Mixed martial arts Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mixed martial arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Mixed martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Mixed martial artsmixed martial arts articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Readers of the page history will observe many edits before 25 December, when this edit was made. UFC 157 was created several months ago and deleted at AFD. At his request, the content was undeleted and moved to Oskar Liljeblad's userspace; using its information, Oskar created this page. Some time later, as a result of a deletion review, the UFC 157 history was undeleted and histmerged here. Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should be separated as they are distinct events. Or at least UFC on Fox should have a separate page with all Fox and FX events, normal UFC events should be separate pages, and any other network based events should have their own page. Having to parse this mess is very difficult and makes zero sense. 50.125.167.6 (talk) 21:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to improve the UFC on Fox event sections and propose a split out once they've been expanded and well sourced to the levels of the general wikipedia consensus. The reason why they are here is that they would not have enough verifyble content to stand on their own alone. The flip of this is that UFC is notable, and by doing a YEAR in UFC we can provide shelter for events that were in danger on their own while retaining a event to event progression to see how things move forward. I originally thought breaking into sub articles might be better, but I now see that the events that happen at a UFC numbered event have an impact on UFC events that are specialized (On Fox, FX, Japan, TUF, etc.). Hasteur (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is going to be sorted/grouped by year in wikipedia, then let's at least use that set-up to assist in finding stuff, which is currently too difficult. - Date is the only thing driving this layout. Therefore, the date should be as prominent as the event title. Currently, it is buried in the text. Since there are multiple types of events all mashed together (PPV, Fox, FX, TUF, etc.), finding the correct one isn't as easy as looking at the number. (Conversely, if only the PPV events were on the page, then it would be since every listing would be the next chronological number.) - Make a calendar at the top of the article with all twelve months where each day with an event is highlighted & hyperlinked to the location of that event. Real people in the real world use wikipedia to get info on upcoming fights (or at least they used to--the wiki page has fallen off the usual google searches, so it appears that fewer people find it useful). Making it very simple for them to go to the date (particularly through a calendar interface) will improve the useability of this format. I would do it myself, but I don't have the wiki skills to do it, and honestly, I have no desire to get sucked into the pissing contest which has become UFC on wiki. 206.83.48.110 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2013 in UFC's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Fuel9":

• From Gegard Mousasi: Ariel Helwani (January 19, 2013). "Alexander Gustafsson vs. Gegard Mousasi slated for April in Sweden". mmafighting.com.
• From UFC on Fuel TV: Gustafsson vs. Mousasi: Ariel Helwani (2013-01-19). "Alexander Gustafsson vs. Gegard Mousasi slated for April in Sweden". mmafighting.com. Retrieved 2013-01-19.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a huge problem in 2012 and I thought it was finally resolved. Who is responsible for bringing this back? Yohaka (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of many event articles is a huge problem and this is the solution. See the many discussions on WT:MMA. Ravensfire (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at this article, I can see why the earlier omnibus articles caused such grief. It's far from done, but isn't User:Kww/UFC2013 closer to what you guys want to have? A big sortable table that shows who fought who, when and where they did it, and what happened? This article isn't an "omnibus", it's just a bunch of little stubby articles jammed together.—Kww(talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to extend a notability umbrella over stub articles that have a greater chance of being deleted. It recieved a significant buy in by multiple editors so we decided to go ahead and implement. Hasteur (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This format makes them useless, though. It's the reason you get stuck in the cycle of people fighting to have independent articles and the rest of the community putting you under discretionary sanctions and deleting and merging things. If you are going to have an omnibus article, you need to plan out the best way to have an omnibus, not try to format them to make it easy to split out the one or two events that will actually ever meet all the requirements for being standalone and making 99% of them hard to deal with.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This I would agree with. Ravensfire (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the draft I worked up at User:Kww/UFC2013. It's not perfect, or even done, but I think it's a lot better start than this.—Kww(talk) 22:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Okay, maybe expound a bit on my simple reply. If (huge, massive if) we can get some clear event notability guidelines out there, Kww's comment becomes especially true. Personally, I think most events aren't that notable. There needs to be something unusual about them first. That's easier in some sports than others, with newer (upstart?) sports having more trouble than more established sports. I think the desire from some to see articles for all events makes something along the lines of what Kww envisions difficult to implement, even if it conveys the exact same information in a more readable manner. Hmmm, popped some ideas in my head that I need to experiment with.

