Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts

Italicizing event names

Is there an established rule about whether we type UFC 100 or UFC 100? Italics seem to be the norm for other TV shows, but quite a few fighter articles do not use them, or partially do. I've been changing them according to how the first occurence in an article is typed, but that seems a bit arbitrary. If there is no existing rule, I propose always using italics. Feel free to either show a rule, or Support/Oppose this proposal. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure where you have seen this, but italics has been for future events. Mazter00 (talk) 02:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support — Italics is for future events, but only in templates.
  LlamaAl (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Template

I think this would resolve a lot of the issues in terms of the 2012 in UFC event article. I would propose that the event information and main card results along with a short summary could be the only things displayed, with more details, the preliminary card results, bonuses, etc displayed when you click the "show" button. Template:IndyCarSeriesracebox is a good example. I'll try to cook up an example of how it could look.Froo (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds cool. Do you already have something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree we should have a summary of the show, maybe a quick synopsis on the main events...I just want to see more content added to the articles so they don't get Nom'd for deletion. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Deaths in MMA

The wiki page Fatalities in sanctioned mixed martial arts contests previously only listed deaths in sanctioned mixed martial arts contests hence it's name, however names of fighters in unsanctioned events have since been added (Mitelmeier, Dedge, Jenson, Herrera, & Lee). I was going to delete the unsanctioned MMA event deaths but I thought I'd check here first to see if there's any consensus. --Phospheros (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

That would cut it down to two names. Hardly worth an article for two guys. I'd rather see the long title shortened to be more inclusive. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Added ref's, cleaned up page, and moved to Fatalities in mixed martial arts contests. Herrera & Lee need better citations.--Phospheros (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Better, but that's still a pretty long title. Any reason "Deaths in MMA" wouldn't work? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Deaths in MMA and MMA deaths now redirect to Fatalities in mixed martial arts contests. The specificity seems standard, examples: List of professional cyclists who died during a race, List of ice hockey players who died during their playing career, List of racing drivers who died in racing crashes.--Phospheros (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. As long as there's a redirect, I'm cool with it. Just thinking of the searchers. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have had 3 deaths in sanctioned MMA fights, Tyronne Mimms passed away back on August 11th in Mount Pleasant SC. I was working the fights so I had a lot of first hand informtion and I backed up as much of it as I could with reliable sources. --Willdawg111 (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox MMA Event

With more and more televised MMA Events, isn't it needed to add an extra parameter which holds the number of people who watched the event ? Is it possible to add a parameter (by example: |viewers) who indicates the number of people tuned in for the event (on television) ?

grtz — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs) 20:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We could (and should) have a Neilsen rating or PPV buyrate parameter, but there will be no accurate viewer count. Can't tell if one person is watching a TV set or fifty. Or none. A fair bit of "pirate" and non-Neilsen viewing, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The UFC doesn't release PPV numbers, all that's available are Dave Meltzer's estimates, how much faith one can put those is debatable.--Phospheros (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Buyrate was already included in the infobox. But I talked about televised events (not ppv). Buyrate for PVV and viewers for Televised events.SiMntjMMA 11:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Buyrate for PPV and rating/share for TV. Like I said, nobody knows how many viewers watched. Encyclopedias shouldn't guess (even if that guess is sourced). InedibleHulk (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well so these numbers are guesses ? http://mmajunkie.com/news/29160/ufc-on-fx-3-ratings-1-1-million-fx-viewers-and-84000-fuel-tv-viewers.mma SiMntjMMA 16:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

No those are Nielsen ratings, even if MMAJunkie refers to them as coming from "industry sources".--Phospheros (talk) 18:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

They're guesses from Nielsen, based on their ratings. On the official rankings, they openly acknowledge these are estimates. An "Estimated Viewers" parameter would be fine, I think. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC) Keep in mind, those estimates are only about US viewers. This is a global encyclopedia, and MMA is watched around the world. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yea, but the Buyrate parameter is also only for USA/Canada. When there is an event called : UFC_on_FX, the 'estimated viewers' parameter for how many viewers tuned in @ FX seems relevant to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs) 07:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Does UFC PPV exist outside of USA/Canada? If not, buyrate is fine. But TV certainly does! FX in Canada is the same channel Americans get, not sure about other countries. I have no problem with adding estimated American viewers. If there was a global estimate, we could have that, too. As long as we're being clear to the reader. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I live in Belgium and I have to pay 6,99$ in order to watch the PPV on www.UFC.TV. I added the parameter to several events already. Will complete all others too soon. SiMntjMMA 12:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs)

I see you've decided to not specify "US viewers". I think this is a mistake. One million viewers out of 300 million people is very different to one million out of seven billion. A reader may likely see this and assume the global UFC audience is much smaller than it actually is. It is a misleading statistic, as is. Also, that is a damn good PPV price for Belgium! In Canada, they're around $50. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok. You are right but if it is UFC on FOX or on FX or on FUEL, the people will know on what channel that million viewers have tuned in. About the price : yea, but i cant watch it live. It starts at 2 AM until 5 AM :(. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SiMntjMMA (talk • contribs) 17:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

But FOX and FX and Fuel are not only in the U.S. The millions watching the exact same show with the exact same title in other countries aren't counted here, but a reader reading this reasonably might think they are. What's the harm in adding two extra letters to the parameter to make this encyclopedia that much more factual? Won't somebody think of the children?!? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:MMA Welcome!

Welcome to our new members who joined in August! ChrisGualtieri, LlamaAl, Paul "The Wall", Ruslan90, SiMntjMMA, Udar55, and Zwarrior2. Posting this to your talk pages and PW:MMA Talk page. Kevlar (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I nominated Matt Hughes (fighter) to GA in August. Today, it became the ninth WP:Good article for our WikiProject.
LlamaAl (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

very nice! i couldn't agree more, the Matt Hughes (fighter) article is really well done. Kevlar (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!
LlamaAl (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

NAAFS

NAAFS: The North American Allied Fighter Series is a big name in MMA promotions. It says that somebody deleted an article on it a couple years ago, Anybody know why or is there going to be an issue with me doing this article? --Willdawg111 (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I would question your claim that it's a big name in MMA promotions. It is a regional MMA promotion and many of those organizations have been deleted on WIkipedia. The biggest problem is usually a lack of significant, independent, non-routine coverage. Usually the only sources provided are fight results and pre-fight press releases and that doesn't cut it. Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

They've put on over 125 shows and they are affliated with Bellator. Its also where quite a few UFC fighters got there start. Its not some BS local promotion. I just was wondering what I'm going to need to keep it from getting deleted. I already have an independent source cited as well as their site cited for information. --Willdawg111 (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It certainly isn't a "big name" promotion, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's doomed to be deleted. Like Papaursa said, it depends on the quality of your sources. I recommend reading the notability policy, and finding some reliable sources before you create the article. It would save you from potentially wasting your time. If you have any doubts or questions about a source you plan to use, don't be afraid to ask. I'd guess the odds are against this article establishing notability, but you never know what someone might find. Good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

(By the way, there was an edit conflict here, and the above reply is to your original question. So it might read a bit weird.) InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the article is already underway. Currently none of the sources are independent. Anyone can start a website or drop a press release (about their new PR team, of all things!). We need to have evidence of other people talking about them. Otherwise I'd be notable. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This promotion is actually already on the list of promotions that needed done, so obviously there shouldn't be any problem with me doing it. I already started it but I did it as the NAAFS instead of the North American Allied Fight series. Can somebody tell me how do I link North American Allied Fight series with what I did on the NAAFS (I want to redirect to my NAAFS article without copying and pasting the entire article) --Willdawg111 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it. I'll move NAAFS to North American Allied Fight Series, and will create a redirect (NAAFS) to this page.--LlamaAl (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done--LlamaAl (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I was reading through how to do it, came back to try and you already did it. Thanks for the help. It actually makes more sense to do it the way you did and redirect the NAAFS to North American... and not the other way around. --Willdawg111 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Willdawg, before you start accusing me of being a "hater", I assure I'm not. I just want to say that it's good you're making positive measures for the project. However, you're going to find that people dispute the relevance/notability of this organisation (and to a smaller extent, the article for Julian Lane). There isn't really much in the way of secondary sourcing, as the only stuff that can really be found is their own work, not something from, say, Sherdog or MMAJunkie. I'm not going to list it for deletion, as I hate it when articles I work long and hard on are deleted. However, I'm just preparing you for the worst, as I imagine that at some point in the next few months, someone may well list it for deletion. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Somebody has to agree that it is a relevant organization because I'm not the one that put it on the list of organizations that needed pages writen about it. I actually missed it and wrote it up as the NAAFS and when I was looking through the list of organizations that needed articles I noticed North American Allied Fighting Series was on the to do list. Thats when I asked for help taking what I had written as the NAAFS and linked them together. I think that any organization that has put on over 125 shows in less than 7 years is relevant. Thats about the same number of shows as done by the UFC, and obviously if Bellator is working with them and backing them, Bellator must think they are relevant also. I don't know if you noticed but I did pull several articles off of MMAWeekly which is as legitimate of a source as MMAjunkie and referenced them. I don't see any possible why that a fan of MMA could argue that the NAAFS isn't relevant. --Willdawg111 (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I would say the article needs some better sources and better claims to notability--not press releases or routine sports coverage (see WP:RS, WP:ROUTINE, WP:GNG, and WP:MMANOT). If I were forced to vote at an AfD I would be inclined to say "delete", even though I'm on their mailing list. Papaursa (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Bloody Freak

Someone may want to take a look at User:Bloody Freak's edits on MMA records. He's changing finishes of matches on a number of articles based on the simple fact that he claims to know better than Sherdog.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I left a warning on his talk page. Please notify an admin about this situation.
LlamaAl (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, there's absolutely no need for any of this. I doubt there's one good edit in there. I'll help revert a few. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And he re-reverts them all. Fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The wiki entry of keylocks helps understand what I'm trying to convey to this guy. An Americana and a Kimura are both Keylock submissions. Sherdog isn't listing it proper while anyone with grappling knowledge will tell you what I'm saying is truth. I tried referencing the wiki entry of keylocks as my source, is there somewhere else you'd like me to source instead?

