10th? Not that it matters but wow what a jump. Kevlar (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Reported payouts and bonus awards
Using UFC 189 as an example, any thoughts on combining the Bonus awards and Reported payout sections into Reported payouts and bonus awards and putting it into a table like this:

I think it makes it easier to read, but it ends up with a lot of dead space in the center. Any thoughts would be great. Kevlar (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Article improvement drive
I've hijacked the Article improvement drive as it hasn't been used since 2012. I am going to try to implement what i described above in coordinating improving at least 5 event articles a month. The 5 articles I've nominated for improvement for this month are Pride The Best Vol.3, UFC 28, WEC 26, WEC 5, and World Victory Road Presents: Sengoku no Ran 2009. Feel free to help out or give guidance. Kevlar (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

WSOF events
I don't think it makes sense to have individual articles for every WSOF event. Right now the WSOF isn't even top tier and I don't see the coverage or significance necessary to meet WP:NEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. It has been argued previously that not even all UFC events merit their own articles, but that debate is too contentious for me to want to deal with. I think for a second tier event to be notable it needs to clearly be exceptional enough to meet WP:NEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 16:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Any article that doesn't have sufficient sourcing should be sourced, merged, or deleted. Although there had been fierce debate in the past over deleting MMA event articles I think would could approach it different and possibly not have the same results. I think if we all of a sudden nominated 30 UFC events for deletion people's would get a bit defensive again. Somewhat recently 11 Pride events were merged into their respective Omnibus articles with little to no fuss. I think we should choose a reasonable number of event articles at the beginning of the month, give people the month to do their best to improve the articles, at the end of the month we AFD the articles and let nature takes it's course. Also there are currently there are 9 UFC events that only exist within omnibus articles: UFC Fight Night: Stevenson vs Guillard, UFC on Fox: Evans vs. Davis, UFC on Fuel TV: Sanchez vs. Ellenberger, UFC on Fuel TV: Korean Zombie vs. Poirier, UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall, UFC 149: Faber vs. Barao, UFC on FX: Belfort vs. Bisping, UFC 157: Rousey vs. Carmouche, and UFC on Fox: Henderson vs. Melendez. I don't meant to imply that any editor can't use the normal AFD process and nominate any article, this wouldn't replace that process, just a more tip-toe type process in addition. Perhaps we could nominate some articles and get a list of 5 to start with on September 1? Sorry if this is too convoluted. Just brainstorming. Kevlar (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I Disagree the criteria for a Promotion to be notable are as followed


 * Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage.
 * Promotes a large number of events annually--the more fights it has sanctioned, the more notable.
 * Has actively been in business for several years - the longer the organization has been around, the more notable.
 * Number of well-known and highly ranked fighters.

They have had over 20 events which have been broadcasted over multiple television stations and are covered all over multiple MMA sourced websites and beyond including Yahoo.com, they currently have over 3 top 10 ranked fighters as of August 2015 according to sherdog.com's MMA rankings, including Marlon Moraes, Rousimar Palhares, David Branch, Jake Shields and Justin Gathje they have been around since November of 2012 which is making November 2015 their 3rd year of being in business the promotion and its events hold notability as a top tier organization holding monthly active events JMichael22 (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please take a looks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability/Archive 9.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * JMichael22, there's a difference between determining whether an MMA organization is notable (as in deserves a WP article) and showing that organization is top tier. The criteria for determining the top tier organizations has been discussed many times and probably are now too lenient compared to the MMA situation when they were created. Papaursa (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What Exactly doesn't make WSOF Notable or Top Tier??? JMichael22 (talk) 06:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In my opinion there are a few issues here. 1 is that WSOF is not at this time listed as a top tier promotion on WP:MMANOT, discussion to change that should take place on the WP:MMANOT talk page. That is our internal litmus test for notability, which is fine but... 2 no matter what, everything goes back to WP:GNG and my reading of GNG is that if you can source it, it's OK to have it's own article. There are no guidelines for what individual bikini's are and are not notable, yet White bikini of Ursula Andress seems to have no problem. It feels like WSOF fails the lower guideline WP:MMANOT but passes the higher guideline WP:GNG. A little goofy, but i would say keep them. Kevlar (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably about time we have a Justin Gaethje article, seeing how the 15-0 champ is now in the title of four notable events here, and he'll be the featured boss fight for the upcoming one-night tournament. NBC Sports is a general big deal, even if it's new to the MMA game. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

UFC fighter image set request
I thought there might be a chance of getting a set of UFC fighter images from ufc.com. It is a long shot -- I guess 15% chance of success. To me, that's worth the try. Here is a draft of the letter I wish to send. I just tried to send it, but it wanted a captcha, and for some reason no captcha box appeared. So, I thought I'd post the draft here to see if project members could help tweak it and proof it, and then someone eventually send it. Your input would be great.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

General article maintenance
Just putting this here for anyone who might read it. Routinely after MMA events, fighter pages are a mess. People will update the MMA records, but not the Infobox or info in the career section. This past weekend, no one bothered to put info in Phil Davis' section regarding Bellator that he had fought two fights in Bellator. I can't keep up with making all these changes so hope others will help. Thanks. Udar55 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rick Hawn and Pat Healy are up to speed now. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Is Smackgirl a Tier 1 organisation?
The reason I ask this as Molly Helsel has an article for fighting for a Smackgirl belt surely Amanda Buckner and Laura D'Auguste are notable as they won belts in Smackgirl? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You should also be aware that Molly Helsel is up for deletion. Astudent0 (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Biography Articles for deletion
Hey guys, Given that the vast majority of MMA Biography articles being marked for deletion come down to not having 3 fights in top tier organizations. I'm wondering if it might be helpful to have a template we could use in the AFD discussion. The template could be named something like WP:MMANOT Summary and look like this:

Kevlar (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't WP:NMMA enough? Astudent0 (talk) 17:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what i'm asking. It very well may be. I'm not saying that it's not only that this might help to make the process easier and also drive people here. It's just an idea. Kevlar (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Road to UFC Japan
I noticed there is no page for this. Do we want one? I'm not sure if it even falls into the TUF category (it did follow the same format). Udar55 (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Locked website
hello!

This page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_Fight_Night:_Barnett_vs._Nelson

has been locked and is incomplete (main event results plus bonus winners). Does anyone know how to unlock it?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.90.139 (talk) 16:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It was protected yesterday due to persistent vandalism and will automatically be unprotected in a couple of days. In the meantime, you can create an edit request on the article talk page with the exact specifics.  To do this, create a new section that starts with   In the next line after that, put the exact details of what should be added or changed, making sure that you include the reliable sources for that information.  If you don't include good sources, it won't be added.  If you want something changed, you need to phrase it as change X to Y, again being specific and including sources. Ravensfire ( talk ) 16:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Better yet, click on the View Source link on the article and you'll see a big button named "Submit an edit request". Just click on that. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Fight card articles
A deletion discussion is going on at Articles for deletion/Wladimir Klitschko vs. Bryant Jennings. The reason I bring this up to the Project is the tone of that discussion seems to be going in a direction on what fights qualify as deserving an article. In points I made I drew comparisons to MMA cards and the response appears to be to address both the boxing fight card articles referenced and the MMA articles referenced (which is why I also am posting on this project). The outcome of this AfD seems likely to influence 100s of MMA fight card articles. As it stands, all the major MMA organizations have individual pages for their fight cards, but the discussion can be read as touching on the appropriateness of those. WP:SPORTSEVENT isn't really well suited for boxing fights, MMA cards, or other "event" type sports (e.g., the Kentucky Derby). Depending on how this AfD goes, it could have a strong influence on the MMA card articles. Thought this was appropriate to bring to the attention of the Project.RonSigPi (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The MMA model of event scheduling, production and promotion is more akin to pro wrestling's than boxing's. The "fake" part is a big difference, but pretty much the only one (tag team MMA is rare, for now). I'd suggest what's decided for boxing stays about boxing, and if there's ever a similar discussion about major wrestling cards, that's the one we should seriously consider, as a Wikiproject. As individual editors, we can consider anything we want, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Sam Oropeza vs Timothy Woods
I can't find information on this one. Tapology & MixedMartialArts.com have this fight listed as a no contest while Sherdog still has it as a KO. The promoter of the event isn't sure why the result was changed but both Sam & Timothy were suspended following the fight. Sam gave his number to a Tapology moderator back in July to talk about this but Sam ended up never answer the phone when he called. Pretty odd. Anyone have any insight on this & whether the result should reflect their suspensions or follow Sherdog & just ignore it? 24.102.148.42 (talk) 15:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Still nothing. I'd ignore it. Note that MixedMartialArts.com lists Oropeza as suspended by the Massachusetts SAC, and Woods by New Jersey. If this had something to do with their fight, you'd think they'd both be Jersey. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Surely its a mistake?
Emi Tomimatsu must be be notable she did win a championship in Jewels (mixed martial arts). Dwanyewest (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What title did she win and when? Papaursa (talk) 02:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Emi Tomimatsu won the strawweight championship at Deep Jewels 3. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if we look at the AfD debate she does not meet the criteria. I don't think much has changed since then.  Deep Jewels was not considered top tier.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

International Vale Tudo Championship
I believe that IVC should be considered to be a first tier or second tier organization. They had high ranking MMA fighters in their organization including Wanderlei Silva. From 1997 to 2003, they had many high ranking premier fighters. CrazyAces489 (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Silva wasn't high-ranked or premier at the time. Did they have any contemporary stars? That this was billed as "Starwars" isn't encouraging. Nor is the fact that this guy headlined "World Class Champions". InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The history is long enough, First IVC Dan 'The Beast' Severn, Gary Goodridge, second  Wanderlei Silva, third had Carlos Barreto (fighter), fast forward to 10 it had Wanderlei Silva (who had already fought in the UFC) and more.  CrazyAces489 (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Goodridge and Severn were already major players, yeah. Silva'd had a UFC fight, but he got wrecked. Nobody cared about him yet. Hardly anyone still cares about CARLOS BARRETO. And certainly nobody cares about Christian Quezada, aside from losing to the funniest submission method on Sherdog. If we consider this top-tier, we're not just saying it was a good promotion; we're lowering the MMANOT standards to sooner let in losers like him. I can't get behind an encyclopedia taking him as seriously as the others. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Silva lost to Vitor Belfort. Not a nobody.  Carlos Barreto beat Kevin Randleman.    I don't believe second tier is out of the question.   IVC had a number of top ten fighters


 * Yeah, Belfort's definitely a beast. I wasn't saying that loss made Silva a chump, just that to the vast majority of fans, it made him some guy they hadn't heard of who didn't last a minute. Tough guy, but no star yet. Barretto beat five-fight Randleman before he'd been on any major TV (or TV at all?), too. I couldn't have done that in 1997, so props to him, but if I had, it would only impress the handful of people who'd seen Randleman fight other nobodies.
 * I won't argue a second-tier label, since that doesn't seem to affect anything beside the list. No harm, no foul (unlike these screwups). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Endorse moving of International Vale Tudo Championship to second tier status and to first tier status. 74.58.125.130 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC) — 74.58.125.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * And if you had to pick one? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * We have objective criteria for being top tier which IVT doesn't meet. As far as being second tier, it's hard to even claim that when you have a fight card where the main event features two fighters with a combined total of one win. Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Having fighters like Dan 'The Beast' Severn and Gary Goodridge in their first match allows me to Endorse moving of International Vale Tudo Championship to second tier status and to first tier status. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You also have Chuck Liddell, Wallid Ismail , MIKE VAN ARSDALE , EUGENE JACKSON , and ALEX STIEBLING CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

endorse second or first tier IVTC was a big player in Brazil and international scene during its era. it produced many top fighters and many fighters crossed into ivtc in order to get bigger. 148.74.254.186 (talk) 06:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

MMA tier
I believe we are at a point where we should open up the MMA tiers. I propose for a vote.

of the changing from

Criteria supporting notability

Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations

Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization (See Champions column)

Fought at least three (3) professional fights for top tier MMA organizations (See Events column)

To

Criteria supporting notability


 * Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage or press releases from organizations.


 * Fought for the highest title of a top tier MMA organization (See Champions column)


 * Was a champion of a second tier MMA organization.


 * Was ranked in the top 10 of a weight class or top pound for pound list.


 * Fought at least two (2) professional fights for top tier MMA organizations

CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The MMA criteria are well established and created by broad consensus. Changing them should be done only with careful thought and good reasons.  It's obvious why second tier titles don't mean anything--WP:NSPORTS clearly states athletes need to compete at the highest level and, by definition, second tier is not the highest level.  I would be willing to change the notability criteria from 3 top tier fights to 2 top tier wins--some fighters have gotten their 3 fights without winning any fights and I think you can reasonably argue they haven't shown they can compete at the highest level. Papaursa (talk) 19:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is it that someone can play 1 day in MLB, NBA, or the NFL and be considered to be notable but they require wins in MMA? I believe that we should have some consistency.  CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Right now they don't require wins, but that's not a bad idea.Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If there was to be any change I would argue for a tightening up of the criteria. Either a minimum of 3 top tier fights with a minimum of 2 top tier wins OR doubling the number required top tier fights.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Every "Fight of the Night" has a loser who fought well (or at least two guys who didn't win). Even the notably dominant finishes are only so because the other guy stepped up and got smoked. Competition inherently needs both sides of the coin. Winners simply can't win without losers to compete against at the highest levels. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Tightening would work IF we made the amount of first tier organizations larger.  Holding a title in a second tier organization should make someone notable.   Being in the top ten should make someone notable.  CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

endorse suggested original criteria 2 professional fights. 148.74.254.186 (talk) 07:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Boxing has shown that beating a bunch of chumps can get you ranked. The existing criteria require fighters to actually compete against good competition. No objection to the two top tier win change. To be official I think it has to be discussed at WT:NSPORTS, but maybe that should wait until he have agreement here.Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How about a compromise between all of these suggestions? As with all other major (North American) sports, as soon as a player hits the top level of their sport, they are considered notable. I think it is clear that the UFC is considered the pinnacle of MMA, with Bellator, Invicta, and WSOF as tier 1A. Anyone who fights in the UFC once should be notable (to remain consistent with other sports); anyone who fights in 2 or 3 (this number is debatable) fights or is champion/fought for the championship in tier 1A organizations is notable; and then special cases (perhaps fighters in the top 10 pound-for-pound in their weight class outside of the top orgs) could be considered as notable as well. I know that I use Wikipedia as my go-to for quick MMA event and fighter info, and often get discouraged to find fighters that are at the top level of their sport not represented. Zyarb (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can consider MMA equivalent to baseball, basketball, football, etc. I think that some semblance of being able to compete at the highest level is important.  As it stands now, the MMA notability criteria lie between the standards for major North American sports and that of martial artists (which would seem to be the more relevant benchmark).  This is not my proposal, but we could equate this with kickboxing with requires a world top 10 ranking or fighting for a world title of a top tier organization.  I mention all this to show there are lots of ways we could go, but I think if the notability criteria are going to be modified it makes sense to do it in as minor a way as possible. Papaursa (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Zyarb Makes some great points! Anyone who fights in those top levels is notable.  If someone plays one game in the NBA they are automatically notable.  Same thing for baseball.   Why does someone need 3 fights in the UFC?  Makes not sense!  one   tier 1 or ranked in top ten is really all we need! 3 is just a ridiculous arbitrary number!  CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that WP:GNG applies regardless. If Sage Northcutt has significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources, it doesn't matter at all how many UFC fights he's had. Same for anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I just saw Zyarb on that Talk Page after I posted. Weird. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 100% correct! WP:GNG > WP:MMANOT, my go to example would be Herschel Walker. Kevlar (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The sheer number of articles deleted on AFD martial arts is insane. Often just based on not having 3 fights in a top tier organization. Often it seems that GNG is ignored. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, next time you see someone ignoring it, get mad as hell and don't take it anymore. That shit's contagious. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose any weakening of the guidelines The MMA Biography notability came about from several debates as to where do we draw the line for inclusion in MMA Biography notability. Ideally, the athletes we're going to feature train and do the sport as their means of supporting themselves through life. Someone who is hauled up for 2 top tier fights to be the heel for a narrative story or has held a championship in a non-"top tier" league is not as notable as someone who has been for a longer series of fights or has held the championship in the top tier league.  All this proposal appears to be (from my prespective) is a "Because I want it to be so" argument without any good justification. If we discard (as we are supposed to do) any of the routine coverage sources ("Xe1 is going to fight Xe2 on DATE at EVENT", "Xe1's weigh in press coverage", "Xe1 was defeated by Xe2") we're typically left with little coverage that does not explain how the figher and the fight mattered to the larger sport.  There are fighters that are clearly notable (such as Rounsey) and fighters that are on wikipedia that are squeaking by the guideline on the barest of margins that should be challanged. Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Boxing / flagicons
Greetings MMA'ers and MMA'ists! Would it be considered canvassing if I RfC'ed you fine people to weigh in at WikiProject Boxing regarding the dreaded flagicons debate? I don't think this counts as canvassing because I am fully refraining from contacting individual members from this lengthy WikiProject MMA discussion, and I also believe there is a strong cross-project exchange of ideas to be had. In fact, I am currently writing up an MOS for boxing, which has been long overdue. I see that MOS MMA has shunned the use of flags for about four years now, so this has inspired me to go all-out and get the same applied to boxing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't notice this until 10 days later. I will take a look later tonight. To your point of the conversation being dreaded, yea, it wasn't easy. I was on the "losing" side of the debate but i think it helped me to mentally re-frame things from thinking of it as "people for or against flags being used" to "people being for flags, having a conversation with people being for a cleaner/less cluttered wikipedia". Also keep people focused on a single issue. If i remember correctly, we were tackling a number of hot issues all at once. Like I said i'll catch up later tonight and see if i can weigh in. Also last thing, i honestly don't think it's canvassing if you are looking to get more people involved from all sides. Kevlar (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Time for Gaethje article?
He's coming up on two years as WSOF champ. He has more title defenses than the Bellator, ONE or UFC lightweight champs. Aside from the other Wikipedia-recognized guys he's beaten, he is the high-water mark of Nick Newell's career. There's certainly no lack of in-depth coverage out there. I'm too lazy to do it myself, but somebody isn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ha! I didn't know this existed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

