![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
@ Cassiopeia: @ Mac Dreamstate: @ Squared.Circle.Boxing:
Throughout boxing history, there have been hundreds of champions. The first disputes go back to the 1890s from the heavyweight title with the recognized world championship lineage of
John L. Sullivan through
James J. Jeffries. During the reign of
James J. Corbett,
Peter Maher claimed the heavyweight title and fought for that championship claim against
Bob Fitzsimmons in a rematch on Feb 21, 1896. The fight was billed as the world's heavyweight championship, yet most fans and writers at the time recognized Corbett as the true champion. We include this to the record of Fitzsimmons obviously and also for the fight after in which he was "defeated" by
Tom Sharkey.
When looking at the landscape of the times before alphabet championships, it is not too far removed from what we have nowadays. How is the middleweight championship landscape of 1911-1913 different from how the first 168lbs undisputed championship took place or any other division's lead up to an undisputed fight in the last ten years? The only differences I see are that nowadays, no decisions (newspaper decisions) are obsolete, and the titleholders do not fight multiple fights between title fights. Look at the careers of
Leo Houck,
Mike Gibbons,
Harry Lewis,
Jack Dillon,
Georges Carpentier, Cyclone Johnny Thompson,
Billy Papke, and
Frank Klaus. The undisputed champion was eventually crowned through multiple fights billed as championship fights (aka unifications). The inauguration of the NYSAC title only shows the future trends since Papke was still promoted as a title claimant before his bout with Klaus. The latter had held that alphabet middleweight title. All one has to do is choose their favorite combination of letters and imagine each title claim as a sanctioning body. This shows the importance of a fight being promoted/billed as a championship bout regardless of the era.
When we look at the situation between
George Foreman and
Shannon Briggs, we are looking at a fight that was promoted and billed as being for the "linear heavyweight championship." I understand the debate which culminated in the removal of lineal titles. I am not attempting to revive a dead argument despite having brought up a word that may indicate that I am trying to do so. I will show an example of what I mean after making my main points.
We already do not follow boxrec blindly, which is abundantly clear when you look at the champions of the Ring Magazine world champions. Boxrec includes no mention of any ring magazine championships, yet we have them, which shows that we do not base our information purely on what is shown on boxrec. Let's do the same in the cases of Tyson Fury, Shannon Briggs, and George Foreman. Watch the ring introductions of Foreman vs. Briggs, Spinks vs. Cooney, and Fury vs. any of his comeback opponents not named Deontay Wilder. Each introduction of the billing of the bout has two unifying similarities. No presence of a physical world championship belt, yet a statement of a fighter being some form of "the heavyweight champion." Boxrec lists no ring titles, as we know, but it lists Spinks vs. Cooney as having been promoted as the world's heavyweight championship. Foreman vs. Briggs and Fury's bouts in between his alphabet fights have no indication of being billed/promoted for any form of the world's heavyweight title by boxrec. We have proven not to care about what boxrec says as set in stone, so this should be completely irrelevant as each fight could, and honestly should have that note by boxrec as having been promoted as heavyweight championship bouts.
Now, I said that I am not reviving a debate on lineal titles. The examples have focused on heavyweight champions who have been called lineal champions at different points of their careers. Still, this change does not affect all other fighters referred to as lineal champions at some point or another. For example,
Guillermo Rigondeaux gained recognition as the lineal super bantamweight champion and never lost that status in the ring or abdicated it verbally. Rigondeaux vs. Ceja would not be affected by this change as the contest was billed as a WBC super bantamweight title Eliminator. This is a fight that was NOT promoted/billed as a world championship fight, and it must remain as such, whereas the fights aforementioned were promoted & billed as world title fights.
Finally, I would like to say that the conclusion that lineal titles are not to be included in boxing info tables has been a positive effect which has made working on records without alphabet letters much more accurate to the times. The lineal concept did not exist before the 1960s, and it is and always has been disingenuous to call champions prior "lineal" champions. Removing this concept from our records has forced me to read more about how champions were referred to before alphabet titles to retain the historical championships. For example, did you know that while many fans today call
Marvin Hart the former "lineal" heavyweight champion, the newspapers reporting on him at the time did not even fully recognize his championship and referred to it as a title "claim"? Furthermore,
Tommy Burns won the Police Gazette's vacant heavyweight championship after defeating Bill Squires. Without removing lineal titles, that information would be lost in archives and ultimately in time. I hope that these fights billed as championship fights aren't forgotten in time by the boxing fans who may be passing through an older record.
