Jump to content

Talk:UFC 205

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2016

[edit]

"Alvarez (left) is going to defend his belt for the first time, while McGregor (right) has not defended his since winning it against José Aldo at UFC 194 in December 2015." - I'm not sure how Conors featherweight defence record is relevant to this article or the picture of the two protagonists. Seems like an anti-McGregor fan boy putting in irrelevant information for no reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeinsterLad (talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

85.167.199.213 (talk) 05:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McGregor "(c)"

[edit]

Just as a point of relevance, every piece of matchup material (including literature as well as on-screen promos) that designates championship status has included McGregor's championship status, even though the bout is Lightweight. (This was also the case for the non-championship fights between McGregor and Diaz at Welterweight. A "(fwc)" was included beside McGregor's name.) Evidently it makes no difference what the fight is...if a champion is involved, it is considered relevant to designate that status. I see no problem including it here. Perhaps we should get a weigh-in on this? --Wikisian (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Aceusa (talk) 09:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove welterweight fight between Kelvin Gastelum (#5) vs. Donald Cerrone (#6)

[edit]

As the Wiki article already mentioned, Gastelum missed weight, and fight with Cerrone was removed from UFC 205. As of this writing, the official fight card table still lists this fight, and it needs to be removed from the table. 207.114.139.254 (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results Correction

[edit]

Weidman / Romero was ruled TKO, not KO, needs correcting asap. http://mmajunkie.com/2016/11/twitter-reacts-to-yoel-romeros-crowd-silencing-tko-of-new-yorks-chris-weidman-at-ufc-205 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.147.52 (talk) 05:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The results read by Bruce Buffer should be mirrored here, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.20.28 (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2016‎

Per UFC: McGregor/Alvarez a TKO, Romero/The Chris a KO. LlamaAl (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sherdog is main reference for results (not owner of truth as well, but the closest to a consensus in general). Buffer never was and never will be a source. He botched results before (Woodley/Thompson clear example), called submissions by wrong names... (Not that he's the one that decides what is written, but he announces what's in the result). Last but not least, that was a clear TKO. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

[edit]

In the results section,

Tyron Woodley (c) vs. Stephen Thompson

should be changed to

Tyron Woodley (c) def. Stephen Thompson

Maxwell vs Euler (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Impossible. The fight was a draw (majority) and nobody won it. Therefore it's not valid to add a "def." when there wasn't someone defeated. The fighter that had one judge giving the result to him is listed first always (maybe if it was given to Thompson, we would've just inverted it to avoid confusion regarding he winning or not). Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rankings

[edit]

Hello Wikisian. I supposed that you know how Wikipedia works, right? As I've seen lately, you have a tendency to try and keep articles 100% as they were after you made major edits. You can't accept changes and engages in back-and-forth reverts. Anyway, focusing on this event: only you show up adding rankings. Plenty of veteran MMA editors do not add them. They have no relevance to match-making or plenty of other functional stuff. They barely appear in medias just to "give some north" to casual fans. That being said, you have the right to propose such changes. BUT they must follow procedures, something you seem to avoid. WP:JDL fits exactly your behavior here. You "just don't like" the fact that we tell you to not add rankings and keeps getting them back. So gather a discussion (per the rules) so you can propose it. I can call the editors that have been on mma articles lately and we all discuss. I believe the outcome will be the same, but it's done by proper means and the discussion ends. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