If I understand WP:GNG correctly, he could be considered notable as he is the subject of articles from bloodyelbow.com, mmajunkie.com, bleacherreport.com, and bjpenn.com. True he does not meet WP:MMABIO that doesn't matter if he meets WP:GNG. Kevlar (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Upcoming fights in the record tables
I have seen recently that our policy is against it. What is the rationale? I find it very convenient.--Dixtosa (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the record table is intended for things that have happened in the past. It is perfectly fine to mention somewhere in the article that there is an unexpected fight coming up, but not in the table. I did create a separate template a while back for upcoming fights, but it didn't catch hold. Kevlar (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's basically it - older discussions can be found here and here. The main problem was that actual fights (not events) are subject to change up to the moment fighters enter the ring. Back in the day there were entries, months in advance, that were mere speculation.  Even in text, future events should be backed up by a reliable reference.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Mauricio Rua edit war
Hey folks, please head over to the Mauricio Rua talk page and help out in an ongoing edit war. I was asked to help out by one of the participants but my involvement with MMA articles is purely style concerns and reverting vandalism, ie, I don't deal with content or content disputes. But there's definitely a dispute going on that needs outside involvement. SQGibbon (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Fighter notability proposal

 * Have moved this discussion to the sports notability page since it must be approved there. See WT:NSPORTS.

I would like to propose that the notability criteria for MMA fighters be changed slightly--from having 3 top tier fights to having 2 top tier wins. This would require that to be notable fighters must have shown the ability to compete at the highest level instead of just being signed to fill up fight cards. Fighting for a top tier championship would still show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I like this change, but perhaps we could also add the criteria that any world top 10 fighter (say, by Sherdog) would also be considered notable. That would bring this criteria in line with the criteria for boxers and kickboxers. Papaursa (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to go with Papaursa's suggestion. It makes even more sense when you look at his comment at my proposal for the notability of MMA orgs. Here is the proposal as I now see it.

Proposed Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they 1. Have won at least two (2) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or   2. Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization; or     3. Have been ranked in the world top 10 by acceptable sites such as Sherdog and Fight Matrix (other rankings can be added after discussion at WT:MMA). Mdtemp (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC) Proposed Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they 1. Have been in two (2) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, such as the UFC (see WP:MMATIER); or    2. Have fought for the highest title of a second or top-tier MMA organization; or     3. Have been ranked in the world top 10 by Sherdog (other rankings can be added after discussion at WT:MMA). 4. Have been in four (4) professional fights for a second-tier MMA organization CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Endorse This means notability will go to those who have shown the ability to successfully compete at the highest level and brings the notability criteria more in line with other fighting sports. Papaursa (talk) 04:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is very exclusive and underepresents MMA when comparing to other sports such as the NFL, NBA or MLB where people are assumed notable if they played in just 1 game!      05:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure i understand why we are looking to make this change. The first proposal would seem to decrease the number of fighters eligible for notability, while the second would expand it. Kevlar (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * CrazyAces489 should have made a separate proposal instead of trying to confuse this discussion. Jakejr (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed

I feel that a better compromise than the two above is needed. So here is what I think.

Mixed martial artists are presumed notable if they 1. Have been in three (3) professional fights for a top-tier MMA organization, with at least one (1) victory; or   2. Have fought for the highest title of a top-tier MMA organization; or     3. Have been ranked in the world top 10 at some stage by Sherdog (other rankings can be added after discussion at WT:MMA). 4. Have been in ten (10) professional fights for a second-tier MMA organization, plus winning the highest title of said promotion at one stage. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 00:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Top tier organizations based on closed discussion
Using the proposal above for organizational notability, I thought I'd see what the counts were for the various organizations. For the men I used Sherdog's top 10 (8 divisions) and for the women I used the top 5 in the Unified Women's rankings (5 divisions). The difference, which is the same methodology as was used previously, was because of the greater depth in men's fighting. As was done previously, the organization used is based on who promoted a fighter's last fight. Here are the results:


 * Men: UFC 71, Bellator 4, WSOF 2, OneFC 1, KSW 1, EFN 1
 * Women: UFC 10, Invicta 8, Bellator 3, XFC 2, Deep Jewels 2
 * Women (using top 10): UFC 17, Invicta 17, Bellator 4, Deep Jewels 4, XFC 3, others 5

I would say it's clear the top tier organizations currently are UFC for the men and the UFC and Invicta for the women. Papaursa (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I assume that's a proposal open to comments. The start of a year is a good time to review this policy and I think the numbers support making the UFC the only top tier men's organization and the UFC and Invicta the only top tier women's organizations starting on January 1, 2016. Mdtemp (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All of these events are notable enough for coverage on Wikipedia. --173.241.225.193 (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This discussion, and the one above, is about top tier organizations. Your comment doesn't address that.Mdtemp (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this discussion, including the one above, has been going on since early December without dissent, I am closing this discussion with the conclusion as stated. Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

organization notability proposal
I would like to propose that the number of top 10 ranked fighters required for an organization to be considered top tier be increased from 3 to 6. The original number was chosen when there were 7 active top tier organizations, now there are only 2. It seems like for a new organization to be added to the top tier it should have a top 10 fighter in most of the 8 divisions currently ranked.Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Endorse This change seems reasonable to me. I'll admit I'm not sure exactly what the number should be (1 per division wouldn't seem unreasonable, but allowing some wiggle room is fine), but I do think 3 is too generous.  If my suggestion of allowing top 10 fighters to be considered notable (see above discussion) is taken, then raising this number wouldn't really hurt truly accomplished fighters regardless of what promotion they're in.  This change would ensure that top tier organizations are truly that, and not just fortunate to have a few excellent fighters. Papaursa (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Endorse I agree with this proposal, especially when combined with the new proposal for fighter notability. Jakejr (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * endorse This change makes it clearer who the top organizations are. Things have changed (mainly the number of organizations) since the original discussion.Astudent0 (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this discussion has been open for a month and there has been no opposition to this proposal, I think this debate can be closed. Papaursa (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Decline This is a harsh proposal which I don't believe is right for this topic. Promotions such as World Series of Fighting, Shooto and Pancrase have been sitting on the edge of top tier status for years, some even say they should already be at this stage. Doubling the number of top ten fighters a promotion must meet will create more problems than it will solve. Perhaps revising the tier system would be for the best rather than changing notability. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I removed the closed debate box on account that it wasn't actually closed prior to my comments, which meant that my comment should be considered into the debate. 86.183.247.172 (talk) 14:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The statement that "this debate can be closed" would seem sufficient to prevent someone from coming along over two weeks later with a comment. A month is more than sufficient for a WP discussion. Papaursa (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability that need clarification
There are a range of topics on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability that can do with some input and votes if everyone here would love to contribute, such as -

Adding the male 115lbs to notability.

Sub-Consequentially discuss whether to reinstate Shooto and make Pancrase top tier due to meet criteria.

Remove 'Most Recent Event' and 'Total Events' from 'Current list of notable MMA organizations and promotions' on project page

WSOF promotion to top tier

Please come join the debates guy! 86.183.247.172 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There was plenty of time to post your opinions since early December, why wait until after the organizational notability discussion is closed? If you're truly interested in fighter notability, I suggest you go to the ongoing discussion at WT:NSPORT.  That proposal would ensure that top ranked fighters can become notable regardless of their organization. Papaursa (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Lets just say that I didn't get my invite through the post. If you are having such debate then please allow them to as widely available for all to see as possible? i.e. WT:MMANOT? 86.183.247.172 (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that posting it on the project's talk page gives it the widest dissemination. Anyone interested in discussing MMA topics would probably look here.  At the very least, if you want to discuss something related to MMA at another page then post a comment here to let others know.  For example, notice that the fighter notability proposal was flagged that it was being discussed at WT:NSPORT. Papaursa (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It can be very frustrating to come into discussions after they have closed. Your watchlist is a good way to keep an eye on lots of pages & talk pages at the same time. I have also thought for a while that there must be a better way to aggregate discussions relating to a wikiproject but haven't really thought of anything worth suggesting here, if you do think of something i'm sure other people would appreciate it. Thanks for jumping into editing wikipedia, and contributing here. Kevlar (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Plea to edit entire articles
I'm retiring from updating MMA pages after today, but can I put out a plea for users here to please edit the entire fighter page after an event. 90% of the time the mixed martial arts record tables are updated immediately but you will still see "Miranda is expected to face Marcelo Guimarães on March 5, 2016 at UFC 196" in their UFC section the day after. Please update these portions after an event. And thanks for all the work on this Project. Udar55 (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * First, thanks for all the editing you've done. Second, i agree that it would be best if we worked to standardize the upcoming fights information in biography articles. Anyone have any ideas on this? Kevlar (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * After the fight's over, don't change the "expected to fight" sentence to past tense, and add a new sentence and source for the result. Just replace it all with the result. So instead of something like "Miller faced Donald Cerrone on July 16, 2014, at UFC Fight Night 45.[28] After a back and forth first round, Miller was defeated via second round knockout.[29]", it's something like "After a back and forth first round, Miller lost to Donald Cerrone via second round knockout on July 16, 2014 at UFC Fight Night 45.[29]" InedibleHulk (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to add additional criteria and update tier list
Hi I would like to ask for a plea to change the criteria of notability to include

1. Or in the top 20 rankings of best MMA fighter. My reason for this plea is that it will help include high level athletes who are well recognized but have not yet moved to the UFC. I feel that this will help reduce the arguments within the community about notability in MMA, but also create a more democratic process. My argument is that many topics rather use top 15 or more often top 20. An example is the NBA rankings which will list their top 20 players, and other sites going as far as listing top 50 to top 100.

2. Include OneFC and WSOF as top tier for reasons stated

a. They are broadcasted worldwide

b. They have a large viewership

c. They have partnership with FOX, Globo and/or NBC

d. Notability - WSOF have ratings of over 200,000 views - ONEFC has over 2 millon likes on facebook

e. Have high level top 20 atheletes fighting in organization (Shinya Aoki, Bibiliano Fernandes, Jake Shields)

3. Areas of Discussion - I think that there should be 3 tiers instead of 2.

a. Tier 1 are the largely recognized organization where salaries can become over 20,000 per fight and the promotion level is high (Billboards, Commercials) and they are shown on TV with ratings to backup their notability. These organization can have a history in appearing in channels such as FOX, NBC, CBS and Spike. These include UFC, ONEFC, WSOF and Bellator

b. Tier 2 are largely recognized organization where salaries are low but have high level athletes. These organization are many times feeder to the larger organizations. These organization can appear on TV, but have less viewers and promotion. Such organizations are WEC, Invicta, Jungle Fight and Cage Warriors)

c. Tier 3 are less recognized organization that are considered pro-circuit where the fighter who fights will have a pro record win/lose, but it will not be televised.

(talk) 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Claudias1987 (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a long standing, pretty objective, consensus what constitutes a top tier organization and the same for top tier fighters. Certainly far more objective than what is being proposed. It would be useful to become familiar with those discussions rather than unilaterally change that long term consensus. Take a look above and the archived discussions.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

new WSOF article
Hi I just created the Alexandre "Capitao" Almeida page. He's got a ton of international news sources. SporTV is the biggest brazilian sports network, and Esporte Interativo is a Turner Broadcast System channel. That and there is the Las Vegas review article, as well as NBC, Yahoo, Tatame and Gracie Mag. All legitimate third party news sources. Help coding would be awesome. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Almeida Jumbotron5000 (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Expanding classes
I think this project should consider expanding the permitted classes. Currently, Category:NA-Class mixed martial arts articles contains not just categories, templates, redirects and others but also useful drafts like Draft:André Tete. It's just a mix of stuff and it's probably better to include drafts into its own separate category so they can be identified and worked on more easily. It's just a change in the template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am all for that and would have done it long ago but have no clue how. If you do - why not just be bold.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's done. It'll take some more time to populate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ricky81682 I also added a Redirect class - thanks for showing how simple it actually was. I suppose that the Tables on the Project page will automatically be updated with time and that the Redirect tag will show up on the Project Page (right now it still says NA?Peter Rehse (talk) 08:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are all clear. I note that the file class is severely underpopulated. I'd suggest adding in the logo for MMA event and fighter pictures. It would be helpful to know if any image is taken to deletion (or just non-fair use debates) in the article alerts here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes to MMA records section of many fighters
User:Pacbradley2 (talk | contribs)‎ has changed the structure of several fighters MMA records section. E.g. Mark Hunt, compare before and after. I'm not sure why this was done, but I don't think it's so good because now the table is no longer sortable and also the summary is not as good as before, the reason for the losses is missing for example. Maybe these changes should be reverted. Make91 (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

suggested change at WT:MMANOT
I have made a suggestion at WT:MMANOT that the essay there be changed to match the guideline at WP:NSPORT. This seems like an obvious step to minimize confusion and increase uniformity. I'm posting this here in an effort to maximize input and keep the discussion in one place.Mdtemp (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

List of current Bellator fighters
I'd appreciate any feedback that members of WP:MAA my have regarding Talk:List of current Bellator fighters. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Do Bellator fights in 2016 count?
Do fights in Bellator MMA in 2016 count as top tier fights as Alexis Dufresne and Ilima Macfarlane are close to 3 major fights in a major organization? Dwanyewest (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * As of 2016, Bellator is not considered a top tier MMA promotion. PetarEllis (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Championships and accomplishments for MMA fighters
Do we really need to include things like "Two successful title defenses" or "First (country they're from) to compete in UFC" and other trivial things like that in accomplishment section? The section is really meant to be career peaks, not a laundry list of milestones. That's what the rest of the article is for. At least, that's what is common for pro athlete wiki articles. Anyone care to comment? (MisterJay123 (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC))


