Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Event pages format

Financial/Purse Section

Beyond the "Total Purse" entry in the Details section (which I'm not seeing on the draft entry for some reason), the known financials of what fighters get paid should be in an entry (as well as PPV buys if those numbers are available). These numbers are often released by the state athletic commissions, so they can be validated. We've used tables for this information in the past, and they work well. UFC fights should have a "UFC Bonuses" section. Also, the total gate and paid attendance figures should be included. Clogar 07:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

A Controversy section should be added in addition to the "Miscellanea" section. This would be the place to put fighter suspensions from positive drug tests, notes about disputed ref decisions, etc...

Opinions

Two thumbs up. I like it very much. I don't agree on the TOC issue but I otherwise like the guidelines a great deal. Nothing to add at this time, great work. — Es tarriol ^talk 09:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One thumb up. I like it, although I'd would like to see a spoiler warning like they have on movies and such. I would also like to see the results being in a click down window if you know what I mean? I'm not sure whether that would work or look good, but maybe someone could check it out who knows more about formatting a page then me. Over and out, --NoNo 14:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I've never been fond of guides because some people treat them like a strict set of rules that can never, ever, be broken rather than suggestions. Still, they can be helpful. In this case, I believe more sections need to be added (see other comments on this page), but the effort in this section and other in the MMA project is nice to see. Clogar 07:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To TOC or not to TOC

:* __NOTOC__ to hide table of contents, which are usually rather useless in these articles.

Comment - I disagree, no reason to hide the toc, especially when every match should definitely not have a separate subheader. ↪Lakes (Talk) 08:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not hide the TOC, but I like the idea of each fight having its own 4th level heading. — Es tarriol ^talk 09:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What advantage does the fourth level heading have? Can you give a more specific reason to have them?

↪Lakes (Talk) 10:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it makes them appear in the TOC - I actually think this is a good thing, demonstrates structure and allows readers to skip to fights that they may be interested in. The TOC is a Wikipedia standard, it's what users will be expecting and it can be hidden if they don't like it (even by a preference, whilst there's no preference to "always show TOC even when the article specifies not to have one). I think there are stronger reasons to have them than not. — Es tarriol ^talk 11:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that each fight should have it's own fourth level heading. So far I have been hiding the TOC on the basis that most articles are quite brief and they do not aid navigation at this point. When the event articles become more substantial I think they should be shown. -- Trench 20:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm setting the format one the page back to using 4-level heads for each fight to reflect majority opinion right now. Personally I'm a bit on Treach's side, I don't see the TOC to be that useful and its substantial size (horozontally) is bit of a considerable drawback. I'd like to see what discussions the pro wrestling wikiproject had however. hateless 05:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just bear in mind that it's possible for a user to hide the TOC either temporarily, or permanently on every page, but if we use NOTOC, it's not possible for it to be shown at all. — Es tarriol ^talk 07:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

results

Being as though all event page were started with one style of wording, that has began to be mixed with a nother style. I submit that this style.

Lightweight bout: Melvin Guillard vs Rick Davis

Guillard defeated Davis by KO (right overhead punch to the face) at 1:37 of round one. Guillard announced his intention to stay at Lightweight; he earlier fought

Be changed to the original style of

Lightweight bout: Melvin Guillard vs Rick Davis

Guillard wins by KO (right overhead punch to the face) at 1:37 of round one.

Removing information that has nothing to do with the actual result, but is better suited for the footnote section, and removing unnecassry repeating of names.Swampfire (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the logic to the remocal of X defeated Y, however I disagree that the additanal information is not useful, I think that information is what differentiates an encyclopedia from a simple results site, just the results you can get on Sherdog, background and subsequent related events are not mentioned, collecting related information together is what an encyclopaedia is all about. There is a related disscussion here. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you add into the actual article I agree. But not When you add it into the results.Swampfire (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The maybe the section needs re-titling if you want to be that narrow, but it seem logical to organise any information about a specific fight with that fight not in a generic section. This is for people to read not a simple news report of the results, wikipedia should be better than that. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 17:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Can "we" (you know who you are!) stop edit warring and instead discuss the changes we want made? My proposed revisions are removal of the entire " Miscellanea"-section, the weight ((155lb)) after the weightclasses and to change the "Announced matchups" to use the same style as the Results-section just without the actual result. When it comes the Result-section, I think we should at least allow descriptions of things vital/important to the match (things like the eye-poke Silva suffered and Scherner's vision problems). --Aktsu ^(t / c) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1/2 we = me) The uses of weights is only to clarify needed in older ones, where weight categories have since changed, (e.g. LHW used to be MW) this should be spelt out, in the example, the weights could be linked to Mixed martial arts weight classes to help.

Standardising the pre-post events to a more similar format makes sense, as it would be easier to update, the downside is that it would be more difficult to spot the difference, for readers.

On my grudge re removal of all info except the results I have added an attempt at a compromise. --Nate 14 81 10:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things like an eye poke are only relevant if the affect the desicion, Other wise, we have to rport everything, such as, "he took 12 hits to the head", "he slipped and fell" also the (lbs) of the class should stay as the names of the (lbs) classes have changed over the years, If notm then Tito Ortiz held the title in 2 divisions. Only comments relevnt to the decision should be included, otherwise the result section, is not longer a result section. Swampfire (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I disagree about how much info is enough, and giving the weight in the heading for every bout just looks messy. The reader should have no problem looking it up if we provide a link to say MMA weight classes or the articles linked to in Template:MMA weight classes (though it seems the articles might need some work to clarify some changes etc.). Also, the event pages should follow this template, not the other way around so please stop edit warring. --Aktsu ^(t / c) 02:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be referenced and is significant, such as things that in the reply would have been illegal if the ref had seen them, or results of the fight other than who won (being carried out on a stretcher for example is a direct result of the fight) this is a judgement call and should not be an absolute rule.

I should also point out that articles should reflect templates not the other way round. This way people can discuss it in one place before changes are made to dozens of articles...--Nate 14 81 09:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]