None of what you said there is true. Your first accusation about me having a "tendency" is demonstrably false. Your second accusation about not accepting changes is demonstrably false. Your third accusation of only me showing up to add rankings is demonstrably false. WP:JDL does not reference an editor not liking invalid reverts. That makes no sense. What you're saying there is similar to telling someone that their act of "constantly restoring pages that I blank for no reason is a great example of WP:JDL. You "just don't like" the fact that I am blanking those pages." Again, verifiable and relevant information gets added to a page, and it simply has not been included in the past, so you see fit to delete it. It's ironic that you would ask me how Wikipedia works, as that is quite clearly not how it works. Again, the only reasoning being given (if any at all) for deleting and actively working to exclude this information is "it hasn't been included in the past." This is not a valid reasoning. As I said before, either offer some explanation beyond an appeal to tradition for why valid, verifiable, relevant information should be excluded from Wikipedia, or stop removing such information. --Wikisian (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You barely copied my message in your talk page here? I'll keep it simple. Stop the dragging and gather a discussion - You just copied my message here in an attempt to put me in somekind of a spotlight. Won't work. Do as you were asked to. Stop simply using "Wikisian" wishes for articles and follow the procedures. If you do so, then we engage a discussion. This here is not the discussion. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The rankings are not standard for MMA fight cards on Wikipedia. There is a followed guideline on how the cards are formatted. You can't decide on your own that you don't like the format, and are going to change it. If you have an issue with the format as it is now, take it up with WP:MMA. TBMNY (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gsfelipe94 "Barely"? I copied the message in its entirety. You insisted there be an open discussion about this article, yet you went to my personal talk page. So I felt it was more appropriate to migrate that conversation here. If you are now accusing me of selectively copying your message and only migrating a portion of it, that is just yet another demonstrably false accusation, as anyone can look at the histories and verify. As for discussion on this matter, the Talk Page of the particular article in question is precisely the place to have such a discussion...
Barely refers to the fact that I told you to create a discussion and the only action you made was simply copy our conversation here. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made several edits to this article, one of which being the rankings on the fight card. You first claimed only I came here and made such a change. And then in a follow up post you flip-flopped and admitted others have made the same edit in the past (which you apparently reverted). (This is one of several instances in which you made demonstrably false statements.) All I have have ever asked for is some valid reasoning as to why such information has no place in Wikipedia and should be excluded. I have received no such rationale. The most you have given is false accusations about me personally, and some vague language that seems to be a combination of "I just don't like it" and "this hasn't been included before"...neither of which is a valid reason to actively exclude verifiable and relevant information on a Wikipedia article.
Should I say that you're harassing me with those "false statements" accusations? The fact that it was done in the past by other people has nothing to do with the fact that you're the only one doing it now. If it takes two more years for it to happen again, will it be false statement if I tell that person that they're the only one doing it at that moment? I still can't understand how you don't get that. I said it again on the next section, if you can't properly understand it... I honestly have nothing left to say. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To make matters worse, multiple times you have reverted every edit I made (and not just on this article), simply because you didn't agree with a particular change (in this case, rankings). As I said, either you are doing this intentionally (in which case it is harassment), or it is simply negligent and reckless editing on your part. Either way, you need to stop.
Your version of UFC 196 is the one that stands. I had a discussion with you, but then I checked other stuff and refrained from following updates as there was no need for them. In this article here, I reverted only the rankings. Remaining updates are there. Anyway, let's not drag this section and forget about the important one down there.Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TBMNY, please link me to this "guideline". --Wikisian (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By guideline, I mean that it's been the consensus style. There are several reasons why changing it now would not work, including the fact that there is no standard MMA rankings. Just UFC. The scorecards are MMA scorecards, not UFC. Secondly, you'd have to go back to all other cards and edit them so that they matched. Speaking of consensus, BTW, we have consensus (see WP:Consensus) here. The rankings stay off. TBMNY (talk) 22:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TBMNY Then say "consensus style". "Guideline" has a specific meaning at Wikipedia. And for that matter, "consensus style" has a meaning as well. Can you link me to the discussion where this "consensus" was reached? As for your "several reasons" why including this information would not work, they do not seem to be very valid. The fact that there is no standardized ranking system across all of MMA is no reason to not include UFC rankings on a UFC event artcle. (If "all of MMA" were a concern, then "(c)" is just as meaningless, as "there is no standard MMA champion.") This is an article about a UFC event, featuring UFC fighters, which affect UFC rankings and UFC championships. Clearly, any rankings or championships that are mentioned are within the scope of the UFC.) If you honestly believe this would/could be misconstrued by the reader, a single sentence stating this could easily be added. Again, this is no reason to actively exclude such information. As for the notion that "you'd have to go back to all other cards and edit them so that they matched"...Okay. And? Again, I'm not seeing a reason to actively exclude this information. --Wikisian (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, Gsfelipe94 claims "In this article here, I reverted only the rankings." And as I have said, that is demonstrably false. Anyone can look at the history. In fact, even his latest edit was to remove several changes I had made to this article which had nothing to do with rankings (and at least one edit that wasn't even mine, which also had absolutely nothing to do with rankings). He is either being completely negligent (and arguably reckless in his editing), or just outright lying. --Wikisian (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop harassing me? Can you please????? Jesus, you can't read. You said - and I quote - multiple times you have reverted every edit I made (and not just on this article), to which I replied "I reverted only the rankings". You just showed that you can't take a single coma or dot removed from an update without being hurt. The main issue is completely removing rankings instead of just a phrase of a fighter saying "hey, I would've blown up my weight!". Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding rankings to the results table - Official discussion