 * I would say that we should not have these things unless they are sourced. Otherwise it comes across as original research -- the editor is saying that they think this is important and needs to be listed as opposed to a reliable source saying that the piece of information is notable and accurate. And/or only accomplishments that are officially recognized. I'm not familiar with how the other pro athlete articles handle this sort of thing but we should definitely be in line with the rest of Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Please use a ref for all "tested positive" statements in notes column in Professional Record section
Just a reminder that as per our biography of living persons policy, all controversial statements require sourcing. This would include claims of steriod use in the notes column of the Professional Record section. If the claim is sourced in the text, it's a good idea to use a named reference to cite it again. But I'm noticing that sometimes there is no source at all. This should be a high priority of all of this Wikiproject's members. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

UFC Fighter Rankings notability
It's possible this could be a notable topic, but right now the article just lists the UFC rankings after UFC 200. Simply giving the current rankings doesn't show notability (see WP:NOTNEWS). Maybe a small section could be added to the main UFC article and this could be redirected there. Mdtemp (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Updates to the UFC 201 page?
Hello,

Just inquiring if edits/updates will be made to the UFC 201 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC07:42E0:F021:82A0:E554:8E7F (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Please disregard previous inquiry. Just saw the updates. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC07:42E0:F021:82A0:E554:8E7F (talk) 04:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Post-event updates
I'm rarely editing MMA pages nowadays, but still see an epidemic regarding post-event updates. Text is still rarely updated 90% of the time (Dustin Poirier's page still says he is scheduled to face Michael Johnson) or filled with grammar errors and references behind the wrong sentences. Can someone please pay attention to this stuff? Udar55 (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Awards
I have been adding awards to fighter's pages under the championships and accomplishments section from the the site StrikeScoreMMA.com. The awards have followed the same form as awards from other MMA media sites. A good example is the page for Anthony Johnson. He earned the award for his impressive knockout over Ryan Bader. Please see Georges St-Pierre for reference, and you will see that awards from several publications are listed in the accomplishments section. Do you think update like this add value to the pages, or are the updates spam?Autocaptcha (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I think notability of the award is relevant. If it's an award from a small website with a very small following, I think it's not relevant. This way we don't have anyone make a website and just spam a bunch of articles with an award they made up to promote their website. Significance matters. If you look at GSP's page, yes he has awards from publications, but they're all major publications. I also think it's worth noting that if you own the website, you obviously would have an incentive to promote that website by spamlinking it everywhere, and that should not be allowed for sure. TBMNY (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And as for which publications qualify as 'major', I think there is a simple and reasonable guideline.  If the publication, or source of the award itself, is notable (i.e. has its own article on Wikipedia)  then its awards are significant enough to be noteworthy. --SubSeven (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well even that can get a bit wonky, because then someone who wanted to promote their website could just make a Wikipedia page for it. TBMNY (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And it would then be deleted if the subject is not judged to be notable. --SubSeven (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * True. I guess that works.TBMNY (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * If we consider the example of Georges St-Pierre that means with this definition of notable four accomplishments would need to be removed: Fight Matrix, MMA Freak, MMAPayout and MMA Valor. All of these updates have existed peacefully for years. Removing accomplishments from fighters accomplishes nothing. Autocaptcha (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, it does accomplish something. It makes the information that is legitimate more accessible.  Having a pile of insignificant awards in an article is just pollution.  Fight Matrix does have an article FWIW.  --SubSeven (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, just because something has been done a certain way before doesn't make it the best way. TBMNY (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason by Bellator's events are listed in a big article by year?
Is it because we don't have as much content for an individual article for each event, or we don't have enough editors to put the work in, or is there another reason? Just wondering. I don't really have the time to spare to create individual articles at the moment but may do in the near future if there's no reason not to. &#208;iliff   &#171;&#187; (Talk)  10:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Somebody here probably remember the details and where to find the discussion but I believe it came down to that some of the individual events were not themselves notable (lack of secondary reliable sources covering the events in significant detail) so it was better to include them all together year-by-year. Otherwise many of the individual events were in danger of being deleted (and I believe some were deleted as not being notable). This approach allowed us to keep all that information somewhere. SQGibbon (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I was one of the main editors on individual Bellator pages back in the day. When a certain editor had an issue with MMA, they went through and nominated every page for deletion. A big discussion was made and the resolution was to do them in yearly formats. Udar55 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See the WP:NEVENTS events notability page for why this was done. Basically, most of the individual event articles were nothing more than a summary of the results.  Having an article for the entire year (think season) easily meets notability criteria.  Articles for a single event (game) with nothing more than the results and a bare minimum of prose will fail notability.  Events that have something significant happen that gets wide mention beyond sport-specific sources are potential candidates for their own article, but I would suggest discussing it here or on the season talk page first. Ravensfire ( talk ) 17:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Conor McGregor
Hello, there is currently a discussion ongoing at Conor McGregor's talk page in regards to the inclusion of certain material. Given the article is relevant to this project, I thought I'd leave a notification here as more input is required. Thank you &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 00:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Adding rankings to the fight card/results table on UFC event pages
A conversation was started a few weeks ago on the Talk Page for UFC 205 about including fighter rank on the fight card table(s). A handful of people chimed in there, with an almost unanimous majority in favor of including this information.

The arguments in favor of including it have included:


 * It is notable, verifiable, and relevant for the reader.
 * It will help understanding where each fighter stood before a bout.
 * I don't see why it should be actively excluded.
 * Visually they look appealing.
 * It gives historical context and would prove useful to readers in "mapping" fighters' careers.
 * If rankings are utilized in determining who fights whom, it seems reasonable to include them in the table.

One commenter stated: "I have no problem with the inclusion of rankings." His only objection was that "it really is too late to begin now." I disagree that it is ever "too late" for anything in Wikipedia, so I don't consider this an objection or a vote against, as he explicitly said he didn't have a problem with including them.

Only one person really expressed support of excluding this information. Statements in favor of actively keeping this information out of the tables included:
 * This information hasn't been included on these pages before.
 * Rankings have no use whatsoever to matchmaking.
 * Rankings are volatile and change every single week.
 * "Other media" don't always include rankings, and other sports organizations (such as the NFL) don't even utilize a ranking system.

All of the above objections have been addressed on the mentioned talk page. The basic refutation boils down to the fact that none of these objections constitute a reasoning as to why such information should be actively excluded. This could easily be seen by adding the following clause to the end of each objection: "therefore, such information should be kept out of Wikipedia articles about past UFC events."

The only objection with any seeming weight is the claim that rankings have nothing to do with matchmaking, and that since the fight card is really just bare details about matchups, it does not make sense to include them. However, if it were really the case that rankings and matchmaking are in no way related, then bouts would not be so consistently well-aligned with rank. The reality is that rankings are nothing more than a numerical representation of everything that goes into consideration for matchmaking. So this too is an invalid reasoning.

It has been quite some time since any new commentary has been added in that discussion. I figured it would be appropriate to post here to hopefully gain more input and reach a consensus on this. --Wikisian (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is quite the revisionism to fit your POV. Several people are against it, and for more reasons than you've listed.TBMNY (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And generally I would be one of them. The biggest issue is there rankings are in a state of flux and articles should never be a snapshot in time.  Just too many pages have to be updated overtime the rankings changed.  That is why you don't find them with other sports.  One acceptable compromise would be to have the information on the List of Current UFC fighters which is almost guaranteed to be regularly updated.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Peter Rehse how did you come to the conclusion that "articles should never be a snapshot in time"? For that matter, how could historical information (i.e. agreed upon facts about the past) not be "snapshots in time"? Of course new information could always come to light, meaning articles about historical events always have the potential to be updated...but why in the world would we change historical rankings? Again, this is like suggesting we need to change 1990 crime stats in every article that mentions them because they're no longer the same. As stated on the Talk Page before, not only does this make no sense, it flies in the face of the current practice regarding the "(c)" designating champions. Why are those "c's" not changed on every article every time a championship changes hands? And if having to do so is a reason to keep such information out of the articles, why are we not excluding those c's? --Wikisian (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually misread things a bit. We are talking about the fight card so a ranking at the time of the fight would not be as problematic as individual fighter's pages which for some reason I was thinking of.  Those fight records would get very complicated very quickly.  I don't think the ranking on a fight card is that necessary since you are not fighting for a ranking but not that worked up about it either way.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * TBMNY Again anyone can read the page. I basically copied direct quotes from each person who posted in that section, covering each reason given. Definitely feel free to make a list here of each of these "several" people I left out, and these "far more reasons" that I've left out. --Wikisian (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, the least unbiased presentation of an argument I've ever seen.


 * Here's a better presentation of two of the many unanswered arguments against inclusion.


 * 1. There's a nearly infinite amount of information that could be added to this table that someone will insist is useful or belongs. In order to prevent this table from becoming bloated we need to make sure everything that is here is really necessary. Not just cool or interesting or useful but necessary for understanding the results of the fight.


 * 2. From what I can tell (and I know very little about UFC) these fights are not determined 100% by the rankings. In other words, these fights are not tournaments where the participants are seeded and #1 always fights #8 and so on. But it's also not the case that the fights are matched up randomly. From what I've heard now ranking does matter with fight matchups (though there was an interesting and nuanced exception to that in the page under discussion) but not in a formal way. I speculated, and this wasn't really dealt with in detail, that things like popularity, amount of time that has passed since someone has fought, injury, maybe even geographical considerations (hometown favorite), are all taken into consideration when scheduling fights. So it's not 100% random and it's not 100% formula but somewhere in between. I don't know if it's even possible to determine what percentage that specific ranking has in determining fights (if it's only general placement in the rankings that is considered then the argument for inclusion is even weaker) but can we be sure that it's more than all the other factors? And preferably more than all the other factors combined? If not then it seems more like unnecessary, though interesting and not entirely irrelevant, information. SQGibbon (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The flyweight challenger this weekend, Tim Elliot, won a pure tournament for his shot, but still went into that shot unranked. Today, he's 15th, mainly because the four fights he won to earn the shot are considered exhibition bouts, despite their purpose. Meanwhile, Ian McCall is 2-3 in his last five, hasn't fought in almost two years and is 7th. Nuanced indeed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure how it is biased when I basically quoted each person who commented. Further, I specifically dealt with your #2 issue both here, and on the other Talk Page. Again, rankings are nothing more than a numerical representation of everything that is relevant in determining how a fighter matches up against all others. Sure, there are factors outside of matchups that also come into play when scheduling bouts. But obviously all of those things that are particular to the individual (like the ones you listed) are going to be there regardless of who the opponent is. So for the purposes of matchups, they would seem to be irrelevant.


 * As for your #1 point, if information just has to be "necessary" for understanding the "results" of the fight, then there is no need for the "(c)" designating champions. And for that matter, if there is room for a "(c)" next to names, I fail to see how a number would make the table "bloated". Every name on the card could have a ranking and it would not even begin to crowd the table (visually or content-wise). We're basically talking about nothing more than a superscript. --Wikisian (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * (c) is incredibly relevant to the result of the fight. It shows who is the champion and if that person retained the belt or the other person won it. You can't be seriously comparing the two.TBMNY (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * "Relevant" ≠ "necessary". --Wikisian (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not even sure what your argument is. Denoting the champion is relevant AND necessary. You're just trying to be a contrarian.TBMNY (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not at all. First it was argued that rank should be excluded because it has "no use whatsoever to matchmaking." Now it seems to be the argument that it should be excluded because it is not "necessary for understanding the results of the fight." Neither of these objections excludes the "(c)" for championship status. Championship status doesn't determine a matchup any less than all the other factors that rank encapsulates (as, championship status for all intents and purposes is a rank). Again, if rank really did have "no use whatsoever to matchmaking," we would not see virtually every fight taking place between similarly ranked opponents. (Again, I would think it goes without saying that there are always exceptions to this, but not only do pretty much all of those cases have clear and obvious reasons—e.g. Conor McGregor was already a champion, just at a different weightclass (i.e. he was a highly ranked fighter); Tim Elliott won a tournament of world champions specifically designated to determine a title challenger—even if there was no obvious reason, they would still be exceptions.)


 * And "(c)" is also no more "necessary" than any other rank for understanding the results of the fight. Suppose a new division gets created and the UFC actually makes two opponents fight for the new title (as opposed to just handing it to someone who is highly ranked in some other division or organization...something that has happened in the past and only buttresses the case of the relevance of rank). What would the fight card table look like? There would need to be a note mentioning the fight was for Xweight Championship, and the winner would be clearly designated with the order of the names (e.g. Fighter A def Fighter B). That is all that is needed for understanding the results. The reader knows the fight was for the championship, and knows who won. Those are the results of the fight. Who the champion was before that is irrelevant for the "results" of a fight and is only "just cool or interesting or useful," but not necessary. (As, clearly a championship fight would still have to be included in the table even if there was no champion going into the bout.)


 * The "(c)" is no more or less "necessary" or relevant to the fight card table than any other rank, and it takes up no less space on the name line. Including the rank of fighters who have attained one is just as useful and relevant, and in no way would make the table "bloated". --Wikisian (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It absolutely is more necessary and relevant. You're sounding crazy right now in attempt to make your point. Champions directly have to do with the fights. The belts are on the line, and when they're not, (c) is already not denoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBMNY (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Both fighters "directly have to do with the fights." (And this is true regardless of whether either of them is a champion.) I'm not sure what purpose that observation serves. What we're talking about is (1) matchmaking, and (2) necessity for understanding the results of the fight. Being a champion is a rank, and it plays into the making of a matchup essentially the same way as any other rank would (i.e. the opponents are going to be of similar caliber, which is reflected by a similar ranking). And who the champion is before a championship bout has absolutely no bearing on who the champion is after the bout. It is simply incorrect to suggest that knowing the pre-fight champion is "necessary" for understanding the results of a fight. It is not. All one needs to know is that it is a championship bout, who won, when they won, and how they won. Any other information is simply "just cool or interesting or useful," but not necessary. --Wikisian (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your argument is so absurd that it's not even worthy of arguing anymore. If anyone legitimately has a good argument, I'd be happy to debate, but the current argument is not worth it.TBMNY (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

It's been some time, and it appears no one else has offered any objection. and appear to be the only ones who have voiced affirmatively against including this information. ,, and agreed with inclusion, and  stated he had no problem with including it. seems to be of the mind that rankings should only be included if they are utilized more than all other factors (and preferably more than all other factors combined) in determining matchups. And essentially stated he is neutral.

Is anyone else available to weigh in on this? This would seem to be a perfect topic for this WikiProject, as it concerns a house style and affects an entire class of articles within the scope of this project.

This section may have gotten filled with text a bit too quickly, and could be off-putting for new eyes. Should we attempt to advertise a simple poll to get more input? --Wikisian (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Leave the rankings out. They're very arbitrarily assigned and often mean nothing. It's going to be too much trouble for whatever imagined positives involved. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia and polls do not mix (WP:POLL is a good essay on the topic). We reach consensus via discussion and an adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In situations like this, if you really think that both sides have made valid arguments in line with with Wikipedia guidelines (personally I don't see that the "include" side has) then there is no consensus and things stand the way they were. Another option for you, in lieu of more discussion here, is a Request for Comment where people from outside the Wiki MMA project are solicited to give their opinions on the matter. Given it is such a small detail I can't imagine too many people would care to weigh in but at the end of the process an uninvolved editor (typically an admin) will make a ruling based on the observed "consensus" (the side whose arguments are most in line with Wikipedia practice and not on the numbers (though numbers aren't entirely irrelevant)). SQGibbon (talk) 19:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea. Does anyone in particular need to make that request, like a designated representative of this project? --Wikisian (talk) 10:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Styles
So according to WP:MMA/MOS, the styles parameter really aren't supposed to be used except in the cases where said fighter competed professionally in the respected martial art. This has never been remotely followed, and I wanted to bring it to people's attention for one of two possible reasons.