BTW - I looked at your page, Kww. I'm not totally sure I like having the massive results table if only because that could get extremely unwieldy. I like the idea (and personally would be interested to see a List of UFC Fights in XXXX would be possible or informative) but for an annual article I'm just not sure about it being there. The overall format and layout looks interesting. Ravensfire (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are trying to do is aggregate the information in the event articles and the omnibus (2012/2013 in UFC), and produce something else. To me, it seems your formats assume that there is a separate article for every event. Don't think for two seconds that AfD outcomes are going to be different just because some users, like Mtking, are gone. The article deletions is what made us create this page in the first place. In my opinion, this is the only way to move forward. It is good for everyone if individual articles and the omnibus look the same. Especially if the event just contains an infobox, some event card/results table, and a little info about cancelled bouts, like most of the events on 2013 in UFC. osklil talk 08:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason seperate articles for individual UFC events should be deleted. These are events attended by thousands of people. There is also a strong historical precedent of allowing these individual articles. Individual UFC event articles have been around since the beginning of Wikipedia. These omnibus articles are horrific to look at. Yohaka (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't think for two seconds that AfD outcomes are going to be different just because some users, like Mtking, are gone." I'm entitled to my own thoughts, thanks. One of them is that if the primary impetus for the AfD campaign is gone that would certainly would change outcomes, especially if the allegations of sockpuppetry were accurate. "The article deletions is what made us create this page in the first place. In my opinion, this is the only way to move forward." The only way? We can't ever go back? That idea seems absolutely antithetical to the core of wikipedia. Of course we can move forward in many different ways. When we make mistakes they can be corrected. I'll say it again: individual UFC articles are much more popular than Super Bowls (http://stats.grok.se/) and deleting them on notability concerns is not just laughable, it's bananas.66.162.252.10 (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only that claim was true ... see Super Bowl XLVII vs UFC 156 as the next iteration of each event. Whoops. Even going back a few interations. Whoops. And let's also ignore the countless uninvolved admins that have pointed out the notability problems for MMA articles. *sigh* Not even sure why I bothered ... Ravensfire (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each and every UFC event is notable. This is a sport followed by millions of fans. Yohaka (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Based on the general consensus from both inside and out, not every UFC event is notable. Each time this argument gets brought up it's backed up by the same tired arguments of WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:NOHARM, WP:VALINFO, WP:GHITS, WP:SUPPORT, WP:ASZ, WP:IKNOWIT, WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:INHERITED, WP:EFFORT, WP:ATTP, WP:NOTAGAIN. Seem like insurmountable policy arguments? Perhaps that's because the unified article as well reasoned arguments for each of those cases, where the individual event articles rarely (if ever) have responses to these arguments. Hasteur (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, this article is virtually impossible to read on mobile. This is a huge problem for those who want to look at the history of an individual UFC event while on their phone.Yohaka (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a debate to have with the mobile access group (Wikipedia:MOBILE) about why does the stylesheet not do things nicely. The page size isn't that bad and it's not unreasonable to navigate. This argument for splitting has been offered multiple times in the past and every single time, it gets pointed out that the mobile preferred version (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_in_UFC) is easily navigable and viewable. Hasteur (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What needs to be split is future UFC events and events less than two weeks old from past UFC events.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The setup is a total mess now; put it back to individual pages for each event. It was simple to navigate with the now and next events listed in the information bar. If you really want an "events in UFC 2013" page, just list the events with hyperlinks to each individual event article. You guys realise there's going to be 50 odd events this year, right? As much as anything, it's impractical having them all on a single page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.105.111 (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that the setup is a total mess. I once again draw people's attention to User:Kww/UFC2013 as a prototype. Not perfect, but much better than this.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly use wikipedia for the MMA info, and I have to say the big yearly summaries are just useless. I get that this is a much discussed topic, and i do not want to enter all the wikipedia politics. But looking at this suggestion User:Kww/UFC2013, I really don't see how a yearly summary may ever be comparable to the split events. Just to throw in a my opinion, split events are useful and easy to navigate. The alternative is a big messy article that I personally won't use.