CaPslOcksBroKEn (
talk) 05:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
81 fights | 76 wins | 5 losses |
---|---|---|
By knockout | 68 | 1 |
By decision | 8 | 4 |
No. | Result | Record | Opponent | Type | Round, time | Date | Age | Location | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
81 | Loss | 76–5 | Shannon Briggs | MD | 12 | Nov 22, 1997 | 48 years, 316 days | Etess Arena, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. | Billed for the "world" heavyweight title |
80 | Win | 76–4 | Lou Savarese | SD | 12 | Apr 26, 1997 | 48 years, 106 days | Convention Hall, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. | Retained WBU heavyweight title Billed for the "world" heavyweight title |
79 | Win | 75–4 | Crawford Grimsley | UD | 12 | Nov 3, 1996 | 47 years, 298 days | NK Hall, Urayasu, Japan | Retained WBU heavyweight title; Won vacant IBA heavyweight title Billed for the "world" heavyweight title |
78 | Win | 74–4 | Axel Schulz | MD | 12 | Apr 22, 1995 | 46 years, 102 days | MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, U.S. | Retained IBF heavyweight title; Won vacant WBU heavyweight title |
77 | Win | 73–4 | Michael Moorer | KO | 10 (12), 2:03 | Nov 5, 1994 | 45 years, 299 days | MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, U.S. | Won WBA and IBF heavyweight titles |
68 fights | 60 wins | 6 losses |
---|---|---|
By knockout | 53 | 2 |
By decision | 7 | 4 |
Draws | 1 | |
No contests | 1 |
No. | Result | Record | Opponent | Type | Round, time | Date | Location | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
32 | Loss | 30–2 | Lennox Lewis | TKO | 5 (12), 1:45 | Mar 28, 1998 | Convention Center, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. | For WBC heavyweight title |
31 | Win | 30–1 | George Foreman | MD | 12 | Nov 22, 1997 | Etess Arena, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. | Billed for the "world" heavyweight title |
32 fights | 31 wins | 0 losses |
---|---|---|
By knockout | 22 | 0 |
By decision | 9 | 0 |
Draws | 1 |
No. | Result | Record | Opponent | Type | Round, time | Date | Location | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
33 | — | — | Dillian Whyte | — | – (12) | 23 Apr 2022 | Wembley Stadium, London, England | Defending WBC and The Ring heavyweight titles |
32 | Win | 31–0–1 | Deontay Wilder | KO | 11 (12), 1:10 | 9 Oct 2021 | T-Mobile Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US | Retained WBC and The Ring heavyweight titles |
31 | Win | 30–0–1 | Deontay Wilder | TKO | 7 (12), 1:39 | 22 Feb 2020 | MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US | Won WBC and vacant The Ring heavyweight titles |
30 | Win | 29–0–1 | Otto Wallin | UD | 12 | 14 Sep 2019 | T-Mobile Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US | Billed for the "lineal" heavyweight title |
29 | Win | 28–0–1 | Tom Schwarz | TKO | 2 (12), 2:54 | 15 Jun 2019 | MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US | Won WBO Inter-Continental heavyweight title; Billed for the "lineal" heavyweight title |
28 | Draw | 27–0–1 | Deontay Wilder | SD | 12 | 1 Dec 2018 | Staples Center, Los Angeles, California, US | For WBC heavyweight title |
27 | Win | 27–0 | Francesco Pianeta | PTS | 10 | 18 Aug 2018 | Windsor Park, Belfast, Northern Ireland | |
26 | Win | 26–0 | Sefer Seferi | RTD | 4 (10), 3:00 | 9 Jun 2018 | Manchester Arena, Manchester, England | |
25 | Win | 25–0 | Wladimir Klitschko | UD | 12 | 28 Nov 2015 | Esprit Arena, Düsseldorf, Germany | Won WBA (Super), IBF, WBO, IBO, and The Ring heavyweight titles |
Is it now time to get a new RfC going for these? I'm seeing it become an issue that some editors have encountered. The last RfC took place from December 2015 to January 2016, and ended in a no-consensus. Per bullet point #2, that is to mean flags which were present in a record table for a long time should stay in place, whereas tables which either never had flags ( Nick Blackwell, Robin Krasniqi) or have been without them for many years ( Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson) should not have them added/re-added. Obviously that confuses many new editors.
From the looks of it, we have a very different group of editors actively maintaining the Project compared to six years ago—whether that makes a difference remains to be seen, as I have no idea what y'alls stance is. Mine hasn't changed one bit. I maintain that professional boxers do not represent nationalities in the same way that amateurs do at an international level. Their licences also don't matter, as David Haye (or was it Derek Chisora?) famously boxed under a Luxembourgian licence in 2012, despite being British. Likewise another Brit, Danny Williams, boxed under a Latvian licence.
As I harped on about in the first RfC 'til I was blue in the face, the most logical reason to get rid of record table flags is that it would completely eliminate the edit wars which pop up in regard to Andy Ruiz Jr. (US/Mexican flags), Carl Frampton (UK/Irish flags), and many others. I'm also not willing to compromise on retaining country flags for the Location column—I want them all gone.
So, before I consider starting an RfC, it'd be helpful to know how many Project members are willing to chip in and be heard. The RfC would hopefully also draw in outside editors with no ties to the Project, for a most balanced set of opinions. It could all end up in another no-consensus, or even a consensus where everyone says "We love these cute little flaggies!".. ugh. Either way, that time might be now. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I have always liked the flagicons for that reason of knowing the nationality of the people they fought, but if deleting them will save all full records and allow me to continue mass adding records, I care more about the record. I have already begun mass deleting flagicons from historical fighters and champions just to be safe. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 14:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I am only mass deleting flags for the records I put in (over 250). Part of my initial goal was to add so many records with flagicons that it would become the consensus, but after this issue with Tommy Gibbons, I am going to do the exact opposite. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 22:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, the majority of fighters with flagicons pre 1960 are riddled with modern flags that didn’t exist at the time so I think that is a good place to start. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 22:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I have been adding collapsible options for fighters with newspaper decisions already. See
Jack Britton and
Ted Kid Lewis for examples of how I want it to be. Modern fighters will be affected if we delete fights. See
Roberto Duran and
Julio Cesar Chavez for examples. I personally feel the collapsible parameter should be in place for every career.