1. So that we do a massive article cleanup of the rampant misuse of the parameter. OR 2. So that we can reconsider this guideline.

I have no particular opinion either way, but one of these things needs to be done. Any thoughts?

TBMNY (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I was pinged so here I am. I am a semi-active editor in MMA articles. I first arrived when there was a call to the general Wikipedia community to help resolve some previous issues years ago. Because of this I have tons of MMA articles in my watchlist. My role today in editing MMA articles is to keep them compliant with the greater Wikipedia guidelines and policies as well as the ones in the WP:MMA. This is a round-about way of saying that I enforce the rules with regard to the style parameter whenever I happen to come across it. I really do. I might be the only one but there it is. Because I only look at MMA articles that happen to pop up in my watchlist or in recent changes I do not actively seek out MMA articles and keep/make them compliant.


 * Having said all that, and noting that I don't really care about MMA at all and only care about this Wiki project because of all the effort I've put into it, I agree with the current rules about the style parameter. It's one of those things that is incredibly susceptible to editor opinion (which I'm guessing is what TBMNY is seeing) and bloat. Leave each article to its own without any rules on the matter and eventually every fighter will have every style listed.


 * At the minimum we need a reliable source for each style if we are to expand the rule.


 * Personally, because of its limited usefulness as it currently stands, I would actually like to see us get rid of it. A fighter's style is sooooooooo much better dealt with in the main body of the article. Fighting style(s) in the infobox lacks that clear objective quality of things like won/loss record and name and just becomes a magnet for conflict. SQGibbon (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 1. sounds good, I think the guideline is solid as it is and objective enough. It's just been disregarded.   The way the parameter's being used now, listing everything that a fighter has even dabbled in, is of no use to anybody, and of course it fails to meet any citation requirements.


 * I propose a mass cleanup, and deleting the style= line from articles where it is not applicable, rather than blanking the parameter; this would hopefully cut down on people resurrecting it.  I'll help out with the grunt work. --SubSeven (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the eventual removal. Pretty much what SQGibbon said. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 11:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm starting to lean that way too. It's just too clusterfucky right now. In theory it's useful, but in practice, it hasn't worked out so well. TBMNY (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Should kickboxing be included?
Joanna Jędrzejczyk and Germaine de Randamie are notable kickboxers prior to MMA shouldn't their kickboxing records be on display like their MMA records. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. Many fighters do have kickboxing records. Just make sure they're complete enough to be useful. TBMNY (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't get it
EFC Africa it has produced notbale fighters such as Cyril Asker,Ruan Potts, Garreth McLellan and Irshaad Sayed. Its hosted at Kwesé Sports and Cyrus Fees does color commentary and there are mainstream sources that indicate that EFC Africa has high television ratings yet it is not considered notable for a wikipedia article. Can someone explain why? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The consensus seems to be that the subject doesn't pass GNG. Since notability is not inherited, it doesn't matter which fighters got their start there. Two of the fighters you listed fought in the UFC so that's where their notability comes from; it's arguable if Irshaad Sayed is notable. Fights in Africa aren't getting media coverage and most MMA journalists are going to cover fighters, not promotions. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Results on fighter pages
I'm sure this plea will fall on deaf ears, but the updating of results on MMA fighters pages is terrible now. I try to change stuff when I have the time, but that is becoming less and less. 90% of the time the info boxes are never updated and users just randomly throw in a result without taking into account the reference they are putting behind it. That is if the result is even updated at all in the text (Michinori Tanaka saw his page not touched) or, even worse, the fight isn't even mentioned (Jéssica Andrade and Angela Hill both didn't have mentions of their fight in their entries). Here is an example of the poor writing I just changed on Alexa Grasso's page. Instead of a semi-detailed account of who she was fighting, we got this: "Grasso lost to Felice Herrig on February 4, 2017 at UFC Fight Night 104.[8]" (with the [8] reference being to the fight being announced). Is it possible to ask for more care in these updates? Udar55 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. I hate when people keep up the fight announcement citation after the fight already happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBMNY (talk • contribs) 23:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to put in work for Bellator after the events. Does someone want to do the UFC events or WSOF? PEllis (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fight Card Templates
Can someone do something about the Fight Card templates for some of the lesser promotions like Rizin? User KINGFEDORQc has changed a bunch of them, and fight cards should really be consistent across all promotions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rideonbus (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure but you can always contact . He's been reasonable in the past and perhaps he does not realize there's a problem.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

MMA promotion notability
Hello. I'm posting here in the hope I can direct some of you to discussing some of the open issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. Namely, it's being raised frequently that Bellator Fighting Championships should be returned to top tier due to multiple fighters being ranked in the appropriate top ten listings again. There's also promotions such as Rizin Fighting Federation and Absolute Championship Berkut, who are not tiered at all but might possibly be eligible for second tier. There's a third discussion I noticed that the criteria should be extended to top 20 as MMA expands in profile. Nobody is replying when people raise these issues and consequently nothing gets changed - could some WikiProject members offer input? Katy B. (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposals to add to "Ongoing work"
_______________________________________________________________________________
 * Use List of Bellator MMA events page as a template for Titan FC events page
 * Use Bellator MMA in 2017 page as a template for headers in List of Titan FC events
 * update and cleanup List of UFC records — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwell vs Euler (talk • contribs) 10:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Split the table at List of Bellator MMA events into "past events" and "scheduled" events
 * Split the events table at Glory (kickboxing) into "past events" and "scheduled" events
 * change dates to dts in Resurrection Fighting Alliance
 * update "attendance" and "broadcast" on List of ONE Championship events
 * split List of ONE Championship events into two pages like List of Bellator MMA events and Bellator MMA in 2017
 * Remove flagicons preceding fighter name on (add to this list, as needed):
 * 1) List of UFC records
 * 2) Ultimate Fighting Championship
 * 3) Ultimate Fighting Championship
 * 4) Bellator MMA
 * 5) Bellator MMA
 * 6) Bellator MMA
 * 7) List of Bellator MMA champions
 * 8) Invicta Fighting Championships
 * 9) Resurrection Fighting Alliance
 * 10) Legacy Fighting Championship
 * 11) Legacy Fighting Alliance
 * 12) ONE Championship
 * 13) List of ONE Championship events
 * 14) World Series of Fighting
 * 15) List of WSOF champions
 * 16) Glory (kickboxing)
 * 17) 2017 in Glory  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxwell vs Euler (talk • contribs) 22:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Glory (kickboxing) would probably fall under WikiProject Martial arts/Kickboxing task force in which case talking over any blanket changes there would probably be courteous. Just removing flags from one kickboxing promotions pages seems fairly random. Also using Manual_of_Style/Icons as reasoning for removing flags from events, not persons, doesn't seem justifiable.ShadessKB (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent points, I appreciate to feedback. Maxwell vs Euler (talk) 07:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Shayna Baszler claim
Could someone familiar with the material check out an unreferenced contentious claim as listed in Shayna Baszler's talk page lede since 2013 starship.paint ~  KO  16:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * resolved! starship.paint ~  KO  09:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability
An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Boxing & MMA fighter records
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing there is a discussion on keeping records collapsed as a default and only expanding when the show command is engaged. Seems like that is the way to go. Since MMA articles are similarly structured, figured I would raise the idea here. I support the idea for the reasons listed there. RonSigPi (talk) 23:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - this is a good idea, however must ensure the overall record is clearly shown and that feature doesn't change. Pbigio (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Fighter middle names
Hi, most readers/fans of MMA would not know the middle name of a fighter. If an article is subject includes the full name (first middle and last name), if would be a little difficult for reader to find the page. (Example here is UFC fighter Emil Meek - a page is created with subject "Emil Waber Meek" - should this page be redirected with "Emil Meek" or the article name be changed?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper liber (talk • contribs) 09:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap and easy to create so if there is a concern that is how I would go. If you search without the middle name you should still find the right article.  By the way please take a look at WP:NMMA with respect to the articles you are creating.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

OK and thanks Phehse. Noted on the WP:NMMA. I have created and submitted for review for 3 more articles on MMA fighters ( Draft:Marco Polo Reyes,Draft:Danielle Taylor (fighter) (both competed 3 UFC fights) and Draft:Magomed Bibulatov (only 1 fight but it was a Title fight (won) under WSOF). I believe they are notable under Wiki Project MMA guidelines. Please advise if they are not. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper liber (talk • contribs) 02:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to look at the MMA fighter notability criteria, including the part about fighting for top tier organizations. WP:MMATIER lists the consensus opinion about various MMA promotions. For example, the WSOF is not considered a top tier organization.  Those with 3 or more UFC fights would pass WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Papaursa, Ok and thank you for the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semper liber (talk • contribs) 23:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Magomed Bibulatov
Hi I had submitted an article on Magomed Bibulatov for approval and was not approval where I was informed that the nobility was not met. However, a few days later, another writer wrote up the same fighter and the submission was approved and published. 2 questions here: 1. Why same subject of article with unmet nobility was approved? 2. A box on the top of the article suggested more citations/sources are needed and I have added them - could the citations needed statement be removed. Semper liber (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Subject still has not met WP:NMMA and as such would probably not survive AfD if brought. I would do it but then again he has one of the three top tier fights and it is a win so shrug there are worse cases out there and contrary to popular belief I am not AfD happy.  That aside it is my experience that the article for creation  reviewers rarely look at WP:NMMA but more the available references and even if they had passed your version the article would still be at risk.  Their bar for references is quite low.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok Thanks PRehse for the info and understand the reviewers might not have looked at the WP:NMMA. Will save a copy of the article in case it is removed due to nobility issue and will resubmit when the nobility is met.Semper liber (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need to look at NMMA when WP:BASIC is met. If it isn't, then NMMA matters. In his case, there are multiple sources talking about more than just his match results. Maybe you didn't cite enough in your version. He'll have his three UFC matches soon enough. Maybe even a title shot, the flyweight division isn't deep. In the meantime, he's still fairly well-known. By the way, nobility is a much different word from notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * InedibleHulk - thanks for pointing out - typo mistake. Semper liber (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Are these ladies notable?
Are Anastasia Yankova and Ilima-Lei Macfarlane notable as they both have 3 fights in Bellator? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strictly according to WP:MMATIER, no. This has been a matter of some debate. Each of them should be able to pass GNG in a few years' time so no need to presume notability now, in my opinion. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Chris Troutman on this. They are both notable. Pbigio (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at the notability criteria at WP:NMMA. Neither Yankova nor Macfarlane meet it. Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Macfarlane has an article currently. Should we move to delete it?  Enigma msg  00:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about a fighter
Is Paulo Borrachinha a nickname? His real name is Henrique Costa, so should the page be there? Some sites I see referring to him one way and some another.  Enigma msg  00:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * His name is Paulo Henrique Costa. His nick name is "Borrachinha". In UFC, he is known as "Paulo Borrachinha". cite: CASSIOPEIA (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, what I am asking is whether the page should be under his actual name or his UFC nickname.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  17:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My view is it should be under his name "Paulo Henrique Costa" for the reasons of 1) this is his real name and 2) many articles/video clips used his real name instead of "Paulo Borrachinha" before he joined UFC. MMA project community - do share your view if you think otherwise. Thank youSemper liber (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave this open for a few days and unless there's a dispute, I'm going to move the article to his correct name. I feel that's where it should be.  Enigma <sup style="color:#FFA500;">msg  16:37, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to
I'm sorry I didn't intend to anger you., these were just fighters who I found as notable mma fighters without a wiki page and I was going to make these myself but when I came across your draft I just neatened up your spelling mistakes and added more sources and improved it and then I published it. I didn't meant for it to be stealing, I just thought we were meant to improve them before they were published--Rickyc123 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2017 (UTC)RickyC123 As for Magomed Bibulatov I created that article myself and other people added other things on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickyc123 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Its best practice that if a draft is waiting for review it should be left (better to alter the draft than create another article) but failing that you can still move it into article space with the move tab (top right). That way attribution is maintained and toes don't get stepped on. Copy paste should be avoided at all costs.  Just saying.PRehse (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, sorry didn't mean to, I didn't know you could move articles as I usually just copy and paste my own drafts and I just know that I won't be making that mistake again.-Rickyc123 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)RickyC123


 * We all figure these things out bit by bit. Even your own drafts should be moved with the tab rather than cut and paste.  For future reference of course.PRehse (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * RickyC123, Apologies accepted and I understand and am ok with editing or add content to my work as this is wikipedia and I appreciate your contribution. We all learn the guildlines, process and how to contribute in wiki overtime. I have made many mistakes myself and I got the advice and help form PRehsel.Semper liber (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:VPP discussion about WP:NSPORTS
Just to let you know, one point of the closing rationale of the discussion at WP:VPP says that WP:NSPORTS neither supersedes nor replaces GNG, yet another says that older sources may be found to establish notability of older-generation athletes. The whole matter is discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). --George Ho (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Karate Proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Wikipedia:WikiProject Karate
Dear MMA editors, I am proposing a new WikiProject Karate to bring together editors with knowledge of Karate specifically, especially due to Karate becoming an Olympic sport I think it is time to focus energy on the roughly 3500 main space articles associated with Karate. Any editors from this community are warmly welcomed to support the above proposal and join as participants.

Full description of the rationale and goals can be found at the link above, please comment, discuss (and join if you support this project!) All the best, Mountain cirque · <font color="Green">Join WikiProject Karate? 10:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

WSOF/PFL
Any suggestions on what to do with the World Series of Fighting page? Should it be renamed since the company has officially re-branded itself as Professional Fighters League? This is already causing confusion as two PFL event pages have been marked for deletion. Should the future events of PFL be set up like Bellator MMA events (meaning pages that chronicle a year in the promotion)? Udar55 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The Bellator option seems reasonable - eventually the World Series of Fighting will have to be moved but I would not be in a hurry - perhaps start a move discussion.PRehse (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Renaming makes sense, like how TNA Wrestling became Impact Wrestling. Anyone searching for WSOF would be redirected. Seems sensible enough to rename List of WSOF events to List of PFL events and carry on like normal. Still on the same channel, with the same roster. The lead already explains the name change. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Bellator
With the addition of Gegard Mousasi, Bellator now has the required amount of fighters to be considered top tier (I'm counting the women as well). PEllis (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sherdog: Vitaly Minakov, Ryan Bader, Phil Davis, Gegard Mousasi, Douglas Lima, Rory MacDonald, Lorenz Larkin, Patricio Freire, Julia Budd, Arlene Blencowe, Gabrielle Holloway and Ilima-Lei Macfarlane.

MMAjunkie: Vitaly Minakov, Ryan Bader, Phil Davis, Gegard Mousasi, Rory MacDonald, Douglas Lima, Lorenz Larkin, Patricio Freire, Daniel Straus and Eduardo Dantas.
 * A couple of comments. First, I just reverted user Ppt1973's unilateral decision to make Bellator top tier again at WP:MMATIER.  It should also be pointed out that Sherdog is the standard reference for MMA rankings and that the notability criteria is decided individually by sex (i.e., don't combine men and women).  Finally, neither Minakov nor Mousasi would count towards Bellator since there last fights were not for that promotion.  It's clear Bellator is making a push for upgrading their roster, but the fact that MacDonald hadn't won a UFC fight in almost 3 years and is now being touted for a Bellator title fight does seem to point out a discrepancy in caliber of competition.  I have nothing against Bellator, but past history says we don't rush to change the tier status of any organization.  I would also suggest that this discussion might be better held at WT:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. PEllis (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

win or loss?
You're both at two reversions. Please do not edit war. Instead, discuss. I can't even tell what the crux of the issue is from your edit summaries. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I reverted back to the long standing original because I felt an example of a Loss should be included in the table. I can't see the stylistic inconsistency that was supposed to be fixed or any change in style with the edit.PRehse (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't see what's wrong, then this is a problem. Read ALL the rules for WP:MMABOX. TBMNY (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that is not particularly helpful you can assume that I did and since you mentioned it I did so again. Which stylistic error did you Fix? All I see is a degredation in the usefulness of the example with the removal of the Loss.PRehse (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely can't assume you read it otherwise you would have noticed the problems. Dash vs. hyphen, PPV naming problem. These are literally mentioned right below the errors. It's inexcusable that you wouldn't have immediately recognized it.


