This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ricky Hatton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can someone please fix the championship title box for the ring magazine fighter of the year? I tried but it wouldnt work. Scapone
If this fight had taken place in Vegas vs Manchester, where holding (ie wrestling) was perfected to a science during the 'boxing' match, the outcome would have been VERY different...NO DOUBT...sorry, just keeping things VERY real...
according to the wikipedia, ricky hatton regularly attends hyde united home games, this is not fact as he doesn't attend and has no time whatsoever for the club even though he is from hyde and the club have just been wound up by the high courts!
@ 145.128.174.74: WBC, IBF and WBU are not "boxing jargon", they are the acronyms the sanctioning bodies are most commonly known by. As per the MOS you quoted in your edit summary;
"Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) if it is used later in the article. Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym (i.e., its article here is at the acronym title), in which case the expansion can come in the parenthetical or be omitted, except in the lead of its own article: according to the CIA (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency)."
The boxing manual of style also references MOS:ABBR in relation to the naming of sanctioning bodies;
"Most sanctioning bodies should be abbreviated instead of fully worded: WBA instead of World Boxing Association. This is acceptable per MOS:ABBR."
Both MOS's support the use of the acronyms without being fully worded. – 2. O. Boxing 23:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This definitely needs revisiting, and MOS:BOXING likely needs to fall in line with other articles in which the abbreviation is spelled out first. The various boxing sanctioning bodies are indeed not titled under their abbreviations unlike WWE, BBC, CIA, etc. Suggest new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, where I did actually bring up this subject earlier in the year. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 23:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, and International Boxing Federation welterweight champion, and if examples are found, there will be a substantial amount more that use the acronym to demonstrate which is more common. Anecdotal I know, but I have family members and friends that are barely-casual boxing fans who know the acronyms and not the names. For somebody who isn't a boxing fan, is reading a boxing related BLP and doesn't know what a
WBA welterweight championshipis, spelling it out won't give any additional insight. – 2. O. Boxing 10:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
having held the unified World Boxing Association (WBA) (Super), International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Organization (WBO) and International Boxing Organization (IBO) heavyweight titles. – 2. O. Boxing 02:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
NBA and NFL are good points that are kind of difficult to argue against lol per the MOS, one could easily argue in favour of only using the acronyms in those articles as well. I'd say NBA and NFL are just as commonly known as CIA and FBI. The only difference I can really think of is the clutter aspect; expanding on one acronym isn't as messy as expanding on several.
Both ways are acceptable, per the MOS. If consensus establishes that they should be spelled out, then that's fine. I'd prefer them not to be but it's MOS-compliant. What isn't going to happen is a trigger happy IP edit warring their preference in to the article while throwing around bad-faith accusations from the beginning. That's a good way to find yourself blocked and make others lose interest in your crusade. – 2. O. Boxing 09:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Any organisation that has an acronym is almost always known by that acronym. That does not mean that everyone in the world knows what the acronym stands for; it does not mean that readers do not need to know what it stands for; it means you need to define it once, when the term is first used. 86.177.202.42 ( talk) 15:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Everyone in the worldhasn't heard of the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, World Boxing Organization, etc., nor the championships they award, so whether it's an acronym or spelled out makes no difference to them. The reason I'm arguing against your changes is because the MOS explicitly allows what I'm arguing for. You said it's against MOS, we've demonstrated otherwise. The way to proceed would be for you to demonstrate that our reasoning is wrong--being that the championships are most commonly known by their acronyms. – 2. O. Boxing 16:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Once the IP's block expires, and considering they can refrain from being disruptive, maybe we can get an explanation of why Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym
doesn't apply to world championships that are commonly known by their acronym. –
2.
O.
Boxing
20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
... [has] held the World Boxing Association (WBA) super middleweight title ( Super version) since/in/from...
... became the World Boxing Association (WBA) super middleweight champion ( Super title) by defeating...
I'm still fine with the acronyms, but if you agree with the IP–and considering both are MOS compliant, and the suggested option is consistent with other sports organisations–I'm also fine with a 2v1 consensus. In regards to which formation to use for the WBA (Super) title, I'm leaning towards your first example, but I'm gonna have a little think on that one.
Just imagine if this discussion would have been started per WP:BRD, my balls would ache a tad bit less (because, ya know, proper ball ache). – 2. O. Boxing 00:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Mac Dreamstate: sorry, I forgot about this discussion. I can't think of any alternatives and I assume the IP is in agreement with your suggestion (I've notified them of this comment). Would it be worth dropping a note at the project to make others aware? I doubt an RfC or further discussion is needed. – 2. O. Boxing 19:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
It’s possible for everyone here to be right. Both the IP and other editors are citing relevant MoS pages, which is great. The thing that isn’t great is the edit warring. That leads to blocks and that’s no fun. Please come to consensus here on the talk page and if that’s not possible, please agree to disagree. I am hopeful cooler heads will prevail, otherwise WP:3RR prevails. Zsinj Talk 01:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Ricky Hatton article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can someone please fix the championship title box for the ring magazine fighter of the year? I tried but it wouldnt work. Scapone
If this fight had taken place in Vegas vs Manchester, where holding (ie wrestling) was perfected to a science during the 'boxing' match, the outcome would have been VERY different...NO DOUBT...sorry, just keeping things VERY real...
according to the wikipedia, ricky hatton regularly attends hyde united home games, this is not fact as he doesn't attend and has no time whatsoever for the club even though he is from hyde and the club have just been wound up by the high courts!