I'm only trying to better the knowledge of submissions because people get confused. Why are you so insistent on having incorrect information on here?

Bloody Freak (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't cite a Wikipedia article. If that article had a source that agreed with you, you could use that. But it doesn't. You're insistent that "Brabo choke" is incorrect, but the guy who the D'arce (not Darce) choke is named for says it's the exact same move. There's your "truth". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Darce is the choke, D'arce is the guy's name. Brabo is the name for a plethora of different chokes. Darce is an exclusive no-gi choke. Today, in MMA, it's called a darce choke. Ask anyone with submission knowledge. Why are you acting like I'm causing harm? Bloody Freak (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you think Joe D'Arce doesn't have submission knowledge? The top MMA website (Sherdog) is run by idiots? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

From the article you posted on my talk page, "'It's too many syllables.' So he shortened it to 'darce' so when he's coaching someone in a fight or a jiu jitsu match he can yell out, 'D'Arce' quickly. ... No one ever says 'dee-R-see choke.'" D'arce is too modest to just say point blank that it's now a darce choke but that's what everyone refers to the no gi variant. In reality, they are all arm-triangles. The people at sherdog aren't idiots, they just aren't grapplers. They get a few names wrong and they don't seem to ever go back and fix their mistakes. Which is why some submissions are just listed as "choke" or "armlock."

I'm not saying it's pronounced with the apostrophe. We don't spell everything the way it sounds. Ask any colonel. Anyway, Verifiability, not truth is a fundamental policy here. Everyone's got their own version of truth, and if everyone was free to edit articles based on it, the place would be a mess. If it's as obvious as you say that so-and-so won by D'arce choke, you should have no problem finding a reliable source that says so, right? InedibleHulk (talk) 03:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Laimon, and many others, spelled it darce so that's how I spell it. Check the links I posted below. Is that sufficient? I'm not trying to fight with you here, I'm trying to have the correct information listed. Bloody Freak (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bloody Freak (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you introduce original research, then you are doing harm, because someone has to take the time to remove it. --SubSeven (talk) 01:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are they taking the time to remove something that is correct information? It shouldn't be. I'm fixing incorrect information. I've sent messages to sherdog, they don't respond to critique, despite quotes from the Gracies and Rutten backing up my claims.

Bloody Freak (talk) 02:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

And re-remove it. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Fe0AaVDzQs&list=UUNMZWa1QP42jHrmmzayFEeg&index=1&feature=plcp Here are Rener and Ryon Gracie, the sons of the founder of the UFC, stating it is an americana. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Q2p5q__hcg Here they call the choke a darce. There just isn't that many sites with this information for me to properly cite it. They are the correct names though.

Bloody Freak (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, to say Tim Elliot beat Josh Rave with a D'arce, you need a source explicitly saying that. Not good enough to show that a Brabo and D'arce are the same thing, then change every instance of the word in unrelated Wikipedia results. That's called synthesis here. A sleeperhold is basically the same as a rear-naked choke, but would you want to see that word used in MMA articles? If Wikipedia didn't have this rule, it would be. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it can be pronounced as 'darce' but that doesn't mean you change the actual spelling of the name. --SubSeven (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

That's not really the issue... if you want to have it as D'arce then that's okay but, in that quote, Laimon says he calls it the darce so that's what I went with. As long as it isn't listed incorrectly as a brabo, I'm okay.

Bloody Freak (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. It's just a synonym. English is full of them, so are combat sports. It's not a big deal. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

No, the Americana is a keylock and the darce is a brabo. It's like saying Brad Pitt is a synonym for person, it's not, he IS a person. An Americana is the name for a specific keylock, like the kimura. I'm going to add these edits back up with sources, so don't undo them all, that will just waste your time.

Bloody Freak (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

But that doesn't mean that all keylocks are Americanas, like you went and changed every single keylock on Wikipedia to Americana. Note that if you intend to change the keylocks into something else, you need a reliable source for that specific match or they will be undone again (and seeing as how many warnings you've gotten, those will be your last edits here). I'm fully expecting a message board source with more of the roundabout nonsense seen here already.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No, see what I'm saying is Sherdog mistakenly labels ALL americanas as keylocks - they never use americana in their records - which is why I changed them all. They aren't grasping that the name of the keylock is americana... They correctly label the kimura with its name, but it is also a keylock, which makes things confusing. The move is the same for all of these matches so one source should be acceptable. For some of these matches, there just isn't any sources to find. They're too unknown. The video I provided shows two knowledgeable grapplers agreeing with me... I don't understand why you guys want this site to be wrong. Here's a page from Gracie University showing the Americana: https://www.gracieuniversity.com/lesson.aspx?enc=S6YEki/a6RN2spry7nrSQg== clearly, that's the same move in all those matches I changed. Just because they don't have a page for each fight showing that I'm right doesn't make me wrong and shouldn't stop me from correcting Sherdog's errors.

Bloody Freak (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sherdog does not list every Americana as a keylock. See [1], [2] or [3]. There are many more. Google "Americana site:sherdog.com". InedibleHulk (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is where it's confusing! If you check [4] you'll see the editor used the correct name for the Americana and he also called a submission a "can opener," a move popularized by Mark Coleman, yet on Coleman's record they are all called neck cranks. It just shows that the site isn't consistent. A can opener is the name for a specific neck crank just like an americana is the name for a specific keylock.

Bloody Freak (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they're not perfect. If you can find another source further specifying any move, feel free. But blindly changing all "keylock"s to "Americana" without knowing if it was actually a kimura (or any other variation) instead is original research. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You just don't get it. Go ahead, change them, see what happens.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

you're a stubborn bugger, ain't you? If you have an ounce of intelligence, you can see I'm right, so I'm guessing you just don't want to admit it and are resorting to threats... the idea that you're so pissed at me because I'm trying to help fix some errors is ridiculous. If this site was serious about having the correct information it wouldn't be attacking me for adding it, it would be helping me find a way to do it. It was never my intent to piss anyone off.

Bloody Freak (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you even read these answers? IT'S NOT ABOUT WHO'S RIGHT, IT'S ABOUT WHAT'S VERIFIABLE! I'm not the one giving you these warnings and I'm also not the one who's going to block you if you change these finishes without a reliable source for the specific matches. Change them, I'd very much like to be done with your nonsense and move on.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 07:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

When readers go to Sherdog.com and then compare the information with Wikipedia, they think we are wrong. WP only publishes material which comes from a reliable website.
LlamaAl (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Bloody Freak, i hear what you're saying. it can be very frustrating when you have personal knowledge that will benefit wikipedia but the edits you make come under fire. perhaps you can help contribute to the Grappling hold article. it looks like that page could use some sources sited. if a D'arce is more appropriately spelled Darce, that will obviously be something that should be changed. the problem is that the sources are siting something that lists it incorrectly, and wikipedia can only function properly if we all stick to verifiable external sources of information. stick with it, find good places to apply your knowledge, my most frustrating experience was way back when i tried to create categories for weight classes of MMA fighters, everyone went nuts, now it's the norm. check out my talk page, the first 5 comments are all things that were removed. being bold is important to wikipedia, but you also have to play with the group. please let me know if i can help in any way. Kevlar (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I was hoping I wasn't going completely insane. I'll need to find a page that specifically spells it darce. The only sources you can really find are just quotes and then it's just up to the quote's editor how to spell it. The problem is there really aren't any good sources for these things if I can't use video, which seems like a much more reliable source, why is video omitted? I'll use sources from now on but it seems to be hindering the information of this site instead of helping it, like some of the editors. All records currently using "keylock," "neck crank," or "brabo choke" are incomplete.

Bloody Freak (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You are characterizing these discrepancies on Sherdog as 'errors' but I disagree. If a fight is decided by an Americana submission, it is not inaccurate to say it was a keylock. Could it be more specific, sure, but it's not wrong. I really don't think this is worth all the fuss. It will be difficult to source these changes and the information gained is minimal. MMA articles on Wikipedia have far greater needs than this. --SubSeven (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

SubSeven is right. Not inaccurate, just not as specific. The "darce" quotes in the "Joe D'Arce explains" article are spelled that way to make it easier for a reader to understand the pronounciation differences he's talking about. Regardless of pronounciation, it's properly spelled "D'Arce". As for video, it's fine, as long as it's not infringing copyright and explicitly and directly backs the claim, without having to use synthesis or interpret pictures. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Navigation, deletion, & coherency.

I was looking for the article on UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall only to discover it had been deleted, next I searched for List of UFC events that provided no help just a dead-link to the aforementioned article, still unperturbed I searched for List of UFC events in 2012 again no help just another dead hyperlink, moving on I search for UFC on FX events in 2012 only to discover that it has also been deleted. I did however find UFC on Fuel TV events in 2012 & UFC on Fox (a list linking to the individual Fox cards). How is anyone supposed to find anything with this poor level of categorization & continuity?--Phospheros (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for UFC events on FX and Fuel TV are being deleted... but the event info can still be found here (it's also being considered for deletion). I don't know the reason though. Poison Whiskey (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a deletion oppose until a policy for the events can be established. Where is the project at on that point? I took a break after all the fighting regarding individual UFC PPV cards being deleted/merged. They have since been restored, I assumed FX & Fuel cards where going to stick with yearly omnibus articles, is that the case?--Phospheros (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I propose we confuse and annoy more readers by deleting Demetrious Johnson (fighter). The Flyweight Division has not yet passed the ten-year significance test. Perhaps a fair compromise would be creating a giant omnibus for little people. We could then filibuster the Talk Page with heated arguments about what constitutes a "little person" and who's conspiring against who to destroy Wikipedia. It'll be fun. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

i think a guild to help people know when to add an event as it's own page would be helpful. even if it's just "an even with 5 significant sources can be moved from a list page to it's own article". personally i don't really mind if some events are in list pages, it seems to work for event pages. i haven't been able to find a good way to list less notable people personally. also, i think it's pretty clear that politics is playing a heavy roll in the deletion of MMA articles. people don't like MMA as a sport, therefore they place a higher level of scrutiny on the articles. if you look at professional baseball, anyone who's ever swung a bat has their own article. to pick one out of a hat let's look at Fabian Gaffke if that article were about a MMA figher it would be deleted instantly. i'm not saying it should be. personally i think it's great for people interested in baseball to have that info, but he's hardly a notable player. perhaps we should look into some sort of arbitration process to decide if the deletions fall under vandalism. Kevlar (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To Phospheros: take a look here. I think any of the UFC events shouldn't be deleted, because Wikipedia had all events since UFC Fight Nights to TUF Finales. All UFC events are significant. Poison Whiskey (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

• I personally think the best format for usability is to return to the preomnibus disaster to the strict single page article per event with a single list of ufc events by which to navigate. If these omnibus attempts are just outright deleted, much as the UFC 27 page was, a new article will be quickly created in its place. By leaving the omnibus abortions in place, the single page articles aren't being created for a few random events.I remember halloween (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ribbon Salminen

He seems to have a personal vendetta against me. He's gone through every one of my edits and undid them regardless if they had a reference or not. I'm trying to help and he's just trying to screw with me.