 * In the column Record, uses dashes (–), not hyphens (-), to separate wins, losses and draws.
 * In the column Event, do not use hyphens or dashes when referring to the subtitle of an event, for example, don't use "Deep – Gladiator", use instead normal English punctuation, "Deep: Gladiator". In the same way, make sure that events have not redundant subtitles, for example, do not use "XFS 2: Xtreme Fight Series 2", just leave "Xtreme Fight Series 2" or "XFS 2"


 * Also, the record listed in Korean Zombies, so you can't just make up wins and losses. If you want losses, use someone's record with losses in their first three fights.


 * TBMNY (talk) 17:04, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's an example there is no presumption of an actual record.PRehse (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Made4TheCage (UK promotion)
Hello all, please feel free to take a look at my sandbox entry for Made4TheCage below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KO_(Punches)/sandbox

I have used the UCMMA page as a base skeleton and fleshed out some of the details, minus the write up section. I can find multiple sources with mentions of the promotion as well as event previews however the vast majority are regional newspapers (The Chronicle and the Sunderland Echo), with some other MMA specific (National?) media covering the events also. I took a look at the Notability page for companies and organisations and I see that National or International sources are preferred, something this promotion is a little thin on at this moment in time. The promotion has ran since 2010 and has held 25 events, looking for your advice and support on getting this article up and running, thanks a bunch. KO (Punches) (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS
Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack &#124; talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding weight class at fighter's professional debut.
Hey guys, I've been thinking about this for a while... There are many situations that we know a fighter has been competing at that single division for a while, but we're not sure if it's been all the way from the first fight. I've been noticing that more often as I've been using Tapology to get a better view of which weight classes those bouts took place in. Some cases are crystal clear of a fighter fighting in a single division, but it is not wrong to add a note about that in a fighter's professional debut. As a matter of fact, he's making his debut at that weight class anyway, isn't he? E.g. That's featured on articles of professional boxers in Wikipedia. That's helpful and a valid information in my opinion. While there's nothing against it on WPMMA, User:TBMNY disagreed. Due to that, I'm creating this discussion so we can elaborate on the subject. Any editor is welcome, but I'm calling some that I can remember: User:Ppt1973, User:Imhungry4444, User:Alexander Gustafsson, User:InedibleHulk, User:Psycho-Krillin, User:CASSIOPEIA and User:Kasabia33. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I feel it is worth some discussion. Ppt1973 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC) 20:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose on the grounds of it being pointless and unnecessary clutter. We already add when a fighter changes weight or are fighting at a different weight class than normal. Putting "(weight) debut" makes no sense because it's their debut entirely. By the way, boxers do not have their weight class listed for their debut, nor do they list "profession debut" for the first fight. You may find boxers with those things there, but they are explicitly not supposed to be there per MOS:BOXING. TBMNY (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Should be made clear in the text, but I don't think it belongs in the infobox, if that's what you're asking. It's enough to just list every division the fighter's fought at there. Of all the stages in a career, the rookie is the typically the least representative version of the guy or girl most people know. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I think user:Gsfelipe94 meant to indicate the "debut weight class" in the fight record table WP:MMABOX and not in the infobox. Please correct me if I assume wrongly. Many fighters move up or down one weight class throughout their fighting career and they fare with different results in different weight classes. In the current form of the MMA fight record in Wikipedia WP:MMABOX, we do not have a column to indicate the weight class they have fought in but the "note" column could be use to indicate either "debut weight class", "move to XXX weight class" and among some other notable info for the readers obtain a fighter's fight history at a glance instead of of reading the lengthy text to get the info. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 03:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're confused. We already have the "move to XXX weight class" thing. Do you not edit records? TBMNY (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TBMNY. I know on the "note column" of the fight record, we do put "move to xxx weigh". What I meant was should the "debut weight class" is indicated in the fight pro fight "note column" then it will show how the weight class changing of a fighter thought out his/her mma career in a glance when for reader viewing.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have when a person changes weight classes. Look here. 12:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)




 * Okay, yeah, that is what he wants, and I oppose it. TBMNY (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK User:TBMNY and thank you for your comment as we have clarified. We have the same understanding and I know you oppose it as you have indicated above. user:Gsfelipe94 thought "It's important to know which division a fighter made his debut, if that info is available". I think it is a good idea so reader could see the debut weight class and when the fighter changes his/her weigh class, under which promoter, against who and how the fighter fares the fight - in short a history is recorded. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I think this is important info worth adding to a fighter's article (both on the text part and in the bouts box). As a broadcaster, this is something I use frequently on air. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I don't see anything wrong with it. It's relevant information for the bout and useful to the reader, and does not seem to be intrusive. It's the kind of thing that as a reader I would like to be able to ascertain from a table like this. This method seems to be a good medium between having an entire column dedicated to displaying the weightclass for each bout, and having no indication for any bout. --Wikisian (talk) 06:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol support vote.svg Support:  This should be very easy to cite and it is clearly relevant to the fight. If we are going to note a change in weight class, it is reasonable and more consistent in my opinion to start at the beginning with their debut. Kevlar (talk) 06:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Just remember, "Light heavyweight" doesn't have two capitals. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Alex Reid (fighter)
This article has been intensely edited lately, including some COI probably. If someone could check so the MMA bits are decent (they very well may be), that would help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:58, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, have run thought the article, checked source, added citations and content. Seemed article content was intact except few which corrected of my best ability. Have a look. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your attention, as you can see, stuff is still happening at that article, feel free to weigh in if you think it´s worth it. I removed a bit from kickboxing but since I don´t know anything about MMA I´ll trust your edits. A summary of the fighting bits for the lead would be good, recently it was mostly a bunch of names. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I have added back the kickboxing content supported by video citations (the best I could find from the internet for supporting the two bouts), and worked on the lead with sources indicated. Please have a look. It seems there were a reversion war went on between you and User:Simply-the-truth on this article today and noted he was warm on several occasions today on Michelle McManus from being block for vandalism. Hope the edits help.CASSIOPEIA (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I like your WP:LEAD, thanks again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding "Weight Class Fought in" column to each mma fighters "Mixed Martial Arts Record" Table.
We are seeing increasing movement of fighters between weight classes (i.e. George St. Pierre, Connor McGregor, Randy Couture, BJ Penn, etc) and so I propose that a new column be added to the "Mixed Martial Arts Record" Table to show which weight class each fight was fought in. This is sometimes mentioned in the notes section, but not always. Subsequently, an amendment to the "Professional Record Breaakdown" table to include wins and losses at each weight class the fighter has fought in.

Brokenlegmike (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Fighter record table - Method WP:MMA
Hi, As per WP:MMA states as per below if the we use the source method instead of Sherdog if Sherdog method is different that of the source. Which method should we use to record in Wikipedia if:

1. (3 sources record 2 diff methods) one source stated the method is TKO (injury), another states KO (injury) and Sherdog states TKO (injury). 2. (3 sources record 3 diff methods) one source stated the method is TKO (injury), another states KO (injury) and Sherdog states TKO (doctor stoppage).

I invite all to participate on this discussion and calling some regular which I could recall here voice their opinions. User:PRehse,User:InedibleHulk,User:Ppt1973,User:Papaursa,User:Gsfelipe94,User:Psycho-Krillin,User:Kevlar, User:Kasabia33,User:Brusinggiant,User:Rickyc123,User:Alexander Gustafsson, User:TBMNY, User:Evertonfc13 and User:Wikisian. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In the column Method, unless sources within the body text of the article state otherwise, always use the result that is available in a fighter's record at Sherdog Fight Finder. Do not use your interpretation of a fight result in the record, as the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Any result that is not referenced or that is not the same as in Sherdog, must be returned to how it is described in Sherdog.


 * The problem with this is that it has never happened. At most, you'll get two results, never three. In any case, the idea that we would use Sherdog over the first-hand source is so insane. Sherdog is usually accurate, but when they're not, and almost every other legitimate source says otherwise, including the people that actually make the decision, we should go with that. I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule on this. I think we should be able to use our judgement on a case-by-case basis. TBMNY (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Bot to change parameter
User:PRehse, User:InedibleHulk, User:Ppt1973,User:Papaursa,User:Gsfelipe94,User:Psycho-Krillin,User:Kevlar, User:Kasabia33,User:Brusinggiant, User:Rickyc123, User:Alexander Gustafsson, User:Evertonfc13 and User:Wikisian

How would you guys feel about a bot that changed the infobox parameter in MMA bios from "other names" to "Nickname(s)" for all all MMA pages? It's a simple change, but it makes sense in my opinion. Here's an example:

Before:

After:

What do all of you think? Can I move foward with this? TBMNY (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Other name does not always equal nickname.PRehse (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you find more than like one example where that is true? Even if there are 10 examples, it would be so much easier to revert those 10 than to manually edit all the ones that need changing now. TBMNY (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What if instead of making the change to "nickname" it did to "other names"? Because "other name" is not always a "nickname" but a "nickname" is always "other name". Anyway, making it as uniform as possible sounds good to me.Psycho-Krillin (talk) 02:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you find several examples of "other name" not being a nickname in MMA bios? TBMNY (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * RDA (Rafael dos Anjos), JDS (Junior dos Santos), DJ (Demetrious Johnson)...Psycho-Krillin (talk) 18:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually not crazy about either one, but I'm not sure what else would be appropriate. I think both sides have merit here. "Other names" aren't always a nickname, but "other names" sounds kind of odd. Perhaps something like "also called" or "aka" or "also known as" or "often referenced as" might be better suited. For some of these guys their alternative name is more widely used than their actual name. Even in official statements and promotional material you find "Cowboy," "Buchecha," "The Korean Zombie," etc. I wouldn't be surprised if most people thought his name actually was "Jacaré." --Wikisian (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone has been saying that they don't mean the same thing, but nobody has named examples of where they haven't meant the same thing in MMA pages. TBMNY (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You may be right, if we take the technical definition of "nickname" to be just anything other than a person's proper name. Technically "Jim" and "Bob" are nicknames. But I think in the sports world when people talk about someone's "nickname," they mean a moniker given that offers some reference to the person's persona or athletic performance. "DC" says nothing about Daniel Cormier the way that "Cro Cop" or "Mighty Mouse" says something about those fighters. Yeah he's sometimes called DJ for short, but there's a reason that's not how they're referencing Demetrious Johnson in the octagon. --Wikisian (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * DC is definitely Daniel Cormier's nickname. He is announced as "Daniel 'DC' Cormier". There's no question it's his nickname. And nobody has the name "Jim" or "Bob" in that parameter. You're talking about hypotheticals that don't exist. I'm talking about what actually exists, because this bot wouldn't edit future biographies, only old ones. TBMNY (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox martial artist already has name, birth_name, native_name, and other_names. Rather than changing other_names to nickname, i would support simply adding nickname to Template:Infobox martial artist. Kevlar (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about only doing this to existing bios. New ones won't need this. TBMNY (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Quality issue
84% of MMA articles have a quality of "C", "Start" or "Stub". This is a shockingly poor rating. The most read MMA article - "Conor McGregor" - has a quality of "C". The article for UFC's new Featherweight champion Max Holloway is rated "Start" only. Many articles relating to fighters are too basic -Facts and fight records are decent analysis and evaluation, eg fighting style and controversies, are poor. From what I can see, improvements in article quality is slow but steady. However, to solve this quality issue we have to put greater exphasis on things other than records, eg fighting style, sponsorships, media appearances / public image and personal life. This makes sure that our articles are holistic and more interesting. But great work so far from everyone.

Thank you

P.S. Working on Cub Swanson (UFC Featherweight Title Contender) in hopes of raising it to class GA. P.S.S. Does anyone know how to move an article from one quality class to another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBD PM (talk • contribs) 13:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Changes to height/weight
I don't sport, but someone may want to take a look at these fairly sweeping changes to MMA bio infoboxes. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing. All edits have been reverted and user has been blocked indefinitely by User:Alexf. All is in place. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 06:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Is Marina Mokhnatkina notable
I was wondering if Marina Mokhnatkina noteworthy she has won 2 European and 4 world sambo titles that surely makes her notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If those sambo world championships can be independently and reliably verified, I would say she definitely qualifies as a notable martial artist. Papaursa (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

EFC Africa is it worth it?
I just saw on WikiProject MMA on MMA organisations that need creating that Extreme Fighting Championship needs an article created. Is it worth recreating the article as the last time I supplied evidence that the organisation got high TV ratings and was the biggest MMA organisation in Africa. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * We do not need to create any articles, and should probably seek to delete most of the ones we have. Please wait until the coverage passes WP:SIGCOV in mainstream outlets beyond MMA-only outlets like Sherdog, MMAUnderground, and SBNation. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Picture on UFC Fighters that became Champion
'''Picture UFC Fighter (Champion or Former Champion) Plan '''I am here to introduce a Plan to have Pictures of the UFC Fighter who became Champ or former champ to have a picture on every single UFC Fighter Wikapedia page.

🥇 BUS  riderSFUser (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * As we get fair use, CC BY-SA, or public domain images they can be added. That's often not easy to do and it's not something I would trust you with, as you've uploaded an image without the proper permission. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 21:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Under Creative Commons licences as long it valid it can be uploaded and use. Credit if user who started it if needed. It is what it is. 22:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 🥇 BUS  riderSFUser (talk • contribs)
 * That response isn't even coherent. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I re uploaded to new Picture that will comply with all Creative Commons Rules Regards 🥇 BUS  riderSFUser (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope deleting that, too. You can't just grab images from the internet and upload them. The source of the photo has to unambiguously state that there's permission. Please read WP:CIR. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I went a UFC Event were Max Halloway was in action took a record and picture on Phone, but quality maybe medium like. Is that one okay? 🥇 BUS  riderSFUser (talk • contribs) 02:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you took the picture then you can release it as public domain or CC BY-SA. I think we'd prefer a decent-looking picture, but a picture you're donating would be fine. Be advised that this is a community-consensus thing. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

CM PUNK UFC 225
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Jackson_(fighter)#Mixed_martial_arts_record since the Former WWE Champion/Former WWE Superstar CM PUNK is Fighting Mike Johnson (fighter) why not give him a Wikipedia. Just to avoid confusion that CM Punk is not fighting Michael Jackson as the TMZ Report mistakenly said. 🥇 BUS  riderSFUser (talk • contribs) 04:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Bit late to point this out, and you've probably already realized, but Mike Johnson (fighter) is the dude who thought he could score a paycheck hanging and banging with a bear wrestler. Got his arm ripped off by a double damn wristlock in the WWF's backyard. True story. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Professional Fighters League
With the Professional Fighters League getting its $1 million dollar tournaments running, they finally have a series of shows lined up. Unfortunately, the pages for events have been set up individually and this has already drawn issues. I think with it being a "seasonal" thing that maybe it would be better to set up a yearly page like Bellator MMA. That way all the events and point systems will be on one page. Thoughts? Udar55 (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Styles
User:PRehse, User:InedibleHulk, User:Ppt1973,User:Papaursa,User:Gsfelipe94,User:Psycho-Krillin, User:Kevlar, User:Brusinggiant, User:Evertonfc13, User:Udar55, User:CASSIOPEIA

In a previous discussion, we discussed the idea of removing the styles param from the MMA infobox completely, since it has been misused, and with the evolution of the sport, most people don't really even have a particular style anymore. I wanted to get a consencous to remove the parameter entirely. Thoughts? TBMNY (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If removing is 1 and keeping is 10, I'm a 6.5 right now. Whena fighter has a solid background in a martial art / combat sport, having a styles parameter can be useful (although some styles can be mentioned in the rank parameter, there are others without proper ranks - like boxing). A possible solution could be having a "background" parameter to replace styles. Psycho-Krillin (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think replacing it with something like "background" would be fine. I'm generally in agreement with the notion that "style" could get over- or mis-used, and with the growth and development of mma, it's less and less relevant. However, I do still think it's relevant and useful for the reader to know that someone like Wonderboy Thompson is by and large a karate guy, and someone like Demian Maia is basically a jiu-jitsu guy. Not sure if there is a hard-and-fast way to designate when it's a valid use, but if someone has a notable pedigree in a particular martial arts field, I think it's worth including in the infobox. --Wikisian (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's already solved by the ranks param. TBMNY (talk) 10:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A rename to "background" is fair; that's probably a more accurate label. I think the consensus for inclusion of a 'style' was a) notable Olympic/World Championship accomplishments, or b) having competed as a professional, in that discipline.   Just being a guy known for being nifty in jiu-jitsu, for example, is not enough.  --SubSeven (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think if someone's established to the point of mattering in a particular discipline, that will be clear enough by the Rank field. Removing Style is preferable to me, for reasons mentioned by others here. Any mixed martial artist with Wikipedia notability is safely assumed to use boxing, wrestling and jiu-jitsu to some degree by default, regardless of belts or medals to show for it. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say "rank" wouldn't seem to incorporate notable experience in areas of wrestling or boxing or Muay Thai or even American kickboxing, really. So I'm curious what the thought is on how that would be handled. It looks like notable experience in those areas was the original intention of "styles" anyway. So are we saying that's no longer worth mentioning in the infobox? I noticed there is an actual "wrestling" parameter, but it doesn't look like it's being used in the way it was intended either. There's also the question of the "martial art" parameter, and what is the intended difference between that and "style." --Wikisian (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Wrestling is solved already by the Wrestling param. Muay Thai, boxing, and kickboxing accomplishments is solved by the records, which are already in the infobox, too. TBMNY (talk) 16:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I mentioned the wrestling parameter, and how it doesn't look like it's being used in the way it was intended, just as you're saying "style" isn't. And also as I said, there is a question of the "martial art" parameter, and what is the intended difference between that and "style." --Wikisian (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * In what way is the wrestling param not being used correctly?