[edit]

Hello, folks. Once again we gather for a discussion of a proposed change here. This time User:Wikisian's wish is to include rankings in the results table. He simply states that "it is verifiable & useful to the reader" and "conventionally included in all promotional literature, both onscreen and off". We've had situations like this that we're quickly dealt with reverts and that was it. Unregistered or registered users done in it the past (I can't recall exactly which events), so he's not the first one overall, but his the only one lately and specially in this milestone event. Long story short, removing all the victim card he's playing now, we have another issue with a proposed change that was reverted (I wasn't the only one in previous cases and in this one as well) and the editor does not bring that for discussion here. I'm calling users that have been actively present in previous discussions and are experienced editors in MMA articles (specially regarding the UFC). User:Ppt1973, User:Imhungry4444, User:Alexander Gustafsson, User:InedibleHulk and User:Psycho-Krillin. There may be more, but those are still some of the most involved users I remember. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC) - Update #1: Added User:SQGibbon here. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to lay some arguments here. First: Rankings have no use whatsoever to matchmaking. They are barely displayed in media images/text and never put into context to the importance of a bout (very few cases do). They are very volatile and change every single week. For example: do you see rankings being added to international football matches? They are only added in case that seeds are used. Every single sport that has a ranking (or in this case it isn't even a sport, it's an organization) that has nothing to do with seeding, only display them as background info. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of this serves as a reason to not include such information...
1. Rankings have no use whatsoever to matchmaking. -And?
2. They are barely displayed in media images/text and never put into context to the importance of a bout (very few cases do). -On the contrary, they are virtually always displayed in media images/text in which a bout is mentioned as "Fighter A vs. Fighter B" (with the exception of an official event title, e.g. "UFC 205: Alvarez vs. McGregor" (Obviously rankings wouldn't be included in the title of an event.)
3. They are very volatile and change every single week. -And?
4. Every single sport that has a ranking [...] that has nothing to do with seeding, only display them as background info. -And?
I'm still not seeing a reasoning. You're not offering any argument as to why this information should be actively excluded, you're literally just stating facts about rankings. (Some of which aren't even entirely true anyway.) --Wikisian (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm offering the same level of argument that you are, with different perspectives. We both find ours valid and the other's not (you probably do that more than me). So let me reply: 1. (btw, "And?" is not a good counter-argument) that is one of the main things related to bouts, the main focus of that results-table template. If rankings don't influence in that thing (given the fact that they change every 7 days - hey 3. kind of getting it's reply here as well), they don't have that much value for that specific table; 2. I'm not referring to title of events whatsoever. They only show some numbers in broadcasts (that's obvious as they're the ones that created rankings in the first place), but other than that there's not much too it - Fair point though, this is the least "valid" argument. The UFC indeed use the rankings for that, but many other media do not add rankings to their results table, instead they only mention it in articles (just like the fighters profile have such info at the their very beginning - which is 100% valid), including the major ones: MMAJunkie, MMAFighting, Sherdog... 4. Say another "Wikisian" decided to give it a shot at other sports articles: He goes into a FIFA World Cup qualification article and starts adding rankings next to the countries or in other sports in which the rankings have no relation to tournament seeds. Do you think he will get a different reception? Because rankings have their own context there just like they do here, and they're not related to bouts/matches. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Up until this latest post, you didn't offer any argument. That was my entire point. "And" is not intended as a "counter-argument"...it's entire purpose there is to illustrate the fact that you hadn't even made an argument. You literally just listed facts. Facts are not arguments. You might just as well say something like "the sky is blue." That is just as much of an argument as anything else you have offered. Simply stating the fact that rankings can change is not an argument. And certainly not an argument as to why such information should be excluded from Wikipedia. Honestly that makes no sense. It's like suggesting that crime statistics pertaining to the year 1990 should be kept out of the encyclopedia (and even articles about the year 1990) "because crime stats are volatile and can change". Just because a fighter's ranking can change over time, that doesn't mean it changes history. What the ranking is at some other point in the future has absolutely no bearing on what it was at some point in the past. We could just as easily apply your logic to championship status: "Championships are volatile and change hands all the time. Therefore it doesn't matter that a particular person was champion at the time of this event...there should be no indication identifying this status." That is just total nonsense. It's actually a bit difficult to believe I'm even having to explain all of this.