Bloody Freak (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely went through every one of your edits, but trust me, none of them had reliable sources. I changed them back to what Sherdog had as the result.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, looking at his contributions, he's right. Nice Job!
LlamaAl (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

He's absolutely right. You were specifically warned above against misusing that source, by several editors, for several reasons. And now you're undoing Ribbon's corrections! You're begging for a block. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There was one reason given: we follow Sherdog blindly here. Other than that, there's no reason not to use the correct names.

Bloody Freak (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd thought you were citing the Gracies naming the particular moves, like in the video you offered above. But no, I was wrong. You sourced it correctly. We follow any reliable source blindly, as long as it makes a specific, relevant claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bloody Freak is putting references on his last edits. I truly believe that he is trying to improve the articles and now has learned about verifiability and original research. Everything seems alright now, we don't need any struggle. Poison Whiskey (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate the backup. I honestly don't understand why these guys got so pissed. I really thought I was contributing by adding the correct names. I apologize for the trouble. Instead of threatening me, I wish everyone would help me find sources for these things. The records aren't complete when following sherdog's errors.

Bloody Freak (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I jumped the gun on a couple. I saw "graciemag" and just assumed it was a Gracie calling the move an Americana. My bad. I'll revert myself and cancel the block request. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

event results template

the event results template now looks and functions well. the only glaring problem i see is that it has 'winner/loser' in the template so when there is a draw or NC it's a bit misleading. this is the way all of the event tables are though, so maybe that's a detail to be tackled another day.

the two templates needed to get the table working are:

{{MMAevent}}
and
{{MMAevent card|name of card}}

here it is in action:

Main Card on WikiProject Mixed martial arts
Weight class				Method	Round	Time	Notes
catchweight	LlamaAl	def.	kevlar	KO Spinning back fist	1	0:08
Alternate bout
Weight class				Method	Round	Time	Notes
catchweight	InedibleHulk	def.	kevlar	submission (rear-naked choke)	1	0:15

if you see anything major that needs to change let me know (or change it yourself you filthy animals!). for the record, i didn't actually design the table, i just put the table into template form. if there isn't anything that needs to change i'll probably begin rolling this out sunday with a big OCD editfest. Kevlar (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

A "vs" column doesn't seem like the right heading. And if we're keeping "Winner" and "Loser", "def." is unnecessary anyway. I can't remember a time where the loser defeated the winner. Not officially, anyway. The judges do screw fighters. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC) But if we keep that column, and rename "Winner" and "Loser" to "Fighter A" and "Fighter B" (or something), it would allow for draws and no-contests. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

i hadn't looked at the upcoming UFC events in a while, last i looked they were listed as "red corner/blue corner". seeing them blank does look better, and you're right the vs header is a bit redundant also. changed to reflect. Kevlar (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Check this out.
LlamaAl (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Gamezero05/Gamezero05 Sandbox/new results table, User:Gamezero05/Old tables and User:Gamezero05/UFC table, too.
LlamaAl (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

are there things we want to take from those results tables? the biggest two differences i see are the colors and sorting on this one, this one seems to be a totally different feel. i don't want to go through changing hundreds of event pages if other people would prefer a different template.

IP 177.97.79.177 issues

This IP went through and changed the flag on all pages with to the Mexican flag. I assume the Wiki community has had thus discussion in the past. What was the consensus? Luchuslu (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on what flag to use? his page says he was born in California, grew up in Arizona, attended college in Iowa and Arizona, and now lives in California. not sure i would even begin to understand the use of any other flag but .

I changed them back the day he did it, and let him know his error. He hasn't reverted since, so I wouldn't consider him a problem. UFC likes to hype Velasquez's ethnic nationality (undeniably Mexican), but Wikipedia uses flags to show legal citizenship (undeniably American). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You can review the archive pages for the long drawn out discussions. But you are somewhat incorrect. "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" (MOS:FLAG). If an American citizen represents Mexico in a sporting event, the flag should be the Mexican flag for that event. Additionally, "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen" (again MOS:FLAG). --TreyGeek (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if we're going strictly by the book, UFC isn't an "international sport" the way soccer or skiing is, and no flags should be used. But local, de facto consensus seems to be that it's helpful to have them. And so we should use the general flag guidelines, not sport flags. Velasquez doesn't represent any country, in an official way. He represents himself, and happens to be an American citizen. The rule about "never in non-sporting sense" applies only to athletes who do represent a state through sport, I think. In those cases, it would be confusing. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mtking

Mtking has returned. He is adding notability tags to many UFC events articles, and PROed UFC Ultimate Fight Night. If anyone can improve the article, please do it. We have to stop him quickly.
LlamaAl (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Quickly? Ha! But yeah, hopefully less tedious than before. I'll have a laptop with a regular keyboard and trackpad soon, so I'll be able to keep up with the lawyering (and general Wiki improvement) much better soon. For now, good luck! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

This may appease his "long term significance" craving. Shows someone cares a couple years later and touches on the longterm ratings success for Spike. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is time he stops ignoring the wishes for the MMA community, I have proposed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that Mtking be topic banned now. ScottMMA2 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If any of you have diffs about Mtking's deletion logs, please post them here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
LlamaAl (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Admins closed discussion. Let's get proofs and diffs, and resubmit topic ban for Mtking. Cheers.
LlamaAl (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Not just any admin... InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I added a reference with my Keep for the Fight Night AfD, but can't get it in with the reflist at the bottom. A little help? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Try to close with </ref>. But i think that is better to leave it as an external link. Poison Whiskey (talk) 00:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought I had, but brainfarted out a <ref/>, on closer inspection. The ref list seems to be there to summarize the sources showing significance, so I figured it can't hurt to add another. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I came upon that discussion and urge you to consider a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Users about this user as clearly he does not know what he is talking about and just plain has it out for MMA articles. I'll see if I can help you out and reason with him first, but I rarely edit here anymore, so I don't know what good I can do. --Morphed Editor (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't lose control. LlamaAl and Morphed Editor have been blocked for sock puppetry. Raging also solves nothing (maybe can make things worse)... being a MMA hater or not, Mtking has support on some of his AfD nominations. However, taking a quick look on his contributions he truly seems to have articles about MMA and kickboxing events as primary deletion targets (some nominations and arguments were really reckless: see AfD UFC 144, AfD UFC 145 and AfD UFC 2, 3, 4 up to UFC 41). Poison Whiskey (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

UFC on Fuel TV: Franklin vs. Le was deleted and redirected by Mtking, then some sysop protected the page. Bad. Is there anything one can do to get this reverted and these types of actions prevented in the future? Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The article was restored today. About this case, we can do little or nothing. Some users/admins seems to support him. The good thing is that he can't destroy the entire WP:MMA. The bad is that some events articles are likely to be deleted. I'll just quit these discussions and come back to article creation/improvement. Poison Whiskey (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to AfDs, I urge everyone to remain calm and cool as to not fall into a certain someone's games. As sad as it is, this certain someone does this for attention. One don't just stop doing something cold turkey and then suddenly come back to it unless it fulfilled something for them. I actually find it creepy a certain someone is back doing the same thing. Must be trouble on the home front. ;-) So let's not fall into the "jerkish MMA fanbois" that a certain someone wants to portray us as and handle it professionally. Udar55 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Flags

How timely: just above is a discussion about an IP going through changing flags, and it's clear from that discussion that the flag issue is problematic to begin with. Besides issues of BLP verifiability, there is the matter of MOS:FLAG. My reading of that is, in a nutshell, that flags should not be allowed (in, for instance, the "Mixed martial arts career" sections), since there is no official national representation in those events. I happened upon this because I ran into the huge number of articles related to the Gracie family, all of which have serious problems, flags being a minor but important one. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The project's style guide also clearly states that flags should not be used.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 17:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see that--I thought it only mentioned that infoboxes (which here typically are found in biographical articles) shouldn't contain flags. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's quite clear that they don't pass the muster of MOS:FLAG. There was much discussion (search Flags in the archives) of this in the past, an attempt was made to remove the flags but ultimately it just came down to there being more people adding flags than were people removing them. Policy was cited but people just replied with "It's prettier with flags." or "It's more informative.". TreyGeek made MMABot but isn't currently running it.--Phospheros (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...prettier...I thought MMA was about pain, not pretty. Has the HGTV-inflected mindset of esthetics taken over? Thanks--that's insightful. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The "It looks better with flags" has been a comment argument among the largely MMA-only editors and IPs. If you go back through the talk page archives, the use of flags in MMA articles has been a controversial one. I've been part of the group that believes flags are over-used in MMA articles. Flags in infoboxes are clearly discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines and MMABot was programmed to remove them. Flags in the MMA fight record table next to the event location were eventually discouraged by the WikiProject (as well as site-wide guidelines if I recall) due to redundancy and MMABot was programmed to remove them as well. The flags next to a fighter's name in the MMA record table was the most controversial issue, and IMO a clear consensus has never been established; as a result MMABot was never programmed to deal with them one way or another. As noted by Phospheros, MMABot is not being run due to issues between me and some participants of the MMA WikiProject (I'm doing my best to be politically correct here). --TreyGeek (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, fuck that shit! Oops, that was un-adminlike. Well, it seems to me that not only do we have a consensus here, we also have MOSFLAG to back it up. And I really don't want to go through those archives: I've seen enough MMA stuff on ANI. Let's let this run for a couple of days and see if anyone has something else to say, preferably something congruent with our guidelines. I don't know how to run bots and it's generally looked down upon to have such edits done automatically (like with unlinking dates, for instance), but there'll be something to point to if we get a consensus out of this. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is another WP:CONLIMITED case, MOS:FLAGBIO is clear "Flag icons should never be used to indicate a person's place of birth, residence, or death, as flags imply citizenship or nationality." and "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality ." so use in MMA results tables goes against that, they should be removed and I would support any Bot application TreyGeek makes to that end. Mtking ^(edits) 11:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

my comment here is also posted to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#flags_in_MMA_articles