 * I agree with removing the parameter. It is a magnet for original research and cruft. And as noted all MMA fighters use a variety of techniques and any particular style they've specialized probably is covered elsewhere. Much is gained by getting rid of it and little is lost. SQGibbon (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to removing that parameter. It has often been a subject of dispute and OR.  The martial arts a fighter has seriously studied can be listed in the article, assuming they can be documented. Papaursa (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Lenght of the fights
GSP's first fight ever ended in round 1 at 4:59 according to Wikpedia, because the announcer said it that way. It actually was stopped at 4:50, the announcer was just terrible. Sherdog therefore lists it as 4:50. What do we go by in these situations? Should we change it to 4:50?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, you should go by the commission's official result whenever possible. Just make sure that if you're using something more legit than what Sherdog is stating, that you cite it where the fight is discussed in the bio. Also, many comissions won't record the method of a finish. They usually will say TKO/KO/Sub, but they won't specify if it's from an armbar, head kicks, etc. For that, Sherdog is usually the best route. TBMNY (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Weight numbers in infoboxes
User:PRehse, User:InedibleHulk, User:Ppt1973,User:Papaursa,User:Gsfelipe94,User:Psycho-Krillin, User:Kevlar, User:Brusinggiant, User:Evertonfc13, User:Udar55

User:CASSIOPEIA has been putting weight class numbers in MMA infoboxes, which he claims are there because they're in [WP:MMA]] guidelines, despite the fact that a consensus was never reached on that particular part of the guideline, and hasn't ever been used. Additionally, the weights he has been using are actually not even correct. He is listing lightweight as 145-155, when it just isn't true. I would try to give you his reasoning for the sake of balance, but I haven't been able to get an answer out of him to be honest, so he's more than welcome to give his reasoning for intentionally putting wrong numbers in the biographies. Anyway, I'm making this because I want to get a consensus to remove all the weight-class numbers, since the weight classes themselves are suffice (especially since they're clickable), Thanks. TBMNY (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Greetings to all. Pls note weight range is as per WP:MMA/MOS (open the syntax to view) and please see per conclusion from admin as the guidelines in the page existed fo 8+ year with no disagreement/debate from MMA community that would considered it is accepted (not by word but othe editor's words - pls read the ANI message link provided above, advising user TBMNY's disagreement/suggestion to the WikiProject MMA talk page as the comments from other editors as well as the admin pointed to the same conclusion. I mainly follow what the example given by the guidelines and stated time and time again, whatever consensus agreement decision I will follow. It is disappointing that when user TBMNY questions my edit and I reply "immediately" within one minute time frame, TBMNY didnt not check the guidelines links I provided and / or have a dialog or communication  or assume good faith especially toward an active and regular MMA contribution as myself and report my action to ANI, . (pls see the ANI comment by all editors and admins). I have stated time and time again same as all the editors and admin, bring the suggestions/disagreement to WikiProject MMA talk page and seek consensus agreements if changes is needed and I am happy to follow without qualm. It is the guidelines stated example of such and not my invention and I merely follow what is written and the example provided, I should not be the target of ANI report but it should be a talk page discussion and agreement.  I disagree with some of guidelines in Wikipedia, but I dont go against what the guidelines and edit what I think is correct / what I want. My sole opinions and thoughts do not count as this is Wikipedia, but mass agreed consensus is the how it works here. If one feels so strongly that a guidelines should be changed/updated, pls state and justify the case and seek  consensus agreements of the masses.


 * This is the link of my messagew to TBMNY but they didnt comment nor reply - Conor McGregor,‬ Khabib Nurmagomedov and Noticeboard. And pls note I am not at war with TBMNY here - all All I say are
 * I just mainly follow what the guidelines and example given,
 * I didnt invent or written the guidelines which stated 8+year ago
 * changes/suggestion of guidelines/example do need mass consensus agreement
 * whatever the mass MMA community decision if a guidelines should change/amend/modify/delete, I am happy to follow.


 * In the weightclass field, try to include the name of the division and the ranges. Example: (pls open syntax box to view)


 * Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 06:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Nobody opposed the guidelines because nobody even knew that that specific guideline even existed or used them until you started using them. Even though those guidelines are there, there was no consensus to add those. So there's no consensus to add them, but you say there has to be a consensus to remove them. Don't you see the logical flaw in that? There should be consensus both ways. Additionally, since Wikipedia is based on verifiability, even if a Wiki project has a guideline for something that is false, you should not follow follow it. Wiki projects are not rules that must be followed. Since I'm sure you would admit that the weights listed are incorrect, why are you going out of your way to edit hundreds of articles with false information? Nothing about how this website works would say that's a good decision. TBMNY (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. They should be removed. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * User:PRehse, User:InedibleHulk, User:Ppt1973,User:Papaursa,User:Gsfelipe94,User:Psycho-Krillin, User:Kevlar, User:Brusinggiant, User:Evertonfc13, User:Udar55 -   Greetings to all. Pls see below  to TBMNY comments
 * 1. Nobody opposed the guidelines because nobody even knew that that specific guideline even existed or used them until you started using them.
 * comment by CASS: could you provide proves or history diff or comments of the above please? User:PRehse and User:Papaursa have been around for a long time, if changes to guidelines on MMA page, they might notice or aware what are on the guidelines
 * 2. Even though those guidelines are there, there was no consensus to add those.
 * comment by CASS: could you provide proves or history diff or comments of the above please? or merely your opinion here?
 * 3. Additionally, since Wikipedia is based on verifiability, even if a Wiki project has a guideline for something that is false, you should not follow follow it.
 * pls see below verifiability. MMA unified rules is governed by Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports (ABC) .Please see the below tables for weight ranges indicated by ABC (145–155 Ib) and not ((146–155 Ib)  and other organisation. As you claimed that the lower weight ranges should be one pound on the higher limit (146–155 Ib) instead of (145–155 Ib) for Lightweight, (186–205 Ib) instead of (185–205 Ib) for Light heavyweight and so forth and so on, then please provide source for verification so we may learn.
 * 4. Wiki projects are not rules that must be followed
 * comment by CASS: WikiProject has guidelines and not rules which all Wikipedians follow. If in case such guidelines might not apply/flaw/contradict/etc, then one can boldly edit them; however, if other editors think otherwise, then discussion should follow. Should no consensus among the small parties could be achieved then go to WikiProject talk page and state the case and seek consensus agreement. Should one find one opinion above all then maybe creating a personal blog and set own rules would be appropriate.
 * 5. Since I'm sure you would admit that the weights listed are incorrect
 * comment by CASS: as I said time and time again - I did not agree not I disagree on the weight ranges - I merely apply them; however as of now I would case a vote on the weight ranges indicated with the justification and verification the table below. To say will happily follow the that consensus agreement if community vote different that of mine
 * 6. Nothing about how this website works would say that's a good decision
 * comment by CASS: so far, you are the only one that find this disagreeable, for those who (2 editors) revert my edits, I have post the guidelines link to them and I heard nothing from them so far after


 * I'd prefer just Wikilinking the weight class, where the numbers are explained. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's how it's been done. No need for the actual weights. TBMNY (talk) 20:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * What the fuck are you doing? You're just putting a bunch of random clutter to make this section unreadable. You should shorten it so I even know what you're saying. You keep telling me I don't respond but then you keep doing this kind of stuff so I don't even know what to respond to. TBMNY (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi . I was invited to look at this discussion by . This is a lot of information to be coming in cold to, and I haven't read up on the context surrounding this dispute yet, but since it looks like this is getting a little heated, I want to try to help clear the air. This talk page definitely got a little messy, so I've tried to clean it up a bit. I've collapsed the tables that CASSIOPEIA inserted, and I've removed the ANI crosspost – a link to the archive should suffice instead: Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive987. Mz7 (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thank you. Now it's readable again. TBMNY (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you clearly up the clutter.
 * To Wikipedia MMAProject community - I am utterly disappointed that no one would even say anything on the profanity TBMNY on their address to me as this is clearly not civil. No one not advise the TBMNY to tone down their language choice, it would seems acceptable for not only TBMNY to use it again toward me or other editors in the future and  in addition, anyone in MMA talk page see the post, would think this is Ok form of communication toward the community members. I have never once been spoken in such fashion in my entire life, not even remotely, would someone say such an inappropriate word to me where I have lived in countries, in majority of my life, where such four letter words are extremely common in social and work environment even among the high level educated ppl, in male dominated multi national cooperate world where I work or in the gyms and dojos where I train. I communicated the issues within the guidelines, reason in civility, and back up all my sources yet I feel I am being put down time and time again by TBMNY where they could not back up this reasons with guidelines or sources but using uncivil word choice and arguing without base but with force (I have not received the answer from TBMNY as per today on the above posts). All I was suggesting was go to MMA community in Wikipedia to seek a consensus agreement if guidelines to be changed and I all for it which ever way  as long s the community agree. I am disappointed that I put a lot of time and effort to care and provide content, fighting vandalism and protect articles in MMA project, yet I am being ill treated and no one speaks out. All I ask with time and time again, is to discuss in civil manner and seek consensus agreement. I have grown up hanging around the dojos where my sister trained who was 3 times Taewondo national champion, and I practice some of Muay Thai and BJJ myself and have been following UFC for close 10 years now. I understand many MMA editors/casual fans are post Conor McGregor era and internet is the original place and still is today where MMA fans gather they discussion/share their thoughts and it is not a pretty sight at times to see the comments the fans leave on their posts. But this is Wikipedia, civility is one of  Five pillars that Wikipedia advocate.  Maybe I take it a little hard on this, or maybe I am female, and maybe I have not been spoken to as such in my life before. In short, this is just disappointing.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 05:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There was no ill will intended. For most people, curses are common place and not anything offensive, which is likely why nobody responded, because nobody else really thought of it as anything. You may, and that's fine, but not everyone lives the life you do where that would be offensive.
 * By the way, you have't given your opinion. You say you wanted to reach a consensus, but AFAIK, you haven't said which way you want. If you want it removed also, I think that would be pretty clear consensus and we can move on from this. TBMNY (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * TBMNY, most ppl and you may be find curses are common, but it do not need to address to me when I have been civil to you always. I dont expect you would apologies even you have been invited by admin {[u|Mz7}} to do so yet as you find it is fine to say such toward a follow Wikipedian and a female such is would not be acceptable on all the gyms and dojos I have trained and it would be sneered by peers. To reason and discuss in civility is the way to go. It is your prerogative on how to handle yourself and show your character, but I do not appreciate of your baseless arguments and uncivil treatment. You have forced your opinions with no back up of guidelines and sources, and now you are not prepared to even answer the question given as I dont think you could, for you find no sources to back it up.  As I say time and time again and it was the initial of my suggestion to seek consensus agreement from MMA community, either way what the outcome, I am ok with it.  Let it run for at least a week as per norm, so other would respond. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 08:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is where you sound like you don't know what you're taking about. My argument isn't baseless. It's a matter of fact that the weights you're putting are wrong. Again, that's not up for debate. You can't have your own facts. Weight classes are what they are. Also, just because you're female doesn't mean you get special treatment. I never directed any ad hominems to you or anyone else. If using the word fuck offends you to your core, I really don't know what to say about that. I shouldn't and won't apologize because of some sensitivity you have. Anyway, you're trying to deflect from the main point of this this section. Somehow this section about MMA guidelines has turned into you. if you want to further this, please do so in one of our talk pages. Thanks. TBMNY (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC: including numbers next to the weight class in infoboxes
Should a numerical range be included next to the weight class/division in the infoboxes of mixed martial artist articles?


 * With numerical range:
 * Without numerical range:

Mz7 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Support including numbers

 * 1) add comment and signature here
 * 2) Either way is fine by me as I indicted many times as I will follow as per consensus agreement without qualms.