CaPslOcksBroKEn (
talk) 19:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
("Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article...") I do not feel this applies to any record whatsoever regardless of a collapsible parameter as this is the reason we place boxing records at the bottom of the article. The reason I feel all records should be collapsible for those nerds such as us that want to go down to the sources. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The biggest issue with this is not only that we haven't come to a conclusion, but that there is no consistency. There are plenty of fighters that can't have flagicons because the ethnicity of the fighters some boxers with articles faced is not known. If some articles cannot have flag icons, for the sake of consistency, no records should have flagicons.
CaPslOcksBroKEn (
talk) 18:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
When are we going to do anything about this? We need to also think about ease of reading for the visually impared... CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
So does this mean that we just don’t care about people who have visual impairments and have difficulty see through all the pretty colors? Someone on this project said they had difficulty seeing the difference between the previous orange for newspaper decisions and losses. We can’t pretend like people with worse visual ailments couldn’t possibly care about boxing. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
How can flag icons be used in cases such as Spain in the 1930s…? What flag is to be used in cases of civil wars where there was no flag consensus…? Also, why must flagicons be protected so much when we do not even list flags that existed at the time…? Cases like Ezzard Charles where the American flag showing is not the 1912 flag that was used at the time. We show the flag of Italy that isn’t representing the Kingdom of Italy in 1944 and instead a flag that was not used until 1946…If we “need” to retain flagicons, perhaps they should be consistent with the flags that existed…? CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Since the start of the MOS, I've been a proponent for including a redundant "0" even if a boxer has no losses, whilst omitting draws and NCs. Not really sure what my rationale was, but it's pointless either way. What's say we simply let the fields for Total fights and Wins balance themselves out and omit "0" from all fields until they become "1" or more? The infobox (truncated for example purposes) for Oleksandr Usyk would therefore look like this:
Oleksandr Usyk | |
---|---|
Boxing record | |
Total fights | 19 |
Wins | 19 |
Wins by KO | 13 |
As can be seen, there is no reason to list "0" losses since the total and wins tally up anyway. Listing "0" for losses, draws and NCs would look even dumber. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Can somebody incorporate the guidance from WP:INFONAT into the MOS? Cheers. – 2. O. Boxing 20:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
nationality=American
for Mayweather, or nationality=British
for Joshua?
Mac Dreamstate (
talk) 21:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm always looking at ways to bring as much of MOS:BOXING in line with WP's overarching MOS, so that we don't encounter the ire of editors unfamiliar with our practices at WikiProject Boxing. MOS:INFONAT was a great spot—just another small detail to make MOS:BOXING look more 'legit', shall we say, and not just an "essay". Truth be told, it still kinda stings how that editor put it so dismissively.. got me right in the feelz.
Anyway, one format I've insisted on sticking to for years is abbreviating the sanctioning bodies, mainly WBA/WBA/IBF/WBO, but also IBO, EBU and whichever others are common. However, I may have been going about this wrong. At MOS:ACRO it says:
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 ... if it is used later in the article.
Therefore, in order to be compliant with MOS:ABBR, what we should be doing in the lead and body of every boxing article (record tables and succession boxes are exempt for brevity) is replicating the format used in the lead section of Vitali Klitschko, namely:
He held the World Boxing Organization (WBO) title from 1999 to 2000 ... and the World Boxing Council (WBC) title twice between 2004 and 2013.
This is already regularly done with the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA) when naming awards, so it's time we start doing the same for the sanctioning bodies. Granted, it might look a bit clunky having to spell them out all the time, and in mainstream media the fully-worded names of the orgs are rarely used, but we have to accept they're not on the abovementioned list of exceptions. We wouldn't have to leg to stand on if any senior editor happened to come along and scrutinise MOS:BOXING for "doing our own thing", which is a possibility if edit wars spill out into WP:EWN, WP:AIV, WP:3O, etc.
Bases covered and all that. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Did Lewis identify as British or English, during his boxing career. If British? Why then is the "U.K." omitted from his boxing matches articles' infoboxes & his BLP's infobox, concerning his birthplace? GoodDay ( talk) 16:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Should Deirdre Nelson have an article as she did fight Mary Ann Almager for a boxing world title and she did take the Irish government to be the fight licenced female boxer. Irish boxing history-maker Deirdre Nelson challenged for a world title in Las Vegas in her first professional fight | The Irish Sun (thesun.ie) , Woman boxer wins legal fight – The Irish Times Dwanyewest ( talk) 11:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we add a note in the infobox and lead sections with links to WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY. It'll give us a more professional look ;) – 2. O. Boxing 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
African Boxing Confederation and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 19 § African Boxing Confederation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 21:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been using these formats for as long as I can remember..
.. but a recent edit by User:Fep1970 made me realise they're not correct. Yes, they're affiliated with the main orgs, but not labelled as such. Some may remember I made a similar mistake with WBC International Silver. So, zap the prefixed main orgs wherever you see them and just leave the affiliated org. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 16:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for spamming this here talk with yet more nitpicky shit, but there's something in Notes which has started to bug me—or rather, has me doubting myself with one of my old formats when the MOS got started.