The use of flag icons in mixed martial arts related articles has come under debate, i am wondering if we can get some guidance from the MoS community. The discussion is happening at WP:MMA. the use of flags seems to be 3 general areas:

1) info boxes - see in both examples below. also this MOS:FLAG Avoid flag icons in infoboxes

2) in event pages - UFC 94

3) in record tables - Anderson Silva

now for my opinion on the matter. the suggestion to remove flags in the info box seems pretty solid, but the use in event pages and record tables i think can be kept. i feel that MMA is an international sport. for example, of the 225 listed UFC events, only 2 have an entier fight card from a single country 1 and 2. examples of pages that use flags in what i feel is a similar way would be Boxing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics and Sport_Club_Corinthians_Paulista#Players. Kevlar (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, MMA is an international sport but this does not mean that the individual fighters represent their countries like with the Olympics or the Davis Cup. And that's the point of MOS:FLAG, restricting the use of flag icons to instances where the individual represents their country in some kind of official manner. There is no situation within MMA where countries sit down to determine which fighter(s) will represent them in the next UFC event -- it's always about the individual fighters (like professional boxing vs. Olympic boxing). So yes, I am all for keeping the current consensus within the MMA guidelines which is basically just agreeing with MOS:FLAG and also support resurrecting MMABot. SQGibbon (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

in my second example Sport_Club_Corinthians_Paulista#Players, Juan Manuel Martínez is from Argentina, the club is based out of Brazil. are you stating that the use of flags in this article is also incorrect? or that Juan Manuel Martínez officially represents Argentina in that sports club? Kevlar (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a note that accompanies all such tables in football articles that reads "Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." So in his case he plays for Argentina at the national level (represents the country in a sporting manner, to use MOS:FLAG language) and that's why they use that flag there. Personally I don't understand why the football project allows flags in this situation since it's irrelevant to the clubs' articles where a player plays at the national level but at least they are respecting the requirement for official representation (which information better belongs in the article about the player). SQGibbon (talk) 21:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

i'm not sure i'm understanding what you mean when you say he plays for Argentina a the national level. here is a list of Brazilian football clubs List of football clubs in Brazil there are hundreds, and all the ones that list players user flags. in this example Juan Manuel Martínez is playing for that individual team, which is Brazilian. he was also not selected from what i can tell by Argentina, in the way Olympic athletes are selected he was more than likely chosen by the team. Kevlar (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your confusion, Juan Manuel Martinez plays for the Argentinian national team (like for the Olympics, the World Cup, and other international competitions between national teams). He is allowed to play for Argentina because both FIFA and whatever the governing body in Argentinian football is says he is qualified to represent Argentina in competitions between nations. Now whether the Argentinian side ever calls him up to play for national squad is up to them (though in his case they have done so) but according to FIFA rules he is eligible to play for Argentina (but not Brazil, Spain, Germany, and so on). What he does at the club level is irrelevant to his status as an Argentinian national player. He can play in Brazil, England, Italy, wherever he can get a job but he is only allowed to play for the Argentinian national squad at the international competition level of the sport. There is no such analogous situation in MMA. Fighters only ever represent themselves, they are not part of national squads, there is no Olympics or World Cup where countries compete against other countries, it is just fighter against fighter. SQGibbon (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

in re-reading MOS:FLAG#Use_of_flags_for_sportspersons, no where in there does it discourage the use of flags. it simply states that flags should "correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality". this section seems to be clarifying which flags to use, not whether or not flags should be used.

"Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with." i do not read this as "a governing body that represents the nation, will select the player to represent them" as is the case with the Olympics. other sports that i have been able to find using flags are: Gymnastics, golf, Formula 1, figure skating, Ice Hockey, horse racing, chess, Cycling, rugby, Sailing, Snooker, swimming, and tennis. while some of these sports do represent national teams. my understanding of both golf and formula 1 is that they are individuals or teams competing for money, not their nations. Kevlar (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The very first line at the link you provided is "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense". What else are flag icons being used for in these MMA record tables but to indicate the fighters' nationalities in a non-sporting sense? That seems like a pretty clear statement against using flags. Since there are no organizations claiming that the fighters represent these nations in a sporting since then use of the flags is contraindicated. And yes, plenty of other projects apparently ignore MOS:FLAG but just because they do does not mean the MMA project should as well. SQGibbon (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The way I read it, "player" here means "athlete who has a sporting nationality". It seems to exist to avoid confusion in cases where an Australian citizen plays for Germany (or wherever). Not applicable to fighters, who represent themselves, not a nation. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly they represent themselves, not a nation so use of a national flag is not appropriate where it indicates national representation. Mtking ^(edits) 22:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't indicate national representation. Just where they're from. MMA isn't an international sport, per se. If there is any legit confusion, we could have a short footnote saying this. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

What may we say about this: TUF: Australia x UK and TUF: USA x UK? Also in Pride Final Conflict Absolute the Croatian and American national anthems were played in honor of both finalists. In my opinion, flags at least in MMA record boxes and events results boxes are good additional info. Poison Whiskey (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

In the first two cases I can see an argument for including the flag icons in the records of those fights since the whole thing appears to have been set up as a nation v. nation competition (but given this was a reality show perhaps that debate should be held at WT:TV instead). The fact that it appears to lack any formal bodies representing the respective nations deciding who gets to represent each nation does call into question the legitimacy of the general claim of representative nationality with respect to Wikipedia guidelines. In the last example, I do not see the significance of playing the national anthems. At least as far as I can tell with American sports, national anthems are always played before sporting events but this in no way means that the teams/individuals represent their respective nations in a sporting sense, it's just tradition. I see nothing in the Pride Final Conflict Absolute to indicate that these fighters were representing their respective nations ala the Olympics. SQGibbon (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I've made my opinion regarding flags in MMA articles clear many times in the last 4+ years (I support removing flags in nearly every case), so I'll limit my comments to MMABot (the only thing I can truly WP:OWN on Wikipedia). I want to thank those who support the ressurection of MMABot (talk · contribs). I haven't run it in the last six months due to the issues (and toxicity) that I had with the MMA community in respect to Wikipedia. I hesitate to say this but I would be open to the possibility of MMABot starting it's work again with respect to it's currently approved list of tasks (further support of reactivating MMABot should probably go to my talk page or MMABot's talk page as it is really extraneous to this discussion).

In regards to MMABot and this discussion (flags next to fighter's names in the MMA record table in an MMA fighter's article) do not expect MMABot to handle this in the near future. Bots are held to a higher standard than individual editors and all tasks that a bot performs must be approved by the WP:BAG. MMABot is currently not approved to handle this situation involving flags. Long story short (ask on my or the bot's talk page if you want the long story), based upon one of my proposed MMABot v2 tasks (removal of future fights) and the response from the WP:BAG (pointing to the long running contentious discussion on this talk page) I would not expect to be able to get approval for MMABot to remove flags in this particular case until at least six months of solid consensus has occurred (and I mean solid). With that I return you to the bi-annual discuss--argument over flags next to fighter names in record tables. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Could MMA be considered as another sport for flag purposes?

The flag guideline says "If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used." Could or should we use the eligibility rules of international wrestling, boxing, judo (etc.) to determine the appropriate flag? Or is MMA too distinct from any of its constituent parts? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking "Can we use the fact that not all MMA participants are American as an excuse to insert flag icons all over the place?" the answer is "no". When MMA is an IOC-recognized Olympic sport, or is otherwise subject to a global sport governing body on the level of FIFA, and that body divides the sport by player-affliated nationality and they consistently and programmatically use flags as live and televised indicators of sporting nationality, then "yes", and only when adding flags is actually helpful to WP readers, which is mostly just in tables of sports data. The point isn't "it's sports-related, so insert flags everywhere", it's "very specific sport governing bodies like IOC and FIFA provably and reliably use flags in this way, to such an consistent extent than everyone understands it and follows along, and we need to do it here for a clear reason" otherwise it's just decoration for the sake of adding cutesy pictures. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 19:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If I was asking that, I'd have used some of those words, right? I'm not into flags everywhere, just results tables. And not because they're "cutesy" or because MMA is a sport. Flags are just a quicker way to convey info. Anyway, that debate is in the section below. Thanks for your thoughts. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

SMcCandlish are you saying that the World Pool-Billiard Association is a global sport governing body on the level of FIFA? yes, they are listed on the sport governing body page, but they aren't even the only Cue sports governing body listed on that page. By what standard are you deciding the "levels" of sports governing bodys? Kevlar (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

RFC on WP:MMA's use of Flag Icons in relation to MOS:FLAG

It was proposed, (I think on a now deleted talk page) and agreed that a wiki-wide RFC should be had on this issue, and that if it was the consensus of the wider wiki-community was to allow the use of flag icons in fight records in MMA articles then they could remain, however if there was no consensus or consensus was against there use they would be removed. I think it is now time to have that RFC.

Therefore :

Should WP:MMA be allowed to use flag icons in fight records, and info boxes on MMA articles even though on the whole MMA fighters do not compete in a national representative capacity, and they are being used to indicate country of origin or residence.

