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
Disagree. Just an F.Y.I. to anyone reading this, there is a whole new section of UFC events that was created (for some reason) to try and consolidate all the UFC events (upcoming). The article itself is ultimately a bad idea and I am 100% against it and would like to participate with its further discussion. So, if anyone notices any areas where this is being discussed, I would like to be notified of it. Keeping each UFC Events' articles separate, to me, is much more concise, useful, logical, accessible, and stylistic. Also, seeing as how each particular event is notable, consistent, and, well, better. Also, each event, excluding sometimes just one particular fight, is very sure to happen in the future -- which Wikipedia policy completely allows. So, again, there are quite a few Wikipedia policies that support keeping these articles separate. Thanks. LogicalCreator (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. LogicalCreator said it perfectly. This new consoldiated or omnibussing of UFC events is really stupid. It takes what are now very user friendly, concise, useful information and combine it into an necessarily mucky hodgepodge of way too much data. There is nothing valuable to be gained by doing that. Keep UFC events as single articles!. Pull lead (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Having separate pages is cleaner, easier to read, more logical and more user friendly. These events are not part of a canon the UFC created: they really are separate, with only the name of the event (UFC on Fox) being a nominal common element. There is no point in taking simple and clear information and presenting it in an uglier, more difficult form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlightlyInsane (talk • contribs) 16:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Again just supporting the previous comments, it is clear this system is better than the other one. Combining a list of events may be useful but ONLY in support of full single articles, such as this one. Bigmansam45 (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]