For TD/NC/DQ explanations, we currently have these formats (indefinite articles underlined):
Split TD: Boxer cut from an accidental head clash
Originally a TKO win for Opponent, later ruled an NC after they failed a drug test
Originally a DQ win for Boxer, later ruled a KO win for Opponent after an incorrect referee call
Just a tiny bit clunky, but nothing outrageously brevity-killing. And should that be "an NC" or "a NC"? Anyway, if we drop the indefinite articles ("a", "an"):
Split TD: Boxer cut from accidental head clash
Originally TKO win for Opponent, later ruled NC after they failed drug test
Originally DQ win for Boxer, later ruled KO win for Opponent after incorrect referee call
Things start to look really clunky. Conversely, we never use definite articles ("the") for titles:
For WBC welterweight title
Add the definite article:
For the WBC welterweight title
Now that just looks flat-out weird. Any thoughts? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm opening a RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles -- Tbf69 15:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English. American-English typically uses full stops for abbreviations while British-English doesn't. Ringtv [4] and ESPN [5] (both American) include the full stop. Support replacing any instances of "v" (I haven't seen any) with "vs". – 2. O. Boxing 13:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
There are two main areas, however, where Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control:...
Spelling that differs between different varieties of English. TITLEVAR is unaffected. – 2. O. Boxing 19:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
v. — HTGS ( talk) 21:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
A proposal to modify WP:NBOXING is pending here. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at Yasmine Moutaqui and let me know what they think of her notability as a boxer? I assumed she would be notable as a IBA Women's World Amateur Boxing Championships and African Amateur Boxing Championships medalist, but I'm a bit confused by WP:NBOXING. Thank you! Mooonswimmer 20:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 20:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Does this section have a resource list? If it doesn't, I think having one would be very useful. Maybe someone here is sitting on a bunch of useful magazines or books and could help with some topics. KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
An article which may be of interest to members of this project—
Deen the Great vs. Walid Sharks—has been proposed for
merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you.
Chocobiscuits (
talk) 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Should we omit upcoming fights—even if confirmed with a date, press conferences or other publicity—from professional boxing record tables? Choices are to Support or Oppose omitting upcoming fights. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place(original emphasis). As we see at least half a dozen times per year, confirmed ≠ going to happen. – 2. O. Boxing 22:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This keeps some happy in that records stay 100% accurate, keeps others happy allowing upcoming sourced fights to be discussed, and gives a path for well sourced rumored fights to be included when they are notable. To me, this meets almost all the major points raised. Thoughts User:Mac Dreamstate, User:Cassiopeia, User:Squared.Circle.Boxing, and User talk:CaPslOcksBroKEn? (please add anyone I missed. RonSigPi ( talk)
For the most part that's a wrap, then? The RfC seemed to expire without much activity, but nonetheless that's five supports overall for User:RonSigPi's proposal, therefore a healthy Project-wise consensus. Can MOS:BOXING/RECORD now be amended to deprecate adding upcoming fights to record tables, and to zap all existing ones? And that we'll never have to see edits this or this ever again? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § Suggestion: Changing "Achievements and titles" order in Template:Infobox sportsperson. This invitation comes as this WikiProject's {{
Infobox boxer (amateur)}} is a wrapper of {{
Infobox sportsperson}}.
CLalgo (
talk) 10:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
MOS:ACRO1STUSE: 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. maximum transmission unit (MTU) 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, in which case the expansion can be omitted (except in the lead of its own article) or be in parentheses—e.g. according to the CIA (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency).[a]
I think it's about time we bring boxing BLPs in line with the rest of Wikipedia. The acronyms for sanctioning bodies should be spelled out per the above; they're not listed in the exceptions list and them being most commonly known by their acronym is debatable (for every source that doesn't spell them out, there's one that does). BLPs for UFC, NBA, NFL and NHL spell them out and I'd argue they're significantly more commonly known by their acronyms than the list of alphabet titles. Additionally, non-boxing fans won't have an inkling what these acronyms mean. We shouldn't force readers to click links when we have a perfectly applicable guideline that prevents it.
Pinging involved: @ LRQ 98: @ Chezza123: @ Mac Dreamstate: – 2. O. Boxing 11:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I think is fair to say are known to boxing fansis the point I'm making; only boxing fans know what the acronyms stand for, the rest of the world doesn't. If people don't know what the acronyms stand for then they're forced to click the link to find out. MOS:NOFORCELINK is relevant. MOS:BOXING is based on established policy and guidelines. WP:CONLEVEL applies,
participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. 2. O. Boxing 13:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Are we any closer to switching to notes for Super/Regular, etc.? The only sticking point was whether to use {{efn|}} or {{refn|group=nb|}}, but I'm really eager to see how it'll look. Got a good feeling about it. If either Crawford or Spence collect all the marbles, it would also be a good opportunity to experiment prominently (meaning, high visibility so that everyone sees a new format) with undisputed titles as mentioned above. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I've tried the note at Savannah Marshall. Wasn't too sure on the exact wording so I kept it simple. – 2. O. Boxing 20:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
@ Cassiopeia: @ Mac Dreamstate: @ Squared.Circle.Boxing:
Throughout boxing history, there have been hundreds of champions. The first disputes go back to the 1890s from the heavyweight title with the recognized world championship lineage of
John L. Sullivan through
James J. Jeffries. During the reign of
James J. Corbett,
Peter Maher claimed the heavyweight title and fought for that championship claim against
Bob Fitzsimmons in a rematch on Feb 21, 1896. The fight was billed as the world's heavyweight championship, yet most fans and writers at the time recognized Corbett as the true champion. We include this to the record of Fitzsimmons obviously and also for the fight after in which he was "defeated" by
Tom Sharkey.