Mtking ^(edits) 01:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Since they are being used to indicate a person's place of birth or current residence and not a representative nationality in clear contradiction with the relevant section of the MOS. I would support there use on BIO articles were the subject has competed in a national representative capacity and said that representative capacity is supported by a source that meets WP:RS. Mtking ^(edits) 01:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I know little about the reporting culture around MMA, but would point out that the above is a highly selective reading of MOS:FLAG. The relevant section reads Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. Thus flags are permitted in two circumstances: representation, and pertinence. Mtking presents a case against MMA usage complying with the representation justification (which, within my paltry knowledge of the activity, seems fair enough) but totally ignores the pertinence argument. The purpose of the tables in question seems to be provision of information about contests: if in the reporting of such bouts it is standard practice to refer to nationality of participants, then the judgement of the reliable sources within the field would seem to be that nationality is pertinent. I have no particular interest in researching the matter further, but would suggest that the focus of debate be on the second clause: In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself. It would be for those defending flag use to prove that nationality is usually considered pertinent by those discussing and reporting on contests in reliable sources; it would be incumbent upon those arguing against inclusion of flags to illustrate that reporting in reliable sources does not generally consider the nationality of competitors to be pertinent. Kevin McE (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• I would oppose these flags. The little flag pictures seem to be decorative and put undue emphasis on nationality. They also lead to problems where real-world people do not fit into neat national pigeonholes. I see no reason for MMA to be exempt from rules that apply to the rest of en.wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support flags, to show citizenship (not nationality). Fighters do not officially represent any state, but it is interesting to some fans to know how many Canadians win at Canadian shows or how many Japanese a fighter has beat (or whichever country). The rule against "in a non-sporting sense" only applies to athletes who do represent a country, I think, to avoid potential confusion with their citizenship. Not applicable here. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Why or how is citizenship relevant in a sporting scene ? Considering throughout the rest of WP it is used in a sporting setting to indicate representation. Mtking ^(edits) 22:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If by "scene", you mean fight, it's a point of interest. Same as the location of the fight. Just adds another level of understanding of a fighter. Other sports have a whole other system, and have no bearing here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That response seems to be flawed on a number of levels. I would also point out that the "citizenship" is frequently unsourced (Should we systematically put unsourced and irrelevant labels on living people?) and even sometimes fictional. For instance, Invicta FC events puts a little picture of a saltire next to Joanne Calderwood and a St George's cross next to Danielle West, but there is no such thing as an English or a Scottish passport. Pages like that give the impression that citizenship (or some other vaguely understood national affiliation) is the most important thing about a person; what rot. That's why the torrent of little flag pictures must be stopped. bobrayner (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If a fighter's citizenship is unsourced, we should and could source it. If someone's from Wales or England, they get a UK flag. It's pretty simple. I don't think it implies "most important thing" at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Further to that, what happens if someone is born in the US to a Australian farther and a English mother, and lives in Germany which flag do you use ? Mtking ^(edits) 22:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Depends which one they're most commonly associated with or have stated a preference for. Particular cases may have other factors to consider. Is there any actual fighter you foresee a problem with? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Usually what happens is that an editor will feel that they have to put a flag next to the name, so either they'll use the UN flag (thinking that UN is a synonym for "multiple countries"), or they'll pick one relevant flag at random, or they'll photoshop a composite flag and put it in the article just like a real one. There are also editors who use the St George flag as though it means "white", the EU flag for "european", and so on. If the subject's first language is the name of a different country, that's another possible flag. You'd be surprised how inventive editors can be when the need to put a little flag picture next to a name surpasses the need for accuracy and relevance. bobrayner (talk) 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen that happen in an MMA article. Have you? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: InedibleHulk says "If someone's from Wales or England, they get a UK flag". Immediately below a link to an MMA article where the opposite has happened. Personally, I try to base my comments on the actual state of articles and the way that they're edited. If this RfC is going to be based in some kind of hypothetical alternate-reality, it's going to get out of hand very quickly. bobrayner (talk) 02:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I brainfarted on the Invicta FC link, and assumed you were talking about a football club and its players. It was an otherwise very British sentence. They should get a UK flag, then. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC) And now the UK flag exists in reality. I used the edit summary to advertise this RfC. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind adding a link to a WP:RS here for those flags as it may help to asses how significant they are. Mtking ^(edits) 02:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A source saying these fighters are British? Or a source saying the Union Jack is significant to them? No problem with the first one, but I wouldn't even know where to begin looking for the second or see why I should. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC) [5] [6]. These call Calderwood Scottish (the first article in the first word). I hope you're not going to play the synthesis card over deducing that makes her British. Danielle West is apparently American, moved to London in 2000 and is moving/moved to Singapore. I guess that flag's debatable. This one explicitly calls her a British fighter, and this one says the UK is her "adopted home". InedibleHulk (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think there are three things to consider here:

1) MOS:FLAG which states "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". Flag icons in these table only indicate the fighters' nationalities. The UFC does not, as yet, pit nation against nation, it is only individual fighters, who represent themselves, against other individual fighters. If it were to happen that some events were to be organized around national representation (like the reality series referenced in the section above) then those fights could be recorded in such a way as to indicate the nationality of the fighters involved (and most likely in a separate table like we do with many other sports). Fights are not reported as "Canada defeated the USA last night" but as "fighter A defeated fighter B". Points are not awarded to countries and records are not kept about which nation is doing the best. The fact that the national anthems are performed for the fighters means nothing as event organizers can play any music they want. Playing the national anthem at sporting events in the US is a tradition for all sports (like the NBA) but does mean that the players represent their countries in those events (like the NBA).

We should consider the intent of this rule, not only the words. Like I said above, this seems to be here to avoid confusion in articles about athletes who DO compete internationally. In those cases, the standardization makes sense, since legal citizenship is often different from representative nationality. But for MMA fighters, there is no danger of this confusion. So I doubt it applies here. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think if you read through the years of debate on this subject at the MOS Talk page it's pretty clear that the intent was to limit the use of flag icons. In the sportsperson section it makes very clear when flag icons should not be used "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense" and when they should be used "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality". There is absolutely no exception (stated or implied) here for sports that do not have these kinds of nationalistic competitions. The next line reads "Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise." which means that if flag icons are used in a table and a reader might mistake them for referring to nationality then there needs to be a note that states that the flags indicate representative nationality. This does not mean that it's OK to use a flag to represent nationality/citizenship for sports that do not have nationalistic competition. Nor is this implied. I honestly do not see how any kind of exception is implied in any of the text at MOS:FLAG or how the intent is anything other than to limit the use of flag icons to some kind of national representation (like with military people or national sports teams). SQGibbon (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't directly imply whether we should or shouldn't use flags for non-international athletes, but the phrase "indicate the sportsperson's...representative nationality" indicates to me that it is only talking about those who have a representative nationality. If it said "and only if they have one" afterwards, it'd be different. We could easily reverse the "if any confusion arises" part by noting that the flags in the table stand for citizenship, in this case. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am honestly trying to see how you get this interpretation of that text. It states clearly "Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense," I don't see how it can be any clearer. Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense. Never. And then it goes on "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" which gives us the two instances when flags are allowed and both are when the sportsperson represents their country. Nothing here states or implies that if the sportsperson does not represent a nation in the sporting sense then go ahead and use nationality/citizenship to determine which flag to use, in fact it states to "never" do this at all. Adding "and if only they have one" is completely unnecessary as the text tells us tells us when we can use flags. No qualifiers are needed. It tells us when not to use flags (to indicate nationality) and the only time we can use flags (represents a nation in a sporting sense). As I said, I'm trying to find a way to read this text to obtain your interpretation but I just don't see it. And as I said elsewhere, looking through the past discussions on the issue at that talk page, the intent was always to limit the use of flags. SQGibbon (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There's definitely a better way I can explain the subtleties to you, but I'm having trouble putting it into the right words. Until I can do that clearly, I'll concede my point. I know I have one, but it's not fair to you to have to argue against a case I can't adequately convey, or to me to force out a half-assed response. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

2. Pertinence and the additional information arguments. The tables we are talking about are records of the fights that take place. As such we should only mention the the things that are directly related (pertinent) to the outcome of the fights such as the opponent, the outcome (win/loss/draw), when it took place, and where. That we also mention how long the fight lasted and how it ended (TKO, punches, etc.) is not ideal to my mind but at least that information speaks directly to the outcome of the fight. Where someone is born does not speak directly to the outcome of a fight and therefore does not belong in a table that is solely devoted to reporting the outcomes of fights. We also do not mention the race of the fighters, their ethnicities, their hair color or the color of their skin. None of these things are directly relevant to the outcome of the fight. Some have argued that indicated nationality/citizenship is information that some people like to see. First, there is no policy or guideline that allows that supports going against established guidelines just because some people like it. In fact WP:CONLIMITED speaks directly against this. Second, I'm sure there's a lot more information that some readers would like to see like weight, height, arm reach, handedness, record at the time of the fight (for the opponent), age, style of fighting and so on. If we included all this information just because some readers like it then the tables would become so unwieldy that they'd be useless. Not to mention the endless arguments over which of these "pieces of information that some readers like" should be included. Basically none of them should; as above we should limit the information to what the table is about which is the outcome of these fights.