As for this notion that rankings "have no use whatsoever to matchmaking" and therefore "they don't have that much value for that specific table," (a), that first part is not entirely true, and basically an opinion, and (b) "they don't have that much value" is also just your personal opinion. Rankings are useful in giving people an idea of where a fighter falls in a hierarchy of the weight-class in relation to the other fighters. Even if it were a demonstrable fact that they "have no use for matchmaking", that would still be irrelevant, as "no use in matchmaking" does not in any way equate to "no use in Wikipedia." The fact that it is subjective and can change is also irrelevant. It is still published and maintained by the UFC, and utilized at virtually every opportunity when discussing bouts. Once again, if the UFC itself finds it worthwhile enough to maintain and publish (which would seem to demonstrate that the organization finds that the general public finds it useful and worthwhile), I fail to see why it would not be useful for something as general and public as Wikipedia.
Finally, this "argument" that "many other media do not add rankings to their results table (and therefore it shouldn't be done here?)" is another nonstarter. The fact that something isn't done in other organizations is so irrelevant that I have no idea why you are even introducing it. And what someone does on other pages is irrelevant. And speculating on how the Wikipedia community would deal with the addition of rankings on pages dealing with completely different sports has to be the most useless exercise proposed here. Again, we're talking about an article about a UFC event, featuring UFC fighters, fighting in bouts which affect UFC rankings and UFC championships...and you're basically saying "It doesn't matter if the UFC uses a rankings. FIFA doesn't. Therefore, UFC rankings should be excluded from UFC articles." Again I find it hard to believe I have to even point out how bad of an argument that is.
So basically what we've got so far is "UFC rankings should be actively excluded from an article about a UFC event, featuring UFC fighters, which affect UFC rankings and UFC championships," because...(1) You don't like it. (2) This information hasn't been included before. (3) You are under the impression that "rankings do not influence matchmaking", therefore such information has no value on pages about UFC bouts. (4) "Other media" (whatever that means) don't always include rankings, and other sports organizations don't even utilize a ranking system...therefore such information should be excluded from a page about a UFC event. I suppose it's an improvement that you're actually presenting a reasoning as opposed to simply listing off facts, but this is all extremely poor reasoning, to say the least. --Wikisian (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw this for the first time a few days before the event and I thought it was an interesting idea. On the long run, it will help understanding where each fighter stood before a bout. My doubt here is concerning sources: is there a source stating the rankings at a given day? Because the UFC webpage only shows (as far as I know) the up-to-date rakings.Psycho-Krillin (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It is simple, yet useful information for the reader. Your historical source concern is a valid one. At the moment I am unsure if there is a citable source that maintains a history of rankings. But at the very least, Archive.org could be referenced for historical bouts, and in the future, similar archiving sources can be used to ensure a historical copy of the UFC page on a certain date. Such archive resources are utilized all the time on Wikipedia, and links to archived sources have a designated place in the WP:Citation templates. --Wikisian (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged so I will respond. I generally don't get involved in discussions concerning the nitty-gritty details of MMA articles as I actually have no interest in the subject. My only involvement is with bigger picture issues that involve Wikipedia general guidelines and policies. With that said, shouldn't this be discussed at WT:MMA as it applies to the entire style guide of MMA articles? In the meantime User:Wikisian needs to stop making these changes until/unless a new consensus is reached as per WP:BRD (and others). I have removed the rankings for now. Since there is disagreement this is the appropriate action. If a new consensus is established to include this information, and assuming no Wikipedia guidelines and policies are being violated, then the information can be added in again. As usual with Wikipedia there is no hurry. Let's do this correctly and respectfully. SQGibbon (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SQGibbon your input is appreciated, and you seem to be behaving in good faith. However, it would be useful if you would clarify what these "others" are, as first and foremost, WP:BRD is an essay, not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. Further, even foregoing that, the essay itself states that:
  1. BRD is never a reason for reverting. (Yet, you appear to have cited it as your reason for reverting the changes.)
  2. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring; instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. (Which you did not do.)
  3. BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones.
  4. BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas. No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion. (This is something Gsfelipe94 would be advised to take note of, as it seems to be his position that a discussion should be had before changes are made. And when information is added, he will delete it seemingly "to protect his preferred version" of the article...and then project that behavior onto me. Apparently several editors have made this particular addition, yet he has contentiously reverted it, and apparently this isn't limited to just this article.)
Rankings are relevant and verifiable information, and there is no policy or guideline reason to exclude them. As has been pointed out several times, the only thing that even resembles anything close to a reasoning for excluding this information is "I just don't like it" and "this hasn't been included before." Neither of these is a valid reasoning for removing information from Wikipedia. An actual rationale for deletion needs to be given, or better yet, a policy or guideline needs to be cited. Otherwise, reversion should not take place. WP:ROWN offers some explication of this notion. --Wikisian (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the proposition for discussion was after the BR cycle took place way too much. When it was reverted more than once and it kept going like that, then I proposed that you brought up a discussion. See, it is not because you think you are 100% right that you don't have to do anything. I'm starting to enjoy your victim role turned into an analyst-like persona. It's interesting to see the change of focus here. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[WP:BRD]] is an essay, not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.'