When looking at the landscape of the times before alphabet championships, it is not too far removed from what we have nowadays. How is the middleweight championship landscape of 1911-1913 different from how the first 168lbs undisputed championship took place or any other division's lead up to an undisputed fight in the last ten years? The only differences I see are that nowadays, no decisions (newspaper decisions) are obsolete, and the titleholders do not fight multiple fights between title fights. Look at the careers of
Leo Houck,
Mike Gibbons,
Harry Lewis,
Jack Dillon,
Georges Carpentier, Cyclone Johnny Thompson,
Billy Papke, and
Frank Klaus. The undisputed champion was eventually crowned through multiple fights billed as championship fights (aka unifications). The inauguration of the NYSAC title only shows the future trends since Papke was still promoted as a title claimant before his bout with Klaus. The latter had held that alphabet middleweight title. All one has to do is choose their favorite combination of letters and imagine each title claim as a sanctioning body. This shows the importance of a fight being promoted/billed as a championship bout regardless of the era.
When we look at the situation between
George Foreman and
Shannon Briggs, we are looking at a fight that was promoted and billed as being for the "linear heavyweight championship." I understand the debate which culminated in the removal of lineal titles. I am not attempting to revive a dead argument despite having brought up a word that may indicate that I am trying to do so. I will show an example of what I mean after making my main points.
We already do not follow boxrec blindly, which is abundantly clear when you look at the champions of the Ring Magazine world champions. Boxrec includes no mention of any ring magazine championships, yet we have them, which shows that we do not base our information purely on what is shown on boxrec. Let's do the same in the cases of Tyson Fury, Shannon Briggs, and George Foreman. Watch the ring introductions of Foreman vs. Briggs, Spinks vs. Cooney, and Fury vs. any of his comeback opponents not named Deontay Wilder. Each introduction of the billing of the bout has two unifying similarities. No presence of a physical world championship belt, yet a statement of a fighter being some form of "the heavyweight champion." Boxrec lists no ring titles, as we know, but it lists Spinks vs. Cooney as having been promoted as the world's heavyweight championship. Foreman vs. Briggs and Fury's bouts in between his alphabet fights have no indication of being billed/promoted for any form of the world's heavyweight title by boxrec. We have proven not to care about what boxrec says as set in stone, so this should be completely irrelevant as each fight could, and honestly should have that note by boxrec as having been promoted as heavyweight championship bouts.
Now, I said that I am not reviving a debate on lineal titles. The examples have focused on heavyweight champions who have been called lineal champions at different points of their careers. Still, this change does not affect all other fighters referred to as lineal champions at some point or another. For example,
Guillermo Rigondeaux gained recognition as the lineal super bantamweight champion and never lost that status in the ring or abdicated it verbally. Rigondeaux vs. Ceja would not be affected by this change as the contest was billed as a WBC super bantamweight title Eliminator. This is a fight that was NOT promoted/billed as a world championship fight, and it must remain as such, whereas the fights aforementioned were promoted & billed as world title fights.
Finally, I would like to say that the conclusion that lineal titles are not to be included in boxing info tables has been a positive effect which has made working on records without alphabet letters much more accurate to the times. The lineal concept did not exist before the 1960s, and it is and always has been disingenuous to call champions prior "lineal" champions. Removing this concept from our records has forced me to read more about how champions were referred to before alphabet titles to retain the historical championships. For example, did you know that while many fans today call
Marvin Hart the former "lineal" heavyweight champion, the newspapers reporting on him at the time did not even fully recognize his championship and referred to it as a title "claim"? Furthermore,
Tommy Burns won the Police Gazette's vacant heavyweight championship after defeating Bill Squires. Without removing lineal titles, that information would be lost in archives and ultimately in time. I hope that these fights billed as championship fights aren't forgotten in time by the boxing fans who may be passing through an older record.