Oppose including numbers

 * 1) Ding! I'd prefer just Wikilinking the weight class, where the numbers are explained. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Same as above. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Same as above, also that the suggested weight-classes aren't correct. The example of 185-205 isn't Light Heavyweight is factually wrong. The correct weight class is 186-205. If you weighed 185 you'd be a Middleweight. TBMNY (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Unless it's a title fight and the commission hates you, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * MMA unified rules is governed by Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports (ABC), and other sources back up the same - see here  - , , , and that the weight class is Straw-weight under 115 pounds, Flyweight over,  115 to 125 pounds, Bantamweight over 125 to 135 pounds, Featherweight over 135 to 145 pounds, Lightweight over 145 to 155 pounds, Welterweight over 155 to 170 pounds, Middleweight, over 170 to 185 pounds, Light Heavyweight over 185 to 205 pounds,Heavyweight over 205 to 265 pounds. It is deemed fine in Sport Bar or Britol or in any social media for such arguments and insult each other in profanity where many casual fans cum keyboard warriors voice they mighty opinions with some have not competed in any sport let a lone in combat sport or get hit in the face once or kick on the leg leaving 2 weeks  visual bruises , there are plenty of prod casts, such as hosting by former UFC fighters Matt Serra, Kenny Florian,  MMA news in Utube such as MMAWeekly.com, MMAFightingonSBN, MMA Digest, MMAJunkcie, The Best of UFC and MMA, MMA WORLD] or you might want check out MMA on Point where channel provide a lot of info on UFC and MMA history, there is also channel is analyse MMA events/ fights such as TheWeasle, or Reddit mma and many more such sites.   You could disagree the ranges of weight of what commence by Association of Boxing Commissions|Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports but you can not said it is a fact of what is actuality. You could have your own promotion and choose the weight ranges and rules yourself, but we are talking about MMA unifying rules here.Your claims is groundless and it is only your opinions. You have not able to back up what you claimed that is is 126 to 135, 136 to 145 and so forth and so on with sources even it has asked of you multiple times. PROVE IT! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not of subject to ones' opinion, if you can not back up with source, then back off. Agueing without facts or supported by sources even after I provided the sources which you asked of, yet you cant do it in return is like a teenager throwing their  tantrum and fists when they dont get what they want or hallucination of some mushroom encounter.
 * Lol, this entire spiel you wrote proved my point. If put lightweight as 145-155. Your sources you put have it as 146-155. You did all my work for me lmao. Ypu even write in your retort "over 145". Jesus.TBMNY (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You have not provide a single source to prove your opinion and you have not even read the source I provided. MMA unified rules is governed by Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports (ABC) Open your eyes and READ!. You are still auguring and cant even give a sourced claiming 146-156 as you stated - that is more than lame! Reasoning with you like talking to a child - prove to be washing my time and it just feed your troll. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 11:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * THIS is one of the things you cited (citation 4, by you). The source said over 145, which you admit. Over 145 to 155 AKA 146-155. How can you be denying it when you JUST SAID "Lightweight over 145 to 155 pounds". You're agreeing with me while simultaniously disagreeing. Just stop. TBMNY (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Either way is fine by me as I indicted many times as I will follow as per consensus agreement without qualms.  <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are fine with removing the numbers next to the weight classes, then I don't see the point in continuing this RfC, since that appears to be the consensus held by at least three editors in this WikiProject. The only reason I started this RfC was because you seemed to still think that we should include the numbers. Also, unless I'm missing something, I think I agree with TBMNY that "over 145" means the same thing as "146 and up". Mz7 (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The MMA unified rules is governed by Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports (ABC)' indicate 145-155 Ib (for lightweight) and not 146 up or 146-155 which TBMNY claim. I provide source, please check, but TBMNY did not even asked repeatedly. Secondly, I dont care if the range weight is added in or not, either way is ok. All along I was saying, if guidelines to be changed, it is not one person want but request consensus agreement. Whatever the result of the consensus agreement, then it would be the guidelines. I merely suggest what Wikipedia process is and how it is done. I am Ok to close the RfC effective immediately and change the weight range as propose on the info in the week to come. No problem on that. Thank you for assisting. Appreciate it Mz7. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 12:53, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't want to belabor this point because we've repeated it many times now, but TBMNY is providing a source. In fact, he is using the exact same source as you are: see this source. The claim is that the phrase "over 145" means the same thing as "146 and up". Writing "145-155" implies that the range includes 145, but that would be misleading, since 145 is really a part of the class below it. The keyword is over here. Does that make sense? TBMNY is claiming that you are misreading the sources you are providing; he is not trolling you. Mz7 (talk) 19:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping: Mz7 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I can give me sources, too. HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE. Really, do I need to go on? This is getting silly. Either way, though, it looks like the numbers will be removed completely since literally nobody has said they belong, so this whole argument is irrelevant. TBMNY (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The weight range is determined by Association of Boxing Commissions and Combative Sports (ABC) over 145 -155 does not translate to 146 -155 as TBMNY claimed  (he stated "... even state the proper weight class (146-155), yet you put 145-155..."(pls go back to read the ANI Weight numbers in infoboxes) and now TBMNY changed to over 145-146 after seeing the source and is a big different for the 1 Ib stated here because 145.1 Ib is not equal to 146 Ib - as all us who follow UFC know the middleweight title fight [[Yoel Romero] vs Robert Whittaker (fighter) at UFC 225on June 9, 2018,  where Romero weighted 185.2 Ib (0.2 Ib over weight) and Romero became ineligible for the title and the fight was proceed as non title bout. This is the Project guidelines issues and when TBMNY without even read my message after within 2-3 minute of my reply to his question and go to ANI even it is clear the weight range was indicated in MMA project page for 8 +years indicating (185–205 lb) and I mainly followed it, that was not considered assume good faith or open the communicate channel. And the thing is that even it is clear in civil guidelines that the choice of word he used was profanity and you and Incredible Hulk agreed, yet what I heard is that there are worse said by others and I should just accept it when other is rude to me and yet no one tell TBMNY to tone down their language (yes as an admin Mz7 you have invited him to apologize). I say this because after all this is Wikipedia and not social media sites and this is the big different as Wikipedia considered civility is one the 5 pillars, claim should be supported by source  guidelines and communication is the key. I have said, I do not care whether if the infobox stating just the weight class name or including the weight range, whatever the consensus agreed upon and as long as it is in the MMA guidelines page in Wikipedia, I follow without qualm. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 05:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I don't have an opinion on this either way. I'm starting a request for comment on this topic because I think it's clear we need a straw poll and some broader input. It seems that the argument in favor of including the ranges (pinging ) is that it provides readers with useful information and that it is described as common practice at WP:MMA/MOS. It seems that the argument against including the ranges (pinging, , and ) is that the numbers being placed are unverifiable and/or based on original research and that WP:MMA/MOS is outdated/not actually backed by community consensus (i.e. the text was inserted into the WikiProject documentation boldly, rather than as a result of consensus). Mz7 (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , I have never say female subject to special treatment, I merely said, it is against civility guidelines of Wikipedia which is one of the WP: Five Pillars where what you said is a considered profanity.  I do not know where you were born or reside, and since you think treatment of such to female is community acceptance, I doubt so.  I am from the land of down under, with only one passport, where Whittaker (dual citizenship), Pedro, BAM BAM, Mark Hunt (dual citizenship), Alexander Volkanovski are my countrymen and Queens Elizebert II is my queen. I have lived in 6 different countries, U.S, Australia, Poland, France, Malaysia, and Thailand where I spent more than 30 years of my life in Western countries. Australia is laid back country and not considered a "polite" country, common to see female drink of the bottle of beer instead of glasses and many including I are both rugby union and league fans where I have attended countless live matches including 2003 Rugby world cup opening, and female who lived at the outback is as tough as it get. If you are an American, then it is more so, I refute your statement that it is not a norm to treat women of such when I was civil to you all along, I have visited 38 states and lived 6 different cities in US, living close to 10 years there, I have not encountered any one have been rude to me in such a way like you had. As I said it is your provocative to decide how you would carry yourself, for it would show your character which I would considered  a person who know not the word of "respect" which is deem highly in civil societies and in fight world. If your conduct toward me of the fashion you did and  it is seen by my mates in the dojos or gyms, most would stand up for me and a few might threaten you with "Stockton slap". <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * He used profanity, but not gross profanity (at least by the standards I've seen routinely set and accepted here over twelve years). He didn't use it to hurt or belittle you, but to convey his exasperation with seeking clarification regarding the intended purpose of your lengthy and rambling edits. You might have taken "What the fuck are you doing?" to mean "What in the world are you doing?" or "What are you doing?" and simply took that opportunity to help a fellow editor better understand your position.
 * Instead, you repeatedly chose to make ill-considered accusations of impropriety, in itself an even clearer violation of CIVIL. You may know more than anyone here how to kill a man with a boomerang on the outback, but you seem unaware of how they can bite you on Wikipedia. I'll advise you (not threaten you) to drop the stick and get back to focusing on your original and pertinent point. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * First of all, TBMNY should at least have a conersation and discussion where I replied to them within a minute of their question, instead they choose to go to ANI. Secondly, I have repeatly said I just follow the guidlines and if guidelines to be changed by consensus agreement, I have no qualms to follow. Thirdly, I provided sources as what the weight ranges are and since TBMNY said is one pound of the the bottom limit, then sourced should be given, but none is received which is not an accusation. I did not threaten anyone hare, just saying, what my mat friends would think. I didnt say what I would do anything to TBMNY. It might not be rude to you and even the civility guidelines indicate and you agreed it was a profanity, yet, you did not ask TBMNY to tone down their language, instead seemed asking me to accept it - maybe it is ok with you if your daughter, girlfriend, mother or etc spoken in such manner, but one could use other word especially one could command English well, instead choosing to use profanity as their choice. It is not like I dont understand what you are saying or experience the "men world" as I work on site for 6 years as a sales and project manager for a main con  before joined an engineering firm. I do understand the the boomerang effect as I am an Aussie but we also a people who stand up from themselves. It would be nice if anyone would just say, hey tone down the language a little, and that is all it takes to know someone acknowledge.   I have only say one thing all along - get a consensus agreement for guidelines change, whatever the results I have no qualm to follow for I dont care either the to include the range weight or not. Never thought to do the right things,  adhere to Wikipedia guidelines, would subject to so much drama and getting people to tell me to accept when someone treat me in rudeness first. I appreciate your and Mz7 comments for your guys talk sense and communicate like adults reasoning. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 12:44, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Fork out the page to individual event for Bellator MMA in 2018
, Greetings and here ping the regular editors and other editors who are not mentioned above are welcome to join the discussion. Please feel free to adding "History info" to fill in the omission needed. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

History

 * 57 individual Bellator event articles were nominated in one AfD back in 2011 (7 years ago) on the ground that these events lacked of citations and thus failed WP:GNG (no independent, reliable source) and fail WP:SPORTSEVENT- see here  HERE under the AfD title "6. Bellator 55" and the result was "redirect".


 * Bellator 137 was nominated for AfC back in 2015 (2.5 years ago) - see Here, and the result was 'redirect" on the ground it failed WP:EVENT.

Suggestion
Since Bellator events have been well coverage by the independent, reliable media/press/sources these days, for such I believe they are notable WP:EVENT. I would like to suggest to fork out the page to individual article such as Bellator 201, Bellaor 202 (from Bellator 192 onward) and make Bellator MMA in 2018 same format and similar content that 2018 in UFC's.

For the suggestion

 * Support: <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support: Sounds good to me if you want, if it's reached the status of the UFC events as you mentioned. CyborgClassicII (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Against the suggestion

 * Not Support:

Neutral in opinion

 * While I appreciate the suggestion, the reason we now have "Bellator MMA in 20__" pages is because Wikipedia came to the decision after there were individual pages and an editor went on a rampage, nominating them all for deletion because they were "non-notable." So the consensus was to do all the events on the yearly pages. Udar55 (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If there's something significant that happens in an event, there should be some consideration to splitting it out. If the article is just a page of results, it's probably best left in the annual.  WP:EVENT has good thoughts.  Ravensfire  (talk) 00:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

UFC Fight Card Template - A minor change
I know this been here for a long time, but i focusing on accuracy. Suggestion for a minor UFC Card template change to be inserted starting from UFC Fight Night: Volkan vs. Smith and onwards.

BEFORE

AFTER

Colton Meltzer (talk) 19:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion (Support or Oppose)

 * Comment - UFC starting fight card for (UFC Fight Pass) should be changed from Preliminary Card (UFC Fight Pass) to Early Preliminary Card (UFC Fight Pass) .This been there for very long time and should be changed. As seen on UFC Fight Pass Cards.


 * Support - as the UFC fight card on the Wikipedia events articles use UFC.com's fight card as the reference, then the fight card in Wikipedia should reflect the same as per source. examples see Here-1, Here-2 and Here-3.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - looks fine to me and helps create a distinction. Udar55 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - makes sense 04:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)pqMMA


 * Support - Yeah, I see no reason why this change shouldn't happen. As already stated above, it better reflects the UFC website. BEDofRAZORS666 (talk) 11:12, 3 November 2018 (EST)


 * Support As above - generally a good approach to follow the sources after all.  Ravensfire  (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Your takes on ONE Championship claims...
Hello

I'm looking for your thoughts on ONE Championship's claims for being Asia's largest global sports media property and the world's largest martial arts organization. Those lines in a few different forms have been mentioned on their wiki page.

In my opinion, both claims are pretty clearly untrue and so shouldn't really even be mentioned on the wiki page. Even if some guy on forbes.com is willing to post such claims.

For the claim of being Asia's largest media property, for example, the Indian Premier League just last year sold their tv rights for $2.55 billion for 5 years, meaning around $500mil per year just for those in India.[1 ][2 ]. Their overall evaluation was also multiple times that of ONE's. Comparably ONE's total revenue in 2017 was reportedly around $12mil.[3 ]

Then for the claim of being the world's largest martial arts organization, I can't think of a real basis for that either. UFC is bigger, and profitable if that matters, and there are promotions that do more fights, events etc.

In my opinion, that line could just be removed, but a couple other editors have wanted to keep it in, in one form or other.ShadessKB (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Kickboxing records
Joanna Jędrzejczyk was a notable kickboxer before MMA does anyone think it is appropriate to put her fight records on her article. I apologise if I have asked this question before if anyone wishes to discuss the subject it can be had here on Talk:Joanna Jędrzejczyk. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Add 'Official' Record link to Martial Artist InfoBox (Support or Oppose)
I would like to suggest that athlete's official records be linked from here. Mixed Martial Arts LLC which owns and operates mixedmartialarts.com is the Official Record Keeper for the Association of Boxing Commissions. It is the only database for which event results are required to be submitted by state, tribal, and provincial commission to be included as official.

For example: https://www.mixedmartialarts.com/fighter/Fabricio-Werdum:584DB7540A5C83D4

It also has an active suspension state for athletes currently under medical or administrative suspensions.

The Association of Boxing Commissions recently released a vow of support on their website for this effort as well:

http://www.abcboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/abc-support-mma-wiki.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by PqMMA (talk • contribs) 13:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - I definitely wouldn't add it as any kind of 'official' record. MMA goes beyond the US and they don't have any kind of official global status. Perhaps add it to the Infobox martial artist as mixedmartialarts.com same as it already has sherdog and boxrec. Personally I'd prefer links to tapology over sherdog or mixedmartialarts.com though, and I don't know if all 3 should be options in the infobox. Tapology, to me, seems the most complete when it comes to non-US fights. ShadessKB (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I mostly agree with ShadessKB here. An "official record" in MMA is still a shady thing. A simple example is that the UFC considers TUF semi-finals fights as part of an official record and most sites says those are exhibition fights. In sum, since there is not a consensual better choice, let's keep things as they are right now. (But I still want to leave a word of appreciation to PqMMA for the proposal) Psycho-Krillin (talk) 01:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose It might work for only in US alone, but MMA is a global sport and it doesnt bound by only US body administrative supervision. Personally I prefer Tapology as Sherdog sometimes does not update fighters' info in time (like when a fighter move to different country and their "fighting out of" and "Team" are not updated) and sometimes Sherdog states the fighters birth countries wrong). Btw, thank you for your proposal. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 07:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment : infobox of MMA fighters need be revamped later. Sherdog does update the MMA Fight records of a mma fighter correctly (100%), but sometimes fighters info are incorrect. They listed Travis Fulton as a Light Heavyweight. They are perfect on MMA Records source, but not fighter information. Colton Meltzer (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: for what it's worth I've moved the opinion poll from draftspace to WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Should link to official record be include in martial artists info box?. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Rashad Coulter
With his fourth fight (and first win) in the UFC, Rashad Coulter is notable enough by WMMA standards for a Wikipage now. I created it and if anyone wants to give it a look over, please feel free. I believe I have linked him to all the appropriate pages. Udar55 (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * He definitely meets WP:NMMA, although I'm surprised the UFC kept him after losing his first 3 fights with them. Usually they're gone if they lose their first two. I certainly wouldn't vote to delete this article, but it could use more independent non-result based sources. Papaursa (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Robin Gracie deleted
I put this up for a PROD, it expired today, felt like I should point this out.★Trekker (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

FL review
Please see Featured list removal candidates/List of UFC champions/archive1. Drmies (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

AJ Agazarm
His first professional mma fight is taking place soon. I've already started a page for him in my sandbox if anyone wants to help out. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I created an article for AJ Agazarm. Any help would be much appreciated, it's my first article Pokerplayer513 (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the key points for showing notability are his IBJJF world championship placings and his ADCC 2nd place showing. Papaursa (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Is Jalin Turner notable?
Hi, I have never created an MMA article on wikipedia, so I am unsure of the notability requirements. Is Jalin Turner notable enough for an article to be started? He has fought at UFC 234 and UFC 229 + a couple Bellator MMA events. You can see his professional MMA stats here. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, as per WP:MMATIER, at least 3 fights under tier one (UFC/Invicta) would consider notable. Turner has 2 fights under UFC, need one more. Cheers. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 12:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since he won his last UFC fight it's extremely likely he'll get a third one. I would suggest you prepare a draft of the article and submit it to mainspace once he has that third fight. Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

