Talk:UFC 65

The information in the article is sourced. For more info, see the sources section. Please do not delete without discussing here. Tdslappy

Sorry, but the information was NOT correctly sourced at all, and any editor had the right to scale back the article to the extent I did last night according to WP policies.

The sherdog play-by-play that was cited said simply there will be a Liddell Silva fight in November, it doesn't say where, when exactly, or even which promotion. It doesn't even say the fight is contingent on Liddell winning UFC 62, which White made very clear on the broadcast.
The only publically announced UFC event after UFC 61 is 62. The date for November's UFC show is on the NSAC website, but it's listed as unapproved by the commission.
Google search for UFC 65 last night only turn up listings on MMAWeekly.com's rumor page and message board posts.WP policy makes it clear message board posts are not suitable sources for WP. Rumors are rumors, and are not considered sources.

The creation of this article jumped the gun way, way too soon. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and if you click on that link, there are clear rules on creating articles on events like UFC 65 which are predictable and will most likely happen. However, you got lucky, I found exactly one source that states the fight would be at UFC 65. I will scale the article back to what was listed in that article. Sorry, but WP policies make it clear in this regard, and WP has been burned by the MMA community before for having false info in one of its articles. hateless 05:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main point of contention is that almost all the article was gone with nary an explanation on the article's talk page. Well meaning users can differ over interpretation of Wiki policies, but I always request that substantial deletes be accompanied by a statement of why. Tdslappy

Silva vs. Liddell

Regarding Chuck vs Wandy, Mirko, etc... http://www.mmaweekly.com/absolutenm/templates/dailynews.asp?articleid=2674&zoneid=13 is one interview from many recently surrounding the subject... Dana has made it clear that Wanderlei's brutal loss has made him lose interest in the fight. If you want you can do more digging, there are several more articles/interviews with the same answer, as well as a radio show featuring a PRIDE US representative, Dana called the show, and they argued about PRIDE fighters in UFC and UFC fighters in PRIDE... Chuck vs Wanderlei should be treated as indefinitely postponed and is irrelevant in regards to UFC 65 now... Even before Chuck fought Babalu Dana was making comments about the fight being off, like I said, you can easily find several articles and interviews on the subject easily. Thesaddestday 09:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Because Dana got on a mic and personally announced Chuck vs. Wandy in the UFC in November, it's part of the historical record and it should be recorded. Coupled with the fact that a Champion vs Champion would be the single biggest event in MMA ever, just the announcement of it should be as important as any actual match. And although it is now off the 65 card, it was linked to it and there is a chance that the less informed UFC fans are still hearing rumors of Chuck vs Wandy in November, and will be coming here for verification. The countless sources you mentioned means it is not disqualified from inclusion into WP due to verifiability issues. If this article had a bit more flesh to it, I'd stick it in a Miscellania section, but I don't see a problem of it being in the main article as it is currently. hateless 16:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact it is not listed, plus on both fighters pages it says the fight isn't happening, is enough to verify that the fight is not happening. But if you think it should be included, alright I see your point still, but I do not think it should be a main focus of the event's page at all because Dana spoke early. Thesaddestday 00:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diaz/Tibau

The news was previously on Nick Diaz' website but because he only keeps 1 news piece at a time it's no longer there. Instead of taking even 5 seconds to find another source the fight was removed from the list. It took me a few seconds on google to find a source listing the fight. Instead of deleting it and forcing someone else to do the work, take the time to get a new source. Thesaddestday 23:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the match because as you said the previous source, Diaz's own site, had expired. I checked the official UFC site then sherdog and found no mention of it elsewhere. Given that I'd already spent quite some time correctly formatting the rest of the references, I thought I'd remove the match until either myself or someone else found another reliable source. It took you only a few seconds so I've no idea why you are being so needlessly agressive about it. No one forced you to do anything, we are all volunteers and are doing our bit to help wikipedia and MMA. Please consult Wikipedia:Verifiability before attacking people for these kind of edits in the future. --- Trench 23:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

Fighter's Pay

Should fighters pay for UFC events be added to their wiki entry? Reliable sources can be cited that confirm payment figures for fighters who partake in UFC events. Should this information be added to wikipedia? Comments? Brettybabe 12:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has commented on fighters pay, I will add fighters pay for all the ufc events I can find information on Brettybabe 21:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is fighter pay information for almost all of the UFC events of the past few years.--69.175.88.28 12:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be added - we've added it for other MMA events in the past. Clogar 07:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Information regarding title fights

This article incorrectly states that it is the last time the UFC had a lighter-weight class headline a card with two title fights. UFC 169 also had the bantamweight (135lb) title headline over the featherweight (145lb) title. I've removed that paragraph from the article. Rissx (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]