@ 145.128.174.74: WBC, IBF and WBU are not "boxing jargon", they are the acronyms the sanctioning bodies are most commonly known by. As per the MOS you quoted in your edit summary;
"Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) if it is used later in the article. Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym (i.e., its article here is at the acronym title), in which case the expansion can come in the parenthetical or be omitted, except in the lead of its own article: according to the CIA (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency)."
The boxing manual of style also references MOS:ABBR in relation to the naming of sanctioning bodies;
"Most sanctioning bodies should be abbreviated instead of fully worded: WBA instead of World Boxing Association. This is acceptable per MOS:ABBR."
Both MOS's support the use of the acronyms without being fully worded. – 2. O. Boxing 23:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
This definitely needs revisiting, and MOS:BOXING likely needs to fall in line with other articles in which the abbreviation is spelled out first. The various boxing sanctioning bodies are indeed not titled under their abbreviations unlike WWE, BBC, CIA, etc. Suggest new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, where I did actually bring up this subject earlier in the year. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 23:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, and International Boxing Federation welterweight champion, and if examples are found, there will be a substantial amount more that use the acronym to demonstrate which is more common. Anecdotal I know, but I have family members and friends that are barely-casual boxing fans who know the acronyms and not the names. For somebody who isn't a boxing fan, is reading a boxing related BLP and doesn't know what a
WBA welterweight championshipis, spelling it out won't give any additional insight. – 2. O. Boxing 10:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
having held the unified World Boxing Association (WBA) (Super), International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Organization (WBO) and International Boxing Organization (IBO) heavyweight titles. – 2. O. Boxing 02:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
NBA and NFL are good points that are kind of difficult to argue against lol per the MOS, one could easily argue in favour of only using the acronyms in those articles as well. I'd say NBA and NFL are just as commonly known as CIA and FBI. The only difference I can really think of is the clutter aspect; expanding on one acronym isn't as messy as expanding on several.
Both ways are acceptable, per the MOS. If consensus establishes that they should be spelled out, then that's fine. I'd prefer them not to be but it's MOS-compliant. What isn't going to happen is a trigger happy IP edit warring their preference in to the article while throwing around bad-faith accusations from the beginning. That's a good way to find yourself blocked and make others lose interest in your crusade. – 2. O. Boxing 09:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Any organisation that has an acronym is almost always known by that acronym. That does not mean that everyone in the world knows what the acronym stands for; it does not mean that readers do not need to know what it stands for; it means you need to define it once, when the term is first used. 86.177.202.42 ( talk) 15:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Everyone in the worldhasn't heard of the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, World Boxing Organization, etc., nor the championships they award, so whether it's an acronym or spelled out makes no difference to them. The reason I'm arguing against your changes is because the MOS explicitly allows what I'm arguing for. You said it's against MOS, we've demonstrated otherwise. The way to proceed would be for you to demonstrate that our reasoning is wrong--being that the championships are most commonly known by their acronyms. – 2. O. Boxing 16:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Once the IP's block expires, and considering they can refrain from being disruptive, maybe we can get an explanation of why Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym
doesn't apply to world championships that are commonly known by their acronym. –
2.
O.
Boxing
20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
... [has] held the World Boxing Association (WBA) super middleweight title ( Super version) since/in/from...
... became the World Boxing Association (WBA) super middleweight champion ( Super title) by defeating...
I'm still fine with the acronyms, but if you agree with the IP–and considering both are MOS compliant, and the suggested option is consistent with other sports organisations–I'm also fine with a 2v1 consensus. In regards to which formation to use for the WBA (Super) title, I'm leaning towards your first example, but I'm gonna have a little think on that one.
Just imagine if this discussion would have been started per WP:BRD, my balls would ache a tad bit less (because, ya know, proper ball ache). – 2. O. Boxing 00:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Mac Dreamstate: sorry, I forgot about this discussion. I can't think of any alternatives and I assume the IP is in agreement with your suggestion (I've notified them of this comment). Would it be worth dropping a note at the project to make others aware? I doubt an RfC or further discussion is needed. – 2. O. Boxing 19:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
It’s possible for everyone here to be right. Both the IP and other editors are citing relevant MoS pages, which is great. The thing that isn’t great is the edit warring. That leads to blocks and that’s no fun. Please come to consensus here on the talk page and if that’s not possible, please agree to disagree. I am hopeful cooler heads will prevail, otherwise WP:3RR prevails. Zsinj Talk 01:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)