CaPslOcksBroKEn (
talk) 05:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
81 fights | 76 wins | 5 losses |
---|---|---|
By knockout | 68 | 1 |
By decision | 8 | 4 |
No. | Result | Record | Opponent | Type | Round, time | Date | Age | Location | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
81 | Loss | 76–5 | Shannon Briggs | MD | 12 | Nov 22, 1997 | 48 years, 316 days | Etess Arena, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. | Billed for the "world" heavyweight title |
80 | Win | 76–4 | Lou Savarese | SD | 12 | Apr 26, 1997 | 48 years, 106 days | Convention Hall, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. | Retained WBU heavyweight title Billed for the "world" heavyweight title |
79 | Win | 75–4 | Crawford Grimsley | UD | 12 | Nov 3, 1996 | 47 years, 298 days | NK Hall, Urayasu, Japan | Retained WBU heavyweight title; Won vacant IBA heavyweight title Billed for the "world" heavyweight title |
78 | Win | 74–4 | Axel Schulz | MD | 12 | Apr 22, 1995 | 46 years, 102 days | MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, U.S. | Retained IBF heavyweight title; Won vacant WBU heavyweight title |
77 | Win | 73–4 | Michael Moorer | KO | 10 (12), 2:03 | Nov 5, 1994 | 45 years, 299 days | MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, U.S. | Won WBA and IBF heavyweight titles |
68 fights | 60 wins | 6 losses |
---|---|---|
By knockout | 53 | 2 |
By decision | 7 | 4 |
Draws | 1 | |
No contests | 1 |
No. | Result | Record | Opponent | Type | Round, time | Date | Location | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
32 | Loss | 30–2 | Lennox Lewis | TKO | 5 (12), 1:45 | Mar 28, 1998 | Convention Center, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. | For WBC heavyweight title |
31 | Win | 30–1 | George Foreman | MD | 12 | Nov 22, 1997 | Etess Arena, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. | Billed for the "world" heavyweight title |
32 fights | 31 wins | 0 losses |
---|---|---|
By knockout | 22 | 0 |
By decision | 9 | 0 |
Draws | 1 |
No. | Result | Record | Opponent | Type | Round, time | Date | Location | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
33 | — | — | Dillian Whyte | — | – (12) | 23 Apr 2022 | Wembley Stadium, London, England | Defending WBC and The Ring heavyweight titles |
32 | Win | 31–0–1 | Deontay Wilder | KO | 11 (12), 1:10 | 9 Oct 2021 | T-Mobile Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US | Retained WBC and The Ring heavyweight titles |
31 | Win | 30–0–1 | Deontay Wilder | TKO | 7 (12), 1:39 | 22 Feb 2020 | MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US | Won WBC and vacant The Ring heavyweight titles |
30 | Win | 29–0–1 | Otto Wallin | UD | 12 | 14 Sep 2019 | T-Mobile Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US | Billed for the "lineal" heavyweight title |
29 | Win | 28–0–1 | Tom Schwarz | TKO | 2 (12), 2:54 | 15 Jun 2019 | MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US | Won WBO Inter-Continental heavyweight title; Billed for the "lineal" heavyweight title |
28 | Draw | 27–0–1 | Deontay Wilder | SD | 12 | 1 Dec 2018 | Staples Center, Los Angeles, California, US | For WBC heavyweight title |
27 | Win | 27–0 | Francesco Pianeta | PTS | 10 | 18 Aug 2018 | Windsor Park, Belfast, Northern Ireland | |
26 | Win | 26–0 | Sefer Seferi | RTD | 4 (10), 3:00 | 9 Jun 2018 | Manchester Arena, Manchester, England | |
25 | Win | 25–0 | Wladimir Klitschko | UD | 12 | 28 Nov 2015 | Esprit Arena, Düsseldorf, Germany | Won WBA (Super), IBF, WBO, IBO, and The Ring heavyweight titles |
Is it now time to get a new RfC going for these? I'm seeing it become an issue that some editors have encountered. The last RfC took place from December 2015 to January 2016, and ended in a no-consensus. Per bullet point #2, that is to mean flags which were present in a record table for a long time should stay in place, whereas tables which either never had flags ( Nick Blackwell, Robin Krasniqi) or have been without them for many years ( Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson) should not have them added/re-added. Obviously that confuses many new editors.
From the looks of it, we have a very different group of editors actively maintaining the Project compared to six years ago—whether that makes a difference remains to be seen, as I have no idea what y'alls stance is. Mine hasn't changed one bit. I maintain that professional boxers do not represent nationalities in the same way that amateurs do at an international level. Their licences also don't matter, as David Haye (or was it Derek Chisora?) famously boxed under a Luxembourgian licence in 2012, despite being British. Likewise another Brit, Danny Williams, boxed under a Latvian licence.
As I harped on about in the first RfC 'til I was blue in the face, the most logical reason to get rid of record table flags is that it would completely eliminate the edit wars which pop up in regard to Andy Ruiz Jr. (US/Mexican flags), Carl Frampton (UK/Irish flags), and many others. I'm also not willing to compromise on retaining country flags for the Location column—I want them all gone.
So, before I consider starting an RfC, it'd be helpful to know how many Project members are willing to chip in and be heard. The RfC would hopefully also draw in outside editors with no ties to the Project, for a most balanced set of opinions. It could all end up in another no-consensus, or even a consensus where everyone says "We love these cute little flaggies!".. ugh. Either way, that time might be now. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I have always liked the flagicons for that reason of knowing the nationality of the people they fought, but if deleting them will save all full records and allow me to continue mass adding records, I care more about the record. I have already begun mass deleting flagicons from historical fighters and champions just to be safe. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 14:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I am only mass deleting flags for the records I put in (over 250). Part of my initial goal was to add so many records with flagicons that it would become the consensus, but after this issue with Tommy Gibbons, I am going to do the exact opposite. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 22:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, the majority of fighters with flagicons pre 1960 are riddled with modern flags that didn’t exist at the time so I think that is a good place to start. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 22:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I have been adding collapsible options for fighters with newspaper decisions already. See
Jack Britton and
Ted Kid Lewis for examples of how I want it to be. Modern fighters will be affected if we delete fights. See
Roberto Duran and
Julio Cesar Chavez for examples. I personally feel the collapsible parameter should be in place for every career.
