Talk:Anderson Silva
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Mixed martial arts, an attempt to better organise and unify articles relating to mixed martial arts concepts, events, and biographies. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] EXPANSION
Im not that huge of a Silva fan, but I am a fan of Chute Box, and he is a former Chute Box member. After tonight I think he deserves a better wikipedia article so Im gonna give him a mma record box and a picture. If you can make at least part of the names of that table links do so, if it is red and you cannot make it a link then either write and article or ill write one later, but I left certain things red, because although they do not have an article I know enough to write one about the things in red -IvanSanchez716
[edit] MMA Record
Someone delted the mma record table I set, that is completely absurd, that record could be verified by UFC.com and Sherdog.com as well as prides website. It was completely accurate and took a lot of time to make. I consider this vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IvanSanchez716 (talk • contribs) .
- In this case, I think it was accidental, but whether it was or not, feel free to revert when something like that happens. Also, in the future sign your messages on talk pages by putting four tildes (~) at the end of it. SubSeven 02:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Outcome of Lutter fight
According to the Nevada State Athletic Commission the fight was ruled a submission due to a triangle choke. Also, according to Travis Lutter in an interview conducted with NBC sports he tapped out due to the choke, not the elbows. You can read the NSAC results at http://boxing.nv.gov/2007%20Results/02-03-07%20MMA.pdf and the interview at http://www.nbcsports.com/ufc/1010414/detail.html
[edit] "Redundant box"
No, is not redundant because facilitate to read wins and losses by type and show total of matches. Please do not remove until to have a better way to show these infos. Carlosguitar 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Please do not add it unless there is a need for it. Win-loss is already listed in the infobox in a tabular format and this solution to a nonexistant problem is a clunky eyesore. If you want to add how many matches they have total, then put it on a single line along with the win-loss summary on top of the records table. hateless 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Losses is not listed by type, wins do not cite by decision in infobox. The table is more clean and easy than a single line — like ?? Wins (?? (T)KO, ?? Decision ?? Submission) ?? Losses (?? (T)KO, ?? Decision ?? Submission) ? Draw ? No Content — is used in record table.
-
- It is not a solution of a problem but a clean up that facilitate to read the current information. Carlosguitar 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- And in the meantime there's a giant block of whitespace to the right which serves no purpose other than to accomodate a square little table, a table that doesn't even list totals wins or losses. Have you considered that your table isn't very good in the first place? Here's a thought: why not propose to alter the infobox to suit your purposes instead of creating a second new table with incrementally more information? Or better yet, why not question the need to present extra information in the first place? Have you heard of information pollution? This table is an example of something that adds more information without adding more comprehension-a badly designed table that does not really show any real relationships between wins and losses (is wins from knockouts connected with losses from knockouts? if not, why are they placed next to each other?) and presents information in a not-easily digestable way (why is 1/2 the table on the left side totally blank save for a total count?). There's already plenty of bad graphic design on WP, I'm not one to let more slip by on my watch. I don't believe you really didn't think this through – you really shouldn't expect you can unilaterally change the format of the MMA bios in WP and not expect resistance. And please don't revert changes while they're in discussion. hateless 18:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a solution of a problem but a clean up that facilitate to read the current information. Carlosguitar 17:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- This edit warring should stop, now. You both appear to have good intentions, and should think about that in relation to each other - hateless, ever heard of assume good faith? Carlosguitar's box adds useful information to the article, although it should be better - the total wins and losses are an example. As for how good the tables look, to me Carlos' is better, since the original has huge areas of grey space to the right when the notes are not used, and the smaller format in Carlos' edit makes both tables more aesthetically pleasing. Ideally, all this info would be merged into the same table, but if that is too difficult, Carlos' revision should stand and be built on to include information that he misses out. Both of you are in danger of 3RR, work together to make this infobox and article better. Chrisfow 19:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you notice, Chris, I did not attack Carlos personally and I never questioned his intention of improving the encyclopedia. However, his edits are open to criticism, just like anyone elses. I know WP:3RR, I know WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and I never had any intention of crossing the lines. But a bedrock principle of WP is consensus-forming, and when Carlosguitar decides to alter several pages using a format I feel is a detriment to the quality of the articles, I believe I have a right to protest. As for his changes to the records table, I have no problem with it, my issue is the box. As for consensus, I posed several questions to Carlos, if he would like to answer them then that may be the first steps toward it. As for the idea that more information is always better, I challenge that, and will do it vigorously. hateless 20:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- I did notice that hateless, it was your tone about his edits rather than any personal attacks which did not sound like they were made in good faith. I also disagree strongly with reverting or major edits during discussion, and have made that clear to Carlos. However, I would say that what he is aiming to do is of use. Descibing how the wins/draws/losses came about is a legitimate thing for this article and others like it to be doing. It is not information overload, if such a thing can exist on Wikipedia (see Jimbo's comments about "the sum of all human knowledge" etc. etc. etc.), but interesting information which rightly belongs in a martial arts article. I urge Carlos to put his case forward if he still feels the same, else we can forget this before it becomes WP:HORSEMEAT. Chrisfow
- why not propose to alter the infobox to suit your purposes instead of creating a second new table with incrementally more information?
-
- I did. Why you did not it instead of reverting my good faith edit? Improve my edits do not revert! You did a bad thing reverting my whole edit.
- Or better yet, why not question the need to present extra information in the first place? Have you heard of information pollution?
-
- You contradict yourself. You readded same info that are complaint now.[1] Instead of erasing it. It is show that these info are useful, but you just disagree with table aesthetically.
- This table is an example of something that adds more information without adding more comprehension-a badly designed table
-
- Help to improve. Lot of things in wikipedia rise ugly, until get strong.
| 18 Wins | 4 Losses | |
|---|---|---|
| (T)Knockout | 10 | 0 |
| Submission | 3 | 2 |
| Decision | 5 | 1 |
| Others | 0 | 1 |
| Draw | 0 | |
| No Contest | 0 | |
| Total | 22 matches | |
Is it better? If not, please improve it, this table is useful for Mirko Cro Cop and other fighters that cannot be mixed matches from others tournaments on infobox. Another thing Hateless, readd my edits in the MMA record table that you removed and agree that there is no problem on that. Carlosguitar 03:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Again, like I said, the table is itself the problem. These are my issues with it:
- Adds unnecessary white space, which also gives it undue emphasis. (Adding color doesn't help at all, it adds even more emphasis)
- Emphasizes information that does not accurately convey the quality of a fighter (Win-loss is ok in parentheses after a fighter's name in prose because of limited space, in the context of a fighting record it should get second billing)
- Implies relationships which may or may not be real (ie, wins by submissions next to losses by submission)
- Creates more elaborate markup (newbie-unfriendly wikitable code) when not necessary: a simple line of text conveys the same information with more efficient use of space.
On top of that, I doubt the necessity of including constantly changing statistics in Wikipedia in general, so while I'm resistant to the idea, I'm a bit more open to adding more info but only if it is justified. The edit you were talking about was a revert to an older version, which I did because there was no consensus to remove that data in the first place. You see, consensus is an important thing here, its useful to get discussion on a change, especially one that can potentially change a hundred or so pages. hateless 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- So, what will you do to improve the table your disagreement? I already said why this table is necessary to articles like Mirko Cro Cop.
which I did because there was no consensus to remove that data in the first place.
- I never removed any data, I did a clean up. Why are you not understand it?
- No, you have no right to revert whole edit of someone because of a minor thing that you disliked, except in vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view. You did a mistake. Carlosguitar 01:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