3) Flag icons paint a broad stroke on what can be a nuanced subject. You can have a fighter born in country A to father who is a citizen of country B whose mother is a citizen of country C and now lives and works and has attained citizenship in country D. Which of these flags would we use? There are no policy or guidelines to help us determine that answer so again there would be endless arguments on this with each new editor coming along having just as strong of an argument. What it would all come down to is nationalistic pride. "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride." (from MOS:FLAG). This information can and should be discussed in the articles about the fighters but does not belong in a table recording the outcome of a fight as it too easily leads to nationalistic pissing contests among editors. SQGibbon (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say from a perspective of refereeing WP:TROUBLES articles that this could be a serious problem if there are fighters from the island of Ireland. Outright wars have broken out over putting flags in infoboxes for professional boxers, where from my limited knowledge the situation is similar to MMA fighters. Barry McGuigan, born in Clones, boxed as an amateur for Northern Ireland at the Commonweath Games and for the Republic of Ireland at the Olympics, born a citizen of the Republic, took out British citizenship to compete for domestic titles in the UK. If you have any fighters with a backstory like that, save yourself the pain and don't put flags next to their names. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nationality can play an important role in MMA. Take UFC for example. There is a reason they try to use British fighters for events in the UK, Brazilian fighters for events in Brazil and Asian fighters for events in China / Japan. I realize that the use of flags might lead to some problems, though these are the exceptions, not the rule. For the vast majority of fighters, it's really easy to determine which flag to use. Tricky cases can be dealt with in an ad hoc manner. Evenfiel (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure nationality is important to MMA, the question is whether flag icons are needed in tables whose purpose is to report on the outcome of a fight. It is not pertinent. Also, it contradicts MOS:FLAG as has been stated above. Just because some people like it is not a good enough reason to violate Wikipedia guidelines. Also, I would assume that a big reason fighters fight in events in their home countries is because that's where they live. Obviously fans like to see home-town fighters as well but once again, fights are not scheduled as country A vs. Country B but as fighter A vs. fighter B therefore the requirements at MOS:FLAG are not being met. SQGibbon (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support In my opinion this whole issue comes down to representative nationality, and who determines it. As stated in MOS:FLAG#Appropriate_use "They are useful in articles about international sporting events to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationalities). Example: List of WPA World Nine-ball Champions." The use of flags in the table used as the example for appropriate use by MOS:FLAG uses the icons in literally the exact same way the MMA articles do. so the question is, what is the definition of "representative nationality". We all seem to agree that in MMA, there is no dispute between "representative nationality" and "legal nationality", but MOS:FLAG does not state that there MUST be a different, only that it may. This is answering the question "should we use flag A or flag B for John Doe" NOT "can we use a flag for John Doe". I do not know where to verify this, but i am guessing that in the eyes of the United States Government, Michael Phelps no more represents the United States than Randy Couture. To my knowledge neither have ever been an Ambassador of the United States. I would also guess that the in the eyes of the United States Government, the World Pool-Billiard Association are no more able to select representatives than Ultimate Fighting Championship. Can an individual them-self state, "i represent my nation in this competition", or can an promoter (example: The UFC) state, "This individual represents his home nation". If the answer to either question is yes, that flags in MMA articles are appropriate. in my opinion the answer to both questions is yes.

The phrase "representative nationality" has always been a tripping point in these debates. I think when analyzing the entire phrase "flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality" it's clear that "representative nationality" is supposed to be the parallel version of "national squad/team" but for individual sports. It wouldn't make sense to interpret this to mean that flag icons can only be used in team sports when the player is part of the national team but can be used in individual sports for national representation or nationality/citizenship. I'm sure the intent is to keep the same criterion for both team and individual sports. I think the key to understanding this is to look at how international events are organized as compared to MMA. At the Olympics or even World Championships (like in swimming) competitors are chosen by their respective countries' organizations to represent those nations. And the events themselves are presented as nation vs. nation as well as individual vs. individual. In MMA there are no organizations that determine that a fighter represents their nation at international events. Fights are scheduled according to the individual fighters and not based on their countries. It's like in boxing, at the Olympics country organizations choose which fighters will represent them at the Olympics. In professional boxing the fighters only represent themselves and it doesn't matter where they're from. You see this in other sports as well. In golf there is an international competition that might not be as formal-looking as the Olympics but at least the participants must meet the nationality requirements in order to be on the American or European team but the rest of the time they are just golfers competing for themselves and not representing any kind of nation-based organization. If MMA events were ever to be scheduled as nation vs. nation with fighters chosen to represent those nations then of course flag icons would be appropriate when creating tables to record the results of those events. But right now MMA events are not done this way therefore the use of flags contradicts MOS:FLAG. SQGibbon (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In boxing, i looked up Muhammad Ali where flags are not used for his opponents but are used next to the locations of the fights, of his opponents the following use flags in the exact way MMA articles do: Archie Moore, Bob Foster (boxer), Chuck Wepner, Earnie Shavers, Floyd Patterson, George Chuvalo, George Foreman, Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Young (boxer), Joe Bugner, Joe Frazier, Ken Norton, Larry Holmes, Leon Spinks, Oscar Bonavena, Richard Dunn (boxer), Ron Lyle, Sonny Liston, and Trevor Berbick.

In golf, the vast majority of tournaments either use flags in the exact way MMA articles do, or they list the flag and country in a seperate column. the use of flags in golf tournament articles seems to be more dependent on how much attention the article gets.

Kevlar (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that lots of sports projects use flag icons in ways that I think contradict MOS:FLAG. I was not implying, with my use of the examples of golf and boxing, that those Wikipedia projects follow the MoS nor was I using those projects to support my argument. Instead I was using those sports to illustrate how I think the MoS is meant to be followed (with respect to flags and national representation and so on). As a side note, I'm sure you are aware that just because some other project does something does not mean that it's OK for other projects to do the same thing especially if that action contradicts Wikipedia policies and guidelines. SQGibbon (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Words are clearer , X is from y, lived in z for 4 years and has a Aish Father. Little blurry pictures can convey the subtlety needed Gnevin (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment i thought it might help to do some digging to find where else this debate has popped up. links i have found so far: WP:MMA 1, WP:MMA 2, WP:MMA 3, WP:MMA 4, WP:MMA 5, WP:MMA 6, WP:MMA 7, WP:MMA 8, WP:MMA 9, MoS icons 1, and WP:football 1. Kevlar (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I think one way to reach consensus would be to propose a change to MoS:FLAG that reads something like the following. If it is accepted there, a lot of our confusion would go away.

Representative nationality is defined as being a member of a National sports team or competing in a sport governed by an international Sport governing body. Flags should only be used if the competition can be characterized as between two nations. When in 1964 The United States defeated Germany in Boxing at the Summer Olympics, Joe Frazier Vs. Hans Huber is correct. Yet when Muhammad Ali defeated Joe Frazier at the Thrilla in Manila flags would not be appropriate.Kevlar (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose This brings up confusion and is unneccesary decoration. It may be confusing to the reader. Vacation⁹ 12:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support My two cents on the topic is that most fighter's flags are rather obvious. Those who are more complex can have a discussion on the talk page to come to a consensus about which flag would be most accurate. Since this is an MOS issue and not a WP issue, consensus votes would be the best way to resolve individual issues. Luchuslu (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Since this is an MOS issue and not a WP issue" the MOS is (to quote the page) "Manual of Style (often abbreviated MoS or MOS) is a style guide for all Wikipedia articles, so it is a core guideline that each page should follow agreed wiki-wide. It does acknowledged that "it will have occasional exceptions" but know one has explained why these purely decorative icons should be an exception, everyware else on WP when they are used for a sport-person they denote national representation, here they do not, they indicate citizenship, and in some cases for (example Cung Le) the view of the promoter. So IMO any exception to the MOS would be very confusing. Mtking ^(edits) 23:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:GUIDES: Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. IMO there isn't a consensus on the issue, so I offered my opinion to contribute the the overall rebuilding of the guideline. I feel it is flawed in its current state and not based on the current consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luchuslu (talk • contribs) 00:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but there is wiki-wide community consensus on the MOS, WP:CONLIMITED is clear on cases like this; this project CANNOT decided that the MOS does not apply in relation to the use of flags to articles under it's purview. Mtking ^(edits)

WP:CONLIMITED applies when a small group of editors try to change Wiki policy that the vast majority accept. Just look at the comments this topic has had over multiple years. On the specific topic of flags in Mixed Martial Arts, there is NOT a consensus. I am only arguing that there should be a standard based on consensus in WP:MMA for flag usage. Luchuslu (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

while i agree that MoS is built with wiki community consensus, to say that there is consensus on this issue is absurd. The difference between the use of flags in MMA articles and the use in MOS:FLAG#Appropriate_use appears to be either totally semantic or the product of two different sports organization styles. above i put together a paragraph that i believe illustrates the view of those who oppose, which got no response. Consensus Kevlar (talk) 03:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment In case anyone is in doubt as to why this is a problem, we have the case of Cung Le, in one day (today) we have had 3 different flags used against his name , and (at one point the same page had two different flags against this guys name), any attempt to remove the flags citing WP:BLP as the use of or are both unsourced to reliable sources was reverted. Mtking ^(edits) 11:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a straw man argument. For every Cung Le around we have loads of fighters that would not pose any problem. For example, I don't think that we would have the same issue with any other UFC fighter. Evenfiel (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

it was not an argument it was an observation, no it is not an isolated problem, an other example from the very same day this time the icon for John Maguire was repeatability changed from to and back again. Mtking ^(edits) 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I added a source to a few Cung Le American flags (and his article). A few editors stlll don't get it, but this does seem like a rather isolated situation. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, for reasons I've already given in detail. Short version: The fact that not all MMA athletes are American does not mean we need to festoon articles with cutesy flag pictures. MMA does not publicly, consistently, programmatically rely on iconic flag imagery, in a well-documented way, in its broadcasts and publications as a means of identifying participants in a strongly nationalistic manner, the way the IOC and FIFA do. This is not a "MMA is a 'real' sport so we get to have our pretty flag icons too" debate, and any attempt to turn it into one is both childish and completely missing the point. WP:FLAG already disparages use of flag icons in sporting-related articles even if they are FIFA or IOC, because they inevitably lead to confusion (e.g. in the common case that an athlete's sporting nationality doesn't match their birthplace). Don't make the matter worse. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG does not in any way disparages use of flag icons in sporting-related articles. see MOS:FLAG#Appropriate_use. Kevlar (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

well it does say :

• They are useful in articles about international sporting events to show the representative nationality of players (which may differ from their legal nationalities).

and it is agreed that MMA don't fight in a representative capacity. Mtking ^(edits) 19:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Just like boxers do not fight in representative capacity, though flags tend to be used as well. Evenfiel (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Try telling the 1968 Mexico City Olympic Heavyweight Gold medallist that boxers don't fight in representative capacity. Mtking ^(edits) 00:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

You are aware that most boxing matches happen outside Olympic games (ie: where fighters do not represent a country), right? The usage of flags in sports where no country is represented seems to be widely accepted. Formula 1 is another example for you. Evenfiel (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Off topic comments on FIA