CaPslOcksBroKEn (
talk) 19:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
("Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article...") I do not feel this applies to any record whatsoever regardless of a collapsible parameter as this is the reason we place boxing records at the bottom of the article. The reason I feel all records should be collapsible for those nerds such as us that want to go down to the sources. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The biggest issue with this is not only that we haven't come to a conclusion, but that there is no consistency. There are plenty of fighters that can't have flagicons because the ethnicity of the fighters some boxers with articles faced is not known. If some articles cannot have flag icons, for the sake of consistency, no records should have flagicons.
CaPslOcksBroKEn (
talk) 18:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
When are we going to do anything about this? We need to also think about ease of reading for the visually impared... CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
So does this mean that we just don’t care about people who have visual impairments and have difficulty see through all the pretty colors? Someone on this project said they had difficulty seeing the difference between the previous orange for newspaper decisions and losses. We can’t pretend like people with worse visual ailments couldn’t possibly care about boxing. CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
How can flag icons be used in cases such as Spain in the 1930s…? What flag is to be used in cases of civil wars where there was no flag consensus…? Also, why must flagicons be protected so much when we do not even list flags that existed at the time…? Cases like Ezzard Charles where the American flag showing is not the 1912 flag that was used at the time. We show the flag of Italy that isn’t representing the Kingdom of Italy in 1944 and instead a flag that was not used until 1946…If we “need” to retain flagicons, perhaps they should be consistent with the flags that existed…? CaPslOcksBroKEn ( talk) 16:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Since the start of the MOS, I've been a proponent for including a redundant "0" even if a boxer has no losses, whilst omitting draws and NCs. Not really sure what my rationale was, but it's pointless either way. What's say we simply let the fields for Total fights and Wins balance themselves out and omit "0" from all fields until they become "1" or more? The infobox (truncated for example purposes) for Oleksandr Usyk would therefore look like this:
Oleksandr Usyk | |
---|---|
Boxing record | |
Total fights | 19 |
Wins | 19 |
Wins by KO | 13 |
As can be seen, there is no reason to list "0" losses since the total and wins tally up anyway. Listing "0" for losses, draws and NCs would look even dumber. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Can somebody incorporate the guidance from WP:INFONAT into the MOS? Cheers. – 2. O. Boxing 20:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
nationality=American
for Mayweather, or nationality=British
for Joshua?
Mac Dreamstate (
talk) 21:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'm always looking at ways to bring as much of MOS:BOXING in line with WP's overarching MOS, so that we don't encounter the ire of editors unfamiliar with our practices at WikiProject Boxing. MOS:INFONAT was a great spot—just another small detail to make MOS:BOXING look more 'legit', shall we say, and not just an "essay". Truth be told, it still kinda stings how that editor put it so dismissively.. got me right in the feelz.
Anyway, one format I've insisted on sticking to for years is abbreviating the sanctioning bodies, mainly WBA/WBA/IBF/WBO, but also IBO, EBU and whichever others are common. However, I may have been going about this wrong. At MOS:ACRO it says:
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 ... if it is used later in the article.
Therefore, in order to be compliant with MOS:ABBR, what we should be doing in the lead and body of every boxing article (record tables and succession boxes are exempt for brevity) is replicating the format used in the lead section of Vitali Klitschko, namely:
He held the World Boxing Organization (WBO) title from 1999 to 2000 ... and the World Boxing Council (WBC) title twice between 2004 and 2013.
This is already regularly done with the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA) when naming awards, so it's time we start doing the same for the sanctioning bodies. Granted, it might look a bit clunky having to spell them out all the time, and in mainstream media the fully-worded names of the orgs are rarely used, but we have to accept they're not on the abovementioned list of exceptions. We wouldn't have to leg to stand on if any senior editor happened to come along and scrutinise MOS:BOXING for "doing our own thing", which is a possibility if edit wars spill out into WP:EWN, WP:AIV, WP:3O, etc.
Bases covered and all that. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Did Lewis identify as British or English, during his boxing career. If British? Why then is the "U.K." omitted from his boxing matches articles' infoboxes & his BLP's infobox, concerning his birthplace? GoodDay ( talk) 16:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Should Deirdre Nelson have an article as she did fight Mary Ann Almager for a boxing world title and she did take the Irish government to be the fight licenced female boxer. Irish boxing history-maker Deirdre Nelson challenged for a world title in Las Vegas in her first professional fight | The Irish Sun (thesun.ie) , Woman boxer wins legal fight – The Irish Times Dwanyewest ( talk) 11:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Can we add a note in the infobox and lead sections with links to WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY. It'll give us a more professional look ;) – 2. O. Boxing 20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
African Boxing Confederation and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 19 § African Boxing Confederation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Shhhnotsoloud (
talk) 21:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
I've been using these formats for as long as I can remember..
.. but a recent edit by User:Fep1970 made me realise they're not correct. Yes, they're affiliated with the main orgs, but not labelled as such. Some may remember I made a similar mistake with WBC International Silver. So, zap the prefixed main orgs wherever you see them and just leave the affiliated org. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 16:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Apologies for spamming this here talk with yet more nitpicky shit, but there's something in Notes which has started to bug me—or rather, has me doubting myself with one of my old formats when the MOS got started.