I'm sorry Kww, but I don't think your page with the huge table with repeated data (the event names) is an improvement over the current 2013 in UFC page. It's going to look even worse on small screen devices. osklil talk 18:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing is that the editors who push for omnibus articles are the ones that have no interest in reading, editing, maintaining, or updating articles, and dont even have an interest in the subject. Portillo (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it seems everyone is complaining about the current format, it is undeniable that there is NOT consensus in favor of it. 206.83.48.110 (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny to see that someone who doesn't care to log in (or register) has determined there is not consensus... Perhaps you should better go to WP:MMA since the format change involved multiple articles. And I don't agree with your conclusion. osklil talk 18:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that a deletionist complains about someone who does not want to sign up for an account. Relax and allow non account holders to continue creating the UFC and MMA pages please. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy 70.127.227.92 (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong. Osklil is not a deletionsit, he just tries to save info which gets deleted in this omnibus article. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Jardine's loss is not a Knee Bar. It was a Hamstring Stretch submission. I take Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and there was no knee bar. 71.94.20.219 (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I completely agree with you, but if you don't provide a reliable source we can't do nothing. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed it to leglock. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.mmafighting.com/2013/2/24/4023604/ufc-157-bonuses-robbie-lawler-kenny-robertson-dennis-bermudez-and "a modified hamstring crank ".109.64.0.29 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. GoingBatty (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such articles as this are referring to the main event as "the most historically significant fight of the year" even "20 years from now" and it received mainstream coverage: "SportsCenter was Tweeting all night about the fight. They’ve never done that before. It was on the front page of CNN, Sports Illustrated.com". How on earth could this article be deleted? --24.112.187.219 (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - But first we should add more third party sources to the article. --LlamaAl (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I'm a little late, but since the article hasn't been created yet, I figure I'd chime in. With all the mainstream coverage focusing on the historical significance of the event in the weeks leading up to it, even the most ardent deletionist would have a hard time making a WP:ROUTINE argument. The article definitely needs to be better sourced, though, with more prose describing the significance. CaSJer (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and make the article. Portillo (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: What coverage about UFC 157 in mainstream sources is substantially different in nature or intensity than the coverage about earlier UFC events? If WP:ROUTINE isn't a problem, that question should be easily answered.—Kww(talk) 18:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few that go into detail on the historic nature of the first women's fight in the UFC and the positive impact on the future of women's MMA, in addition to the usual routine results: [1], [2], [3]. I could find more similar ones if you wanted me to. I'm honestly curious since you're about as strict as they come in applying WP:ROUTINE - do you consider that to be enough to demonstrate there's more there than the typical sports reporting? CaSJer (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline. I'd have no argument including that material in Ronda Rousey, but the out-of-the-norm coverage all seems to focus on her. Doesn't the New York Post run a recap of every UFC event?—Kww(talk) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I was just going to post about this. UFC 157 featured a title fight (not to mention a historic title fight) so I see no reason why it does not have its own page. In fact, I see no reason why it didn't have its own page in the first place, it was known months in advance that this would be a notable event. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 20:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like how the UFC events are now organized---much more efficient. One thing that is missing are the purses/pay outs for the night. That used to be on the old version of the 72.48.160.154 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)articles. Why is that gone now? Of course I want to know how much money they get paid![reply]

And yes, I did look to see if this was already brought up. I apologize if it was and I missed it. I'm new to this so don't hound me.

Kyle (Did I do the signature thing right?)

Rankings and stats are an official part of the UFC now and should be included.

Official Rankings

This is great, but this information should (and is going to; see WT:MMA) appear in the fighters' biographies, not here. Also we need a source. --LlamaAl (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted that an edit war has broken out on this page. I need to state two things:

1. The images being used are an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC, specifically WP:NFCC#8
2. Removing images that are an unambiguous WP:NFCC violation is a specific exemption to our edit warring policy.

Expressing that in plain English without acronyms, that means that the people that are removing the images are immune to being blocked for edit-warring. People that insert the images can be blocked for edit warring. I'm watching the edits, and will begin issuing blocks if this persists.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, can you also apply the same cluebat at 2012 in K-1 Events ? Werieth (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And can you comment on User talk:Werieth#March 2013? Werieth (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why their names are on the small font?!!!!! Rafael dos Anjos Khabib Nurmagomedov Joe Lauzon

I propose we delete this article as it does not conform to wikipedia notability guidelines. As far as I can see this is only a regular year in some sport organization and does not warrant a seperate articale. I suggest we merge the 2011, 2012 and 2013 articles into 2010s in UFC to resolve this problem and make Wikipedia more user-friendly. Thank you. 89.143.73.201 (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A yearly omnibus article covering a promotion's events in that year is an acceptable alternative to individual articles about potentially non-notable events and a decade (or greater time-span article) that will be large and unmanageable. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose For the same reasons as TreyGeek, the yearly format is working well as a compromise to save non-notable event articles from being deleted entirely. The only real drawback to the current format is size - it's already long and can take awhile to load. Merging more years into a bigger omnibus will only make that problem worse. I see no advantages to this proposal. CaSJer (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have no objection to merging the list events for smaller promotions (or the early history of UFC) but there's at least 20 events scheduled this year, there were at least 20 last year, and there will probably be 20 next year. This makes for even more complicated and difficult for the average reader. Hasteur (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I see no reason to make this omnibus more cluttered than it already is. Luchuslu (talk) 00:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this style sucks. - each event should have its own page. far more information was provided - this way is horrible because by the end of the year there will be too much to look through. why would someone change this from what it used to be- it doesn't make sense - if anything you should have a site thats called ufc 2013 and provide a list of events and links to their wiki pages. this is just plain stupid - are actual ufc fans in charge of this craziness or nerds that don't know the difference?