Glad you mentioned Formula 1, because in fact if you read the F1 rules you will see that both drivers and teams are licensed by there National Sporting Authority (ASN) and they are in fact representing there National ASN when they compete. Further to that if you read the 2012 International Sporting Code you will see, that to race in any FIA saction race a driver must apply for a licence from their ASN and there flag as published by the FIA is the flag of that ASN. Mtking (edits) 03:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Mtking, please stop pretending to cite sporting regs which you've obviously never read. Anyone who's seen the relevant section of both docs should be aware that direct sanctioning by the ASN is only relevant in national events and that international races ie. F1 are regulated by the FIA itself. Driver FIA superlicences is routed respective ASNs as a matter of paperwork, but drivers don't "represent" anyone except perhaps as honorifics since they mostly all work in Britain and live in Switzerland. Agent00f (talk) 07:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Have a look the decisions of the FIA International Court of Appeal, you will see that cases are lodged by ASN's "on behalf of its competitor", including for example this one. This is now going of topic so any future replies will be hatted. Mtking (edits) 08:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC) The deletionist crowd violating TALKO by hatting whatever's inconvenient to them is nothing new. It's pretty amusing that focus was shifted to wording of press releases instead of FIA's own rulebook on the matter now that the falsehood was caught. Agent00f (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC) No falsehood, just using the press release to demonstrate the actual reality; hatting appropriate as this is not off topic. Mtking (edits) 08:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Leaving the false F1 statements out of the hat while hiding the statement that what's said doesn't at all reflect the sporting regs is quite dishonest. Agent00f (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the number 1 thing you do to make MMA articles better?

here's what i'm sending to editors who haven't listed themselves as participants.

Thanks so much for contributing to Wikipedia, last month we collectively made 977 edits to MMA articles. Did you know there is a WikiProject dedicated to Mixed Martial Arts? Check out WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Feel free to sign up on the Participants page! This month we have a survey for new and existing members, What is the number 1 thing you do to make MMA articles better? Kevlar (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

and here's what new members this month will see.

Wow! 15 new members in October! Welcome CarlosB2709, ComputerJA, De132Wiki, Dolson94, I remember halloween, Miufus, MMAcleanup, Onebadtown, Poison Whiskey, Rissx, RonSigPi, Stewwie, TheAmazingChandler, Willdawg111, and WilsonFiskUFC. Posting this to your talk pages and PW:MMA Talk page. This month we have a survey for new and existing members, What is the number 1 thing you do to make MMA articles better? Kevlar (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

who want's to get the ball rolling on what they do to make MMA articles better?

See WP:CANVASS, WP:USERTALK, etc. Badgering people who happen to have edited an article you personally think is MMA-related is not the way to go about this. Just put {{WikiProject MMA}} on the article talk page, and anyone who is actually interested in such a wikiproject will line right up. Spamming people's talk pages just because they hit your watchlist is not cool. PS: Sport and [non-trademarked] game names are not capitalized; it's "mixed martial arts", not "Mixed Martial Arts", just like we engage in "basketball", "triathlon", "chess", "swimming" and "poker". Wikipedia does not capitalize random nouns and noun phrases to make them seem more important; this is English, not German. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 20:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am genuinely sorry if i have bothered anyone by posting messages to their talk pages. It wasn't my intent in any way. I have done my best to only ever post a total of 2 messages to their talk pages. 1 if the edit a mma article (if you're wondering i get the list of editors from page). 2 if they join the wikiproject i send them a second message welcoming them to the group. As you can see by visiting the participants history page, from January 1 to August 11 there were 7 new members who joined. From September to now there have been 22 new members. if you feel there is anything we as a wikiproject can do to attract more members, i would be happy to follow your lead. two things i would like to point out. 1) from WP:CANVASS it states: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." i think this is what i have been doing as i have not asked anyone to join on either side of a debate. 2) at the time of me writing this you have 4 comments on this page. 2 of the 4 you yourself capitalize mma. It's a common mistake people make. I think it would be better for everyone involved if we all scaled back the negativity. Kevlar (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"MMA" should be capitalized. "Mixed martial arts", no. Your recruitment drive seems fine to me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for help

I recently created an article for world champion kickboxer and professional mixed martial artist Marcio Navarro and I was wanting to add a pronunciation of his last name because it's not pronounced how it's spelled and I've always had trouble with the phonetic alphabet so I was wondering if someone could do it for me. Navarro is pronounced like Nah-vah-hoe. Here's a link to one of his fights on youtube with an announcer in case you have trouble figuring it out the way I wrote it.--Rockchalk717 07:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey, i don't know how to do this but i think it's a great idea. i think everyone's a bit tied up in the flag debate. Sorry for the lack of response. Kevlar (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm free, but I'm also useless when it comes to phonetics. Perhaps you should check out the talk page or edit history of International Phonetic Alphabet for an editor who seems like they know their stuff, then ask for help on their talk page. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind that, found someone myself. Thanks, Kwami! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I noticed somebody added it. I appreciate it.--Rockchalk717 08:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC 155

If someone is willing to recreate or merge the article into a list later, i've copied it to my sandbox. I don't (usually) create or update the events articles, so anyone who wants, feel free to do it. Poison Whiskey (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

"Vs" versus "Vs."

I've noticed the UFC card articles tend to use a period after "vs", but the official posters do not. I get that this is one of those words that can go either way, depending on the writer, but shouldn't we be echoing the primary source, regardless of personal preference? I think so, but figured I'd look for consensus before moving the pages. What say you, Wikiproject? InedibleHulk (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I realize that this WikiProject likes to ignore the MOS, but it states that a period should follow the 'shortening' of the work "versus". --TreyGeek (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we generally realize the guidelines aren't set in stone, and should be used with human judgment. Not the same as ignoring. Anyway, we're not shortening the word, in this case, just transcribing it (already shortened) from a poster. This policy seems to be intended for original writing. If we were to mention the fight itself (not the show name) in the article, for instance. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow WP:MOS on this. Making up weird rationalizations like "we're just transcribing" (from your personally favored sources that conflict with other equally reliable sources) is WP:BOLLOCKS. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ   Contrib. 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a matter of personal preference. The posters that UFC designed to promote the shows they created and named just seem like the most authoritative sources. If you find my rationalization weird, try reading it again. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

This right here is why this project has such a poor reputation on the wiki, rather than just accepting core MOS guidelines, the project collectively sticks two fingers up and says we plan to ignore anything that gets in the way of presenting articles exactly how we want to, be it "Vs" versus "Vs.", flag icons, ignoring BLP "'cos the UFC does it that way" or WP:NOT does not apply "'cos MMA is not like any other sport". Mtking ^(edits) 19:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. I'm not a member of this Wikiproject and do not represent it when I type. My proposal here is to change one way this Wikiproject does things. Back on topic, I didn't ignore the MoS. The section TreyGeek linked to deals with shortening words. In this case, we're not shortening "versus". That's already been done by the primary source. Titles of works don't always follow Wikipedia's MoS (C U When U Get There, for example). The most relevant guideline here is probably WP:Naming conventions (television) (or WP:TITLE), though I can't find the part where it explicitly says we should call shows what the creator calls them. I think that probably goes without saying. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll commit argument suicide by pointing out that UFC's official website uses a period for all events (in text), and that its exclusion from the posters is apparently purely aesthetic. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

You're trying to apply a standard when there is no universal standard!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.244.95 (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Locations on MMA records

What if we make MMA records look more like Boxing records? Specifically the location. I think it'd look more specific, legitimate, and 'complete'. For instance instead of City, State/Provence/District, Country how about Arena, City, State/Provence/District. Also I know the whole flag thing has probably already been discussed a lot, but I think they add a nice visual appeal. Plus, if we add have the flags in we wouldn't have to write down the country. So it would work itself out. :) Or maybe because the MMA fighters "don't necessarily represent their country of origin" we could get rid of them but keep the flag on the location?

Thanks for considering everyone! No harm in having it this way I figure.

ex.

Boxing:

MMA:

Res.	Record	Opponent	Method	Event	Date	Round	Time	Location	Notes
Win	17–1	Vitor Belfort	Submission (keylock)	UFC 152	September 22, 2012	4	0:54	Toronto, Ontario, Canada	Defended UFC Light Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Night.

-->

Res.	Record	Opponent	Method	Event	Date	Round	Time	Location	Notes
Win	17–1	Vitor Belfort	Submission (keylock)	UFC 152	September 22, 2012	4	0:54	Air Canada Centre, Toronto, Ontario	Defended UFC Light Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Night.

Res.	Record	Opponent	Method	Event	Date	Round	Time	Location	Notes
Win	17–1	Vitor Belfort	Submission (keylock)	UFC 152	September 22, 2012	4	0:54	Air Canada Centre, Toronto, Ontario	Defended UFC Light Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Night.