Correct. But it is an essay that is broadly agreed upon by experienced and active editors on Wikipedia. It reflects our generally agreed upon 'best practices' approach to editing and consensus-building. For technical reasons it will probably never be a guideline and certainly not policy but if you want to get along with your fellow editors and not be constantly seen as disruptive then you would do well to consider what it states.
it would be useful if you would clarify what these "others" are, as first and foremost
WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:OWN. You are exhibiting behavior that is perilously close to edit warring and ownership. The whole point of WP:BRD is that before an all-out edit war begins the issue should be discussed and a consensus built. Consensus is a policy of Wikipedia.
# BRD is never a reason for reverting. (Yet, you appear to have cited it as your reason for reverting the changes.)
Not at all. There is a budding edit war in progress. It's standard procedure to revert to the previous consensus (in this case the form that the article has taken for a long time) until a new consensus is built.
# Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring; instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense. (Which you did not do.)"
The very first thing I mentioned in my edit summary is that you are in danger of edit warring.
# BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones.
Reverting to consensus is always acceptable. There was a consensus already in place even if it hadn't been actively discussed. Your initial edit was bold, after that it becomes disruptive if you do not try to establish a new consensus.
No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion
And I never said it did. In this case there was a consensus already in place and once your bold edit was reverted the proper good faith approach is then to build a new consensus.
As I said before, because this affects all similar pages this needs to be discussed at WT:MMA. And at this point I really do question your approach here. As I stated I don't care at all about this issue, all I want is for Wikipedia policies and guidelines to be followed including consensus building and civility. The fact that you are attempting to Wikilawyer (quoting specific lines from an essay and using those to "prove" a point) makes one question whether you are operating in good faith or are just trying to bully your way to a win. I'm trying to give friendly advice here so please: step back, take a breath, and then present your suggestions to the larger community at WT:MMA. Your ideas are not without merit and if you treat people with respect then you will find that people will treat you with respect. There's been a lot of very bad blood in this community over the years and the result is always the same: the greater Wikipedia community gets tired of it and then people get banned. Please, let's not go down those ugly roads again. The path to resolving this issue is clear, please do not turn it into a public spectacle full of angry prose and rhetoric. SQGibbon (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SQGibbon So did you want to move this discussion there for everyone? As a seemingly neutral third party it may be more appropriate for you to do this, since the last time I attempted to move this to a more appropriate place so that more input could be had, I was berated for doing so. Perhaps you could make the decision about what to move and where? --Wikisian (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aslong as the numbers don't become a hindrance, like being too big or what have you, then I don't see why not. Like the UFC does it, have the number be in the upper left hand corner of the given name. Are they necessary? Not really, but visually they look appealing. Also, it would be weird to just have a number there to cite fighter ranking and not have it linked to an article of UFC fighter rankings. But that could be put on the official UFC article. The only issue would be how you deal with ranking progression from past to present. For example, fighter A is ranked 8th in a division, he/she loses, they are ranked 10th in their next fight. For the first fight article, does it stay as is because that was the ranking of the fighter for the event? Or does the ranking have to change across the board every time there is a ranking update on the UFC's official rankings?Imhungry4444 (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the ranking would remain the same on that page for that event, because that's what the ranking was at that time, and that will never change. As I mentioned above, this is no different than the "(c)" (identifying champions)...is it current practice to go back and remove all of those whenever a belt changes hands? In that case, the "(c)" next to Alvarez's name on this article would need to be removed, and instead placed next to McGregor's name. Obviously that would make no sense. When a reader is looking at a card for a particular event that took place on a particular day, obviously they should see the card (and the rankings/championship status) as they stood on that day, going into the event. --Wikisian (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the inclusion of rankings. However, it really is too late to begin now. There's no way of going back to all the other event articles and finding the rankings of the fighters at the time of the event. Consistency amongst the event articles must be maintained. Alexander Gustafsson (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If rankings were to be accepted, maybe looking for articles related to previous events could get a glimpse of the specific fighter's ranking at that moment. I believe most of the articles have something related on recaps of events. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Gustafsson You first claim that "there's no way of going back" and filling out the record of rankings for every event. For one thing, you do not know that is the case, you are simply asserting that. Second, you state "consistency amongst the event articles must be maintained." This does not seem to be a good reasoning for actively excluding useful and verifiable information. Just because some information may not be easily obtained right away about specific historical events, that is no reason that such information should kept out of other articles. (Not to mention, fight cards were taking place before the ranking system existed, so even with a verifiable record of every single ranking ever, this information would be absent from some articles simply as a matter of reality.) If this "consistency" between articles is so necessary, then a lot of information is going to have to be deleted from a lot of articles so that they can match those about older events for which there is not much information, or which took place before certain things existed. This is not an improvement to the encyclopedia. Individual articles are to be as good as they can be on their own. Handicapping articles in the name of "consistency" among all the rest of the articles is a recipe for stagnation and mediocrity. --Wikisian (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it. Gives historical context. Rankings in this circus don't figure very highly into matchmaking or actual talent, but they're like awards/acclaim without trophies, and someone writing a biography on Nikita Krylov (or just wondering about Eddie Wineland) should find this valuable for "mapping" a career.
Scouring the archives sounds tedious, but definitey doable (Go Hendo and Bendo!). Older tables won't look precisely like the newer ones, but that's fine. If the system can tolerate no results at all in UFC 151, it should survive this. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking back over the years to some of the discussions that have taken place over this particular table, one idea that was expressed was that there are literally a million things that could be added to this table that would be of interest. Trivial things like eye color or less trivial like stance. Or more compelling things like head-to-head record. But the question is not what can we add but we do we absolutely need in this table (with the follow-up that we shouldn't add anything more than that). So here's the question as I see it, are the rankings used in a formal way to determine who fights whom? Like in a seeded tournament you'll always have #1 v #8 and then the winner of that takes on the winner of #3 vs #4. Is there a rule like this in the UFC where the champion must always fight the #4 ranked person and then the winner of #2 and #3 to retain the belt? Or is it that whoever schedules these things uses rankings as a part of the whole process and takes other things into account like who matches up well, who hasn't fought recently, which fight would make the UFC the most money (fan favorite), etc? If the former then it seems reasonable to include rankings but if the latter then I'm not sure I really see the necessity and it just comes down to that people think it's cool or interesting or even informative, but those are not the same thing as compelling since they are not formal properties of the fight (like is the case for the names of the participants, their weight class, the result, etc). SQGibbon (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that argument, but I think any reasonable person would agree "eye color" and even "head-to-head record" are not valid comparisons to ranking. Of course eye color is entirely innocuous. And head-to-head record, while interesting, has no real bearing on the fight card (which is the info display we're talking about.) I suppose a major component that makes the ranking relevant is the answer to your question: yes, to a certain degree, rankings do matter for matchups. Particularly to championships. As much as some might argue that rankings have "no use whatsoever to matchmaking," the fact is matchups tend to be among similarly ranked opponents, and that is not an accident. While it is true that there is no set rule that "rank X will always face rank Y," it is a basic rule of thumb that fights are going to be made among fighters of roughly the same caliber. And the ranking is a useful (albeit subjective) way of assigning a numerical value to fighters so that at any given time, anyone can gain an idea of where any fighter stands in relation to the others. (This is even done across weight classes, with the "pound-for-pound" ranking.)
It doesn't matter that rankings are imprecise or unscientific, as there is no scientific way to rate fighters in relation to each other anyway. When determining how evenly matched a bout will be, at some point a subjective judgement has to be made about the overall effectiveness of the fighters. And that's exactly what rankings are. So just because the #1 contender isn't always the one to get the next championship fight (and there's no real way to determine what the rank of the eventual championship challenger will be), it's pretty much a guarantee it won't be someone with no rank, or even a low rank.
It could be argued that the rankings themselves per se, are not used in making matchups...that it's "fight styles," or the "win-loss record" of each of the combatants, or how well a fighter has performed against specific fighters, or how good a fighter's matches tend to be, finish percentage, and all sorts of other things. But the fact is, a ranking is nothing more than a single numerical value that is meant to encapsulate all of those things. "Fight style" plays into how well a fighter performs, which plays into how how good the matches are, which plays into finish percentage, which plays into wins vs. losses (which is arguably the most objective measure of how good a fighter is)...which is the most important component in making a matchup. A rank is just a representation of all of that. It is highly relevant to the fight card matchups. And this is precisely why, (as stated multiple times before), it is included at virtually every mention of a bout (in both promotional material as well as basic matchup details), while "eye color" is not. --Wikisian (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fairly bold guarantee on the Talk Page of the show where an unranked lightweight won the belt. At least you said "pretty much". InedibleHulk (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]
I actually considered getting more specific so as to avoid exactly that kind of retort, stating something along the lines of:

"There are cases when an athlete may move to a different weight class and immediately fight highly ranked opponents, despite not having a rank in that particular division themselves. (Obviously this very card is an example of that, with McGregor fighting for the title in a weight-class he was unranked in.) But also obvious is that as a champion, albeit of a different division, McGregor is clearly the opposite of a low or no-rank fighter. (And of course, this was made clear in the bout itself.)"

But I figured the post was long enough as it was, and I thought it was pretty much common knowledge at this point that going into the bout Conor McGregor already held a championship, (which is the highest rank attainable), and the words "no rank" mean "no rank"...not "no rank in the division the fight is taking place in." --Wikisian (talk) 16:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC) [reply]


It's been quite some time since there was any new commentary here. I created an entry for this at WikiProject Mixed martial arts.

nb: User:Gsfelipe94, User:SQGibbon, User:Ppt1973, User:Imhungry4444, User:Alexander Gustafsson, User:InedibleHulk, User:Psycho-Krillin, User:TBMNY, User:LlamaAl, User:DUCKISJAMMMY, User:Matthewberns --Wikisian (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited the nota bene article before seeing this. Scary. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]
I'm Batman. --Wikisian (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pay-per-view Buyrate

[edit]

This was the biggest event in MMA history. It currently has been over two months since the event, and the pay-per-view numbers have still not been released. I have searched endlessly and cannot find them. I am asking anyone right now to please find a source that has the pay-per-view numbers for UFC 205 so we can add the buyrate. Aceusa (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional Sabotage

[edit]

Wiki admins, please note: User 49.199.36.223 intentionally edited 5th link and changed from "UFC 205: Conor McGregor knocks out Eddie Alvarez in round two to claim historic second title" to "... fake second title". His summary of the edit was "Added truth". This went unnoticed from 27 Apr 2018 till 2 Jan 2020. I recommend IP ban for 49.199.36.223 asap, there should be zero tolerance for this behavior. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UFC_205&diff=prev&oldid=838505150 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.222.10.226 (talk) 04:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UFC_205&oldid=1201078104"