For TD/NC/DQ explanations, we currently have these formats (indefinite articles underlined):
Split TD: Boxer cut from an accidental head clash
Originally a TKO win for Opponent, later ruled an NC after they failed a drug test
Originally a DQ win for Boxer, later ruled a KO win for Opponent after an incorrect referee call
Just a tiny bit clunky, but nothing outrageously brevity-killing. And should that be "an NC" or "a NC"? Anyway, if we drop the indefinite articles ("a", "an"):
Split TD: Boxer cut from accidental head clash
Originally TKO win for Opponent, later ruled NC after they failed drug test
Originally DQ win for Boxer, later ruled KO win for Opponent after incorrect referee call
Things start to look really clunky. Conversely, we never use definite articles ("the") for titles:
For WBC welterweight title
Add the definite article:
For the WBC welterweight title
Now that just looks flat-out weird. Any thoughts? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm opening a RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles -- Tbf69 15:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English. American-English typically uses full stops for abbreviations while British-English doesn't. Ringtv [4] and ESPN [5] (both American) include the full stop. Support replacing any instances of "v" (I haven't seen any) with "vs". – 2. O. Boxing 13:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
There are two main areas, however, where Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control:...
Spelling that differs between different varieties of English. TITLEVAR is unaffected. – 2. O. Boxing 19:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
v. — HTGS ( talk) 21:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
A proposal to modify WP:NBOXING is pending here. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at Yasmine Moutaqui and let me know what they think of her notability as a boxer? I assumed she would be notable as a IBA Women's World Amateur Boxing Championships and African Amateur Boxing Championships medalist, but I'm a bit confused by WP:NBOXING. Thank you! Mooonswimmer 20:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at
Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent
Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{
WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{ WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{
WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present.
Aymatth2 (
talk) 20:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Does this section have a resource list? If it doesn't, I think having one would be very useful. Maybe someone here is sitting on a bunch of useful magazines or books and could help with some topics. KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
An article which may be of interest to members of this project—
Deen the Great vs. Walid Sharks—has been proposed for
merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in
the merger discussion. Thank you.
Chocobiscuits (
talk) 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
Should we omit upcoming fights—even if confirmed with a date, press conferences or other publicity—from professional boxing record tables? Choices are to Support or Oppose omitting upcoming fights. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place(original emphasis). As we see at least half a dozen times per year, confirmed ≠ going to happen. – 2. O. Boxing 22:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
This keeps some happy in that records stay 100% accurate, keeps others happy allowing upcoming sourced fights to be discussed, and gives a path for well sourced rumored fights to be included when they are notable. To me, this meets almost all the major points raised. Thoughts User:Mac Dreamstate, User:Cassiopeia, User:Squared.Circle.Boxing, and User talk:CaPslOcksBroKEn? (please add anyone I missed. RonSigPi ( talk)
For the most part that's a wrap, then? The RfC seemed to expire without much activity, but nonetheless that's five supports overall for User:RonSigPi's proposal, therefore a healthy Project-wise consensus. Can MOS:BOXING/RECORD now be amended to deprecate adding upcoming fights to record tables, and to zap all existing ones? And that we'll never have to see edits this or this ever again? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § Suggestion: Changing "Achievements and titles" order in Template:Infobox sportsperson. This invitation comes as this WikiProject's {{
Infobox boxer (amateur)}} is a wrapper of {{
Infobox sportsperson}}.
CLalgo (
talk) 10:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
MOS:ACRO1STUSE: 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. maximum transmission unit (MTU) 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, in which case the expansion can be omitted (except in the lead of its own article) or be in parentheses—e.g. according to the CIA (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency).[a]
I think it's about time we bring boxing BLPs in line with the rest of Wikipedia. The acronyms for sanctioning bodies should be spelled out per the above; they're not listed in the exceptions list and them being most commonly known by their acronym is debatable (for every source that doesn't spell them out, there's one that does). BLPs for UFC, NBA, NFL and NHL spell them out and I'd argue they're significantly more commonly known by their acronyms than the list of alphabet titles. Additionally, non-boxing fans won't have an inkling what these acronyms mean. We shouldn't force readers to click links when we have a perfectly applicable guideline that prevents it.
Pinging involved: @ LRQ 98: @ Chezza123: @ Mac Dreamstate: – 2. O. Boxing 11:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I think is fair to say are known to boxing fansis the point I'm making; only boxing fans know what the acronyms stand for, the rest of the world doesn't. If people don't know what the acronyms stand for then they're forced to click the link to find out. MOS:NOFORCELINK is relevant. MOS:BOXING is based on established policy and guidelines. WP:CONLEVEL applies,
participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. 2. O. Boxing 13:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Are we any closer to switching to notes for Super/Regular, etc.? The only sticking point was whether to use {{efn|}} or {{refn|group=nb|}}, but I'm really eager to see how it'll look. Got a good feeling about it. If either Crawford or Spence collect all the marbles, it would also be a good opportunity to experiment prominently (meaning, high visibility so that everyone sees a new format) with undisputed titles as mentioned above. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 18:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I've tried the note at Savannah Marshall. Wasn't too sure on the exact wording so I kept it simple. – 2. O. Boxing 20:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)