Although i see your point, adding more flags to MMA articles for better or worse at this point would be the equivalent of poking a bees nest. something i would like to see in MMA Record boxes would be the addition of weight classes. also adding either inline citation or putting citations in the notes sections. Result Record Weight Class Opponent Method Event Date Round Time Location Notes Win 17–1 Light Heavyweight Vitor Belfort Submission (keylock) UFC 152 September 22, 2012 4 0:54 Toronto, Ontario, Canada Defended UFC Light Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Night. or Result Record Weight Class Opponent Method Event Date Round Time Location Notes References Win 17–1 Light Heavyweight Vitor Belfort Submission (keylock) UFC 152 September 22, 2012 4 0:54 Toronto, Ontario, Canada Defended UFC Light Heavyweight Championship; Submission of the Night. Kevlar (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the arena idea, but think the weight class column is too much. Sufficient to note it once in the first fight's notes column, then note any weight changes there if/when they happen. Otherwise we'll have 20 "Light Heavyweights" in a row, for some folks. Better to just let readers assume he's still fighting at his usual weight, until stated otherwise. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't forget that many fights in MMA's earlier days weren't under strict weight classes. Technically, most of the fights in PRIDE were "openweight" outside of title bouts and tourmanents. Adding weight classes could get a bit complicated, I favor noting changes in weight classes in the notes column like we've been doing for a while. Luchuslu (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Lukeh15 (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

new WP:Mma page /sources

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/sources

I am hoping this will be a good place to discuss and share quality sources. I also placed it below the Article improvement drive in the WP:MMA header Kevlar (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 in UFC

I am going to start this page - see User:Oskar Liljeblad/2012 in UFC - if there are no objections. I am doing this to prevent further data loss on Wikipedia in case more UFC articles are deleted (which unfortunately seems likely due to overzealous editors/admins). Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

There is already a List of UFC events in 2012. I think it would be better to add your info to that article, instead of replacing it. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Good job Oskar, that was exactly what i had in my mind. But please, don't make any change yet. Let's first reach a consensus here to avoid more AfD discussions. Poison Whiskey 01:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting something like the original attempt at a 2012 in UFC article? It's alright until people want to throw full fight cards, payouts, bonus awards and the kitchen sink into the summaries. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I would support this, mindful of WP:BEANS, I think it may be wise to consider a DRV on 2012 in UFC events, not doing so could leave the article vulnerable to CSD G5. Again for the record I would support the restoration 2012 in UFC events at any DRV as a venue to summarise UFC MMA events. Mtking ^(edits) 09:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For me, "List of Something in Year" is a summarization of articles/abbreviation of information most likely existing elsewhere on Wikipedia. "Something in Year" is shorter and better applicable in this case - the article will hold all information on events previously deleted, from background to results and bonus payouts. (TreyGeek: Do you realize that that information will be lost otherwise? If you think each UFC event deserves an article of its own you are fighting an uphill battle.) And I'd rather call it 2012 in UFC than 2012 in UFC events because it would list other UFC happenings in 2012 as well as events (e.g. The Ultimate Fighter seasons). With 2012 in UFC I don't see any point in List of UFC events in 2012, but I still think List of UFC events deserves a place. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Oskar, you are pretty new to the situation so I don't fault you for being uninformed. I absolutely do not agree that every UFC event deserves its own article. Earlier this year, during the last wave of deletions, it was proposed by a number of people, admins included, to roll the various event articles into a yearly omnibus. The omnibus article would summarize the year in UFC events. I wrote the initial draft of 2012 in UFC events (an early version of that draft is in my sandbox here. However, people complained that it didn't include the full fight card results (even though that information is readily available from Sherdog and other stat sites) so that was added in. People complained that payouts weren't listed, so that was added in. People complained that event posters weren't being included, so that was added in. So much more information, outside of a summary of the event, was added into the omnibus article it became unworkable. I'll reiterate my stance. Not every UFC event should have a stand-alone article. A yearly omnibus article (thought perhaps by splitting out the "on Fox", "on FX", "on Fuel TV" events into their own omnibus article) summarizing the events (not discussing with great detail and with full stats and data) is a good option, in my not so humble opinion. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The basic reality that there's too much relevant info for a single page should be a sign to consider a better format, not one that people aren't being beaten enough to love the omnibus. For example, the card result for an event links cause-effect for the ladder (ie linked directly from bios). I don't blame people for not knowing how the information is used, but I've explained this in the past and thought that you understood this rather simple reasoning, so it's disappointing for it keep cropping back up anew. Agent00f (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I just want to reiterated to Oskar Liljeblad that the community already tried something like that it created such a huge backlash that the page was deleted. Evenfiel (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC on Mtking

Who would like to help draft a user conduct RfC on Mtking? --Good MMA Editor (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Not you, because I've just indefinitely blocked you as yet another MMA sock. Seriously, to genuine MMA editors, are not this parade of socks reflecting badly on you? Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

For me, yes. I can just ask to whoever is doing this, please stop and calm down. Do something else or just stay away from the PC for a while. Let's solve it the right way. Poison Whiskey 19:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I really hope we can move from argument/debate to conversation/consensus. I do not agree with Mtking on the flags or AfDs either, but we can't win the 'debate' with him, we need to join the conversation. Without diligent editors, articles stagnate. With the AfDs let's 'prove him wrong' by citing more sources and bringing as many or all of the UFC event articles up to a higher standard. We're all here looking to contribute anyway, who loses in that situation, no one. As for socks or any other attempts at circumventing the rules, that's terribly counterproductive. Kevlar (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the deletions happen without any regard to the quality of the article. Currently, they can be 10 pages+ long with 100+ refs and a given admin will still delete due to "WP:NOT" with no further explanation. I pushed pretty hard for a brightline test for inclusion, and you can guess the reception from deletion advocates to the idea that editors can do something to make sure their work won't be arbitrarily deleted. Agent00f (talk) 03:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Such is the nature of WP:NOT. I could write an article with 100+ refs on every single match that the football team I support plays, but they still wouldn't pass that policy. So, instead, the info goes here. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the deletion of 2012 in UFC events and so on was the stupidest idea ever. Now, when articles are deleted (and given that a hell of a lot of them fail WP:NOT, there is every possibility that this may be a lot of them) there is nowhere for the information to be merged. Black Kite (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As noted at deletion review and about a few dozen times previous, UFC events are unlike single match, and deleting events of this nature is unprecedented in sports on wiki (ie apparently limited only to MMA given they fail elsewhere). I suppose the reason why is rather obvious. It's very unclear why these trivially true and uncontested facts need to be repeated again and again as if we're dealing with an unteachable audience. Agent00f (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not just MMA anymore. He's also trying to lay the smackdown on Survivor Series (and a couple of others). I'm not complaining, just pointing it out. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't make the mistake of believing that Mtking is the only person who wants UFC articles gone. Many editors and some admins agree with him that the events are just not notable enough to deserve separate articles. No matter how many championship bouts there is in an event, no matter how many references you come up with, they can always argue that it is just routine coverage and is not sufficient for notability. So IHMO it's an uphill battle until at least we can come up with a set up notability guidelines for MMA events... Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that "routine" guideline needs work. Following it literally, everything the British Royal Family has ever staged is routine and should be deleted. At least UFC coverage doesn't go over what they'll show you and talk about, minute-by-minute, a week before the event happens. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not MtKing's noms. In any case they'll likely fail just like they do for anything else in sport, yet the deletion drama for equivalent pages in MMA continues regardless. Agent00f (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that not every MMA event is notable, and therefore worthy of it's own article. The way we have agreed to determine if an event is routine coverage or not is if it meets the criteria for Individual Events. If an article cites no sources is put up for AfD review and no one works to improve the article, it should be deleted. If an article is up for AfD review and editors are able to demonstrate with citation that it meets the guidelines in Individual Events, it should stay. If even after the citation is added people continue to advocate that it be deleted then i would question their motives in the same way that i would question anyone who says an article with 0 sources should stay. Kevlar (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Have a re-read of Black Kite's comments above, sources are not the issue here, every MMA event will have sources, some of them will be from very reliable sources, most (if not all) MMA events will meet WP:GNG, I will repeat in case you missed it, most MMA events will meet WP:GNG, but and it is a big but, made clear at the top of the GNG page, meeting the GNG is not a guarantee a subject should be included in the encyclopedia, in the case of sports events in general, while newsworthy, the vast majority are not of any lasting significance, most happen, get reported on and forgotten. Mtking ^(edits) 22:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This claim's been repeat and refuted at least few dozen times before. These pages are referenced ~10K+ a month long after the event is over so the argue fail by default: "not of any lasting significance, most happen, get reported on and forgotten". Eg. UFC 145. Not that factual evidence's ever stopped parroting false claims over and over. Agent00f (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

UFC "pick a number" in my opinion is not a run of the mill event in the scope of MMA, it clearly is in the scope of the UFC. As i said below, this is not WP:UFC the standard is not is this a 'notable UFC event' the standard is 'is this a notable event'. The way that we demonstrate that an event is notable is by pointing out that article is still talking about UFC 37, 7 years after it happened. The number of page references just doesn't matter. Kevlar (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

People continuing to read about an event well after it's over is tautological evidence of its enduring significance. Agent00f (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, i agree 100% that not all sporting events have lasting significance. I'm not even making the case that all UFC events have lasting significance. This is not WP:UFC, this is WP:MMA. Currently the UFC is the most watched/followed/known about brand in the sport. It is far more likely that a UFC event has lasting significance than most other MMA promotions. If you look at Anderson Silva, he is without a doubt one of the most well known people in MMA at this time, yet almost half (15 of 37) of the events listed in his record do not have their own articles. People clearly accept that having one of the most famous fighters in an event does not make it notable. What i'm saying is that we have agreed as to how you determine if something is notable. A much higher number of UFC events will meet that criteria, if they all don't then they all don't. Right now, as the articles stand Mtking, is 100% right that a large number of them do not meet the standard put forward Individual Events. If people want to argue and not put forth the work to improve the articles i can't support them. On the other hand, we shouldn't move the bar if an article, or group of articles, are improved to the point of meeting that standard. I don't want the current UFC articles, i want UFC articles that make the cut, if UFC "pick a number" simply can not be improved it should be removed or merged. Perhaps i'm late to this conversation, but it seems like up until now it's a debate between 2 sides. side 1) keep crappy articles because the crappy articles represent a subject that i know in my heart is worthy, and side 2) every so often i'm going to nominate a group of articles for AfD because the should (and i'm saying Mtking is right here) be removed. i'm trying to plead for option 3, make the articles AfD proof by following the standard set. Kevlar (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

You continue to reference a "bar" as if one actually existed, when the very idea of any sort of bar was shot down by predictable parties for obvious reasons. Given that even fairly quality entries have been up for AfD in the past by the same people using the same trivially refuted arguments, this seem like a poor assumption. Agent00f (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"People clearly accept that having one of the most famous fighters in an event does not make it notable." This shows that the MMA community recognize that what is important is the MMA organization behind the events. UFC is just so much more important than other organizations that most people consider an UFC event as inherently notable. Evenfiel (talk) 00:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

To add to this point, the same guidelines for notability exists for other sports like Tennis which considers ATP to be inherently so. We did try to add similar guidelines for MMA to end the most egregious AfDs, but this was stopped by the deletionists who controlled the process for the sport at the time (yes this conflict of interest is as ridiculous as it sound). Agent00f (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)