What about Manoel Rufino dos Santos ?
Should Rufino dos Santos be an article as he is well known for defeating Helio Gracie. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That fact alone isn't enough to meet any notability criteria I'm aware of. It's a good subject for part of the article, but you need more.  Otherwise, I think you're looking at WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

How is this still not a thing
EFC Africa has large TV ratings according to SABC 3 see source it growing as an organization  it being around since 2009. And it has notable fighers such as Irshaad Sayed,Don Madge, Ruan Potts, Garreth McLellan. What more is there needed for it be notable if I had this conversation before I apologize. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This article was deleted 3 times, twice as EFC Africa and once as Extreme Fighting Championship Africa. I was part of those discussions, but the latest of them was in 2014.  Hopefully, there are some new and better sources since then.  If you have, or can find, those sources I would say go ahead and recreate the article.  If you'd like, I'm willing to look at a draft and give you my opinions before you put it into main article space.  Remember it's about the coverage of the organization itself. Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Papaursa (talk) are these sources good  Dwanyewest (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Dwanyewest but I can't access most of those articles (probably because I keep my security settings pretty high). I can only access the news24.com article which looks good (assuming it qualifies as a RS) and the cagepages.com article that said the latest EFC card reached 1.5 million viewers.  That article might help but I don't think it qualifies as significant independent coverage from a reliable source.  The articles I can't access give me some concern simply based on their site names: themarketingsite.com, ticketprodome.co.za, and entrepreneurmag.co.za--especially the first two. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Papaursa (talk) surely these articles are acceptable ? Dwanyewest (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A couple of these sources I couldn't access, but I think that combining all the sources you've mentioned makes a reasonable case for notability (at least to me). Some of them I clearly don't think would help you meet WP:GNG, but combining the few that do with the rest should help make your case. I'd say it's definitely worth a shot. Papaursa (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Papaursa (talk) which articles do view as acceptable before any attempt to recreate the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * All of them help your case. As I recall the news24.com article was the best I remember, but only if news24.com is a reliable source. You have to remember I couldn't access a number of the articles you mentioned. Just based on the name, the entrepreneurmag.co.za article might be good if there's enough focus on the EFC. Viewer numbers provide good supporting evidence for popularity.  I would think if the EFC is as big as claimed there would be articles in lots of the mainstream South African newspapers and magazines--besides basic sports reporting of results and promoting of upcoming events.  If not, it may be an indicator that it's not as notable as claimed. Papaursa (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Papaursa (talk) I have started a basic article also should Extreme Fighting Championship be redierected to EFC Africa.Dwanyewest (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the new article's title should be whatever the organization is currently named. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

MMAnytt YouTube videos - own work?
I sometimes find free licensed pictures for articles. Some YouTube channels film interviews with celebrities and such that they have made themselves, and release them under a Creative Commons license that we can use on Wikipedia. Other channels … like many Flickr users and other free image providers … just copy other people's work. It can be a judgment call as to whether a videographer or photographer genuinely has the rights to the image or video they are claiming to. Do any of you know about http://www.mmanytt.com or https://www.mmanytt.se - are they a legitimate site that sends its own photographers and videographers to MMA events that they then put up on YouTube, or are they just copying other people's work? For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkwdwFfd8ME and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9zBu88BHZk - is that really MMAnytt work, or is it from some other source? --GRuban (talk) 17:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

What about José Landi-Jons ?
José Landi-Jons is surely notable as an MMA figher he has been described as one of the greatest Brazilain MMA fighters ever. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Greetings. If as per THIS, he doesnt not pass WP:NMMA notability requirements.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 16:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that articles on him have been deleted twice--once at Articles for deletion/José Landi-Jons and once at Articles for deletion/Jose Landi. I would also say that one of the greatest MMA fighters ever probably wouldn't have 16 losses and no top tier wins. Papaursa (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

What is the Bellator fighters notability status?
Ilima-Lei Macfarlane has a Wikipedia article and is the current Bellator women's flyweight champion. Is the current position that if an opponent fights for the Bellator title or has fought 3 times for the Bellator organization there are notable? It doesn't seem to be case since 2015. What is the current policy regarding Bellator fighters notability? Dwanyewest (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * At this time I would say she fails to meet WP:NMMA because I see only her 2015 Bellator fight as being top tier. Papaursa (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

James Gallagher, notale?
Is James Gallagher notable? According to sherdog he has fought 7 times in Belitor promotions, thus satisfying WP:NMMA (see here). However I noticed that very few Belitor fighters have wikipedia articles, and therefore I didn't know if it was considered fully professional for the wikiproject's standards. Thanks Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No, because none of his fights are considered top tier. If you look at WP:MMATIER you'll see that only Bellator fights from 2009-2015 are top tier.  All of Gallagher's fight are after that time period so they are not top tier. Papaursa (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Ultimate Fighting Championship male fighters
Recently I started adding Category:Ultimate Fighting Championship male fighters to several retired male fighters who use to fight in the UFC. However after looking closer I saw that only current UFC fighters were being included, so I wanted to know if only current UFC fighters should be included or if the category should be open to all UFC fighters past and present. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 17:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Greetings. I created the cats for male and female. It is for all fighters have fought under UFC. I added the cat on the current fighters' pages and have yet to add the other fighters since UFC 1 event. Cheers.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 02:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't ONE Championship be considered as top-tier?
In terms of popularity and reach, ONE reportedly has higher numbers than even the UFC. Several fighters from the UFC who went over have also not had an easy time. Demetrious Johnson has not run through everyone like people thought, and former UFC World Champion Eddie Alvarez even lost in his debut. The current criteria is heavily skewed toward Western organizations because the rankings are run by Western media. Evilmichaelscarn (talk) 03:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This Logic Makes Little To No Sense
Truthfully speaking, these guidelines sound geared towards the west and the moderators do not seem entirely informed about this subject matter (this is not to sound mean, it's just that this is a big industry globally).

It is quite clear the MMA community has different thoughts on this topic, however.

Earlier this year, Pancrase and Shooto entered partnerships to bring their champions into ONE in order to provide their athletes with “greater development opportunities on a global stage.” That is heavy stuff, especially when considering Shooto was considered a “top tier” organization.

Clearly, these two organizations view ONE as “a top tier promotion,” and these organizations’ presidents would have to be considered unquestioned experts in the field.

On top of that, ONE has the top strawweight male athletes in the world — a division not even used in the UFC or Bellator. Shooto’s Champions have competed, and even won, the strawweight title in ONE, but have also lost it, too. By default, ONE should have recognition based on that.

Also, Dana White has a very high opinion of ONE. He recently said of ONE, “They’re not a minor grassroots organization. They’re a monster.” White even traded Demetrious Johnson to ONE for Ben Askren. So if he has a high opinion of ONE and is willing to sign their ex-fighters (including Istela Nunes, Marcin Prachnio, etc.), then how come ONE is not considered “a top tier” promotion by Wikipedia guidelines?

Basically, it comes across as if promotions outside of North America are not allowed to be considered top tier by these guidelines.

As a user of this site, I would urge the moderators to revisit these guidelines, especially since more "American-known" talent like Demetrious Johnson and Eddie Alvarez are competing against the best talent in the east (though unknown by Americans) in ONE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBSmoove (talk • contribs) 07:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Eliminating Rankings For Notability Requirements
"...fighters did not ranked in top 10 continuously for 1 year."

"Sherdog is the site we use to determine how many top 10 fighters a promotion has..."

Those are two quotes from current or past discussions regarding the notability requirement. However, I would seriously suggest Wikipedia alter this criteria. It is woefully outdated.

Sherdog itself has undergone drastic staff changes in recent years. The writers/voters on their site are nowhere near as qualified as earlier iterations. Notable journalists such as Josh Gross, Greg Savage, Jordan Breen, and others are all no longer with the website. Many are not part of the relatively newly formed MMA Journalists Association (MMAJA) which does not support a ranking system itself. Another cause for concern re: Sherdog's ranking is the lack of transparency. In the absence of those former writers, who are the voters? They aren't listed. There is no way of knowing their own credibility in determining these rankings.

Another large issue of using Sherdog's rankings is that it creates a myopic view of domestic journalists who are not full-time with the vast majority of their coverage going to the UFC as its top domestic promotion. They are under-educated about the global scene and could not accurately rank everyone because they do not cover the sport full-time. Their focus, and rightly so, is covering what works best given their limited resources.

Today, Sherdog may not even be the 4th or 5th top site for MMA. Their "Fight Finder" record service is still of great value to the community, but their arbitrary rankings hold no weight in the media or promotions.

Furthermore, the media landscape has continued to shift. Writers are constantly shifting, promotions are signing new deals. UFC has joined ESPN, Bellator is still on Viacom's Paramount Network, ONE Championship is signed to an agreement with Turner Sports. These are more indicative of notability than Sherdog rankings. Meanwhile, there are active pages for lower-level athletes such as Invicta FC. I adore Invicta, but it is a tiny promotion with limited reach compared to other promotions being argued in here (Bellator, ONE Championship).

The rankings requirement for notability is woefully outdated and not at all a sign of where MMA is in 2019. Removing this requirement would allow promotions w/ major domestic and international reach through broadcast deals and international athletes to be seen and heard via Wiki. It's better for Wiki, the users, and the overall MMA community.

ACCBiggz (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I wanted to add onto this argument a bit after seeing this quote from : "He is outside of top 30 and 90 in featherweight and pound-for-pound ranking respectively - see HERE-1, HERE-2 and HERE-3."


 * By the current criteria, CASSIOPEIA is right. However, those rankings are not industry standards. I've already touched on Sherdog in my initial post. FightMatrix is a computer ranking sytstem with arbitrary factors and is not widely used as a standard in the sport. "FightMatrix is a computerized rating system that attempts to capture un-biased “popular thought” and combine it with prediction-based analysis." That is not a guide for notability, especially when it is not accredited by the larger media as a serious source. The final poll mentioned is from Tapology. Tapology is a wonderful resource site similar to Sherdog's Fight Finder. However, their rankings are just fan rankings. This immediately compromises the results as they are heavily slanted toward the UFC only. Anyone can rank fighters, without knowledge, and it factors into Tapology's end result. None of this is to criticize individual editors such as CASSIOPEIA who do a great job, but the lack of current, relevant information on today's MMA global scene shows why the current criteria is seriously outdated and needs fixing. There is absolutely no relevant or industry-standard/respected ranking in today's MMA scene. It should not play a role in determining which athletes get pages for a global sport.

This is exactly right. Plus, Demetrious Johnson, who is considered the Greatest of All Time, is no longer on the Sherdog rankings. That is absurd. There are also no men's strawweight rankings, which is a prominent division in ONE Championship. With several Shooto and Pancrase strawweight champions also competing in ONE Championship right now, it's reasonable to say that if such rankings did exist, ONE would have several fighters on it, thereby meeting eligibility requirements anyway. Evilmichaelscarn (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Clear instruction re other names
We should make clear that the 'other names' section in the info box goes by Sherdog.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Featured article review CM Punk
I have nominated CM Punk for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Absurdity of 'top tier' restriction
I'd like to add to the discussion about the restrictiveness of the current rules on top-tier MMA organizations. Restricting the creation of pages to the current standards of three UFC fights (regardless of success) eliminates so many people who are notable for huge communities (i.e. worthy of attention or notice/a famous or important person). The examples of Bellator athletes in prominent positions (including main events) is one good example. This is an internationally-recognized organization, with broadcast deals/streaming around the world. James Gallagher, for example, has a huge following in Ireland, and gets plenty of media coverage from mainstream outlets (BBC, The Sun), as well as the obvious MMA websites. On the other hand, there are plenty of other athletes that do have wikipedia pages that do not fit the criteria – Tywan Claxton, AJ McKee, Jim Walhead, Abner Lloveras, Paul Redmond, Charlie Ward etc. I do not advocate that these are taken down, more that more athletes be allowed to have pages. These restrictions also would seem not to matter when other athletes across Wikipedia in other organizations are taken into account. There are several athletes in Pancrase (particularly post-2000) who would seem to fail to meet most of the criteria for 'notable'], specifically the main sticking point of "Subject needs at least 3 fights under tier one promoter such as UFC." Similarly, One Championship is growing all the time (a reported 85 million viewers for its last event), but it is not classed as a first-tier org. It promotes events in major cities, in major arenas, in multiple countries – including several first-world countries. Their athletes seem unlikely to be ranked because of their weight class system, but that does not mean their athletes are not notable. E.g. the Filipino athletes get a great deal of mainstream attention from national news outlets (ESPN, ABS-CBN), and the athletes of Team Lakay, specifically, seem to be known across the country. Similarly, many of the Indian athletes/athletes of Indian descent are notable because they are rare examples of representing the world's second-most populous nation on an international stage, and receive a lot of attention. Furthermore, these athletes are promoted heavily by the organization themselves, which has a huge reach on social media.

As mentioned previously - these restrictions seem overly restrictive compared to what is seen in other sports – e.g. football/soccer, where thousands of players in lover/minor leagues have plenty of detail on their pages, even if this is just a bland list of statistics, and they only have a handful of senior appearances to their name. E.g. it is difficult to argue Deon Moore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deon_Moore) with his four appearances in League One is more notable than James Gallagher, who has been in the main event of Bellator events, or Gurdarshan Mangat, who is widely recognized across India for his appearances in ONE.

As someone who regularly uses wiki for analysis of fighters' records - it is the best resource for seeing a fighters' record at the time of their fight, as well as the location without extra clicks – it would be useful to have a wider selection of athletes on the site, as well as more consistent What will it take for there to be any movement on this? There seems to have been plenty of discussion, but no action since the start of this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresmolimit (talk • contribs) 11:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed Gilbert.JW (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposal : Adding Temporary page protection on UFC Event start day
I here to insert a suggestion to allow "current/ongoing ufc events" to have WP:SILVERLOCK semi protection for 1 week on start day of event or before the event day (even if there no random disruption on previous days). Disruption seem always get out of the hand every time its not protection 1 bit during the event day. Regice2020 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion to Support or Oppose

 * Support Three Days A whole week seems excessive, but one day is never enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
I understand the intention is good to protect the event pages to limit the disruptions as most UFC event pages were vandalized and sometimes the vandalism was so severe that editors stop editing the pages during the fights or simply waited until the events have finished and reworked/edited the pages to remove all vandalism edits and reflect the correct info. I applaud the enthusiasm of the proposal of Regice2020 and the support from Inediblehulk; however it can not be done under the current Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is a open system as anyone can edit Wikipedia provided their edits are constructive, thus a page can not be "preemptive" protected if no evident of vandalism/disruption. Furthermore, if any registered editor logs out and logs back in as a IP editor - see WP:SOCK and vandalizes the page or socialites their friends WP:MEATPUPPET to do the same prior the event to get the page protected and if the evident is found, they will be banned indefinitely. I understand the frustration here especially, when a page is reported to request for page protection (RPP) and no admin is available to look at the request as most of the UFC events are held on late Saturday night US time zone, since most admins reside in US. I have reported countless times when the UFC event pages were vandalized during the fights to get them protected. I also seen many times RPPs were reported and the pages were not protected until 4-6 hours/after the event had finished form the initial report. Any of you reading this message can report a page to be protected at WP:RPP if a page is heavily vandalized and if anyone would like to know more about counter vandalism and want to be a vandal fighter, you can seek a trainer to guide you at counter vandalism Unit Academy. Best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 04:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, thanks for explaining. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , Good to know you understand the current guidelines. Kindly report to WP:RFPP when any pages are heavily vandalized. Thank you. Best.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 03:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)