![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I would like clarification on how we should handle this phrase in lead sections. Let's use Carl Froch as an example: in the current lead he is listed as a three-time world champion, to mean that he had three reigns as champion. However, there is a case to say that he is actually a four-time world champion, since he won four separate titles; his IBF and WBA reigns overlapped. Another example is Timothy Bradley: his lead recently listed him as a four-time world champion, to mean four reigns, but he has won five world titles. I'm torn on which definition we should use—cumulative title reigns or titles alone. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 00:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm seeing this horrible.. row thing.. creeping into record tables whenever a boxer had an extended period of inactivity:
No. | Result | Record | Opponent | Type | Round, time | Date | Location | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Win | 2–0 | test | test | test | test | test | ||
Example text | |||||||||
1 | Win | 1–0 | test | test | test | test | test | test |
So far it's in the tables for Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Mike Tyson, and most recently Tommy Morrison. They were briefly in place for Dillian Whyte, Kid Galahad and David Haye, but I'm having none of it without consensus. I absolutely hate the damn thing for several reasons:
They're gone now. A note will be made at MOS:BOXING/RECORD to not insert them in future. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
As discussed above, there is a desire to change criterion #2 of WP:NBOX to the following:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment will read:
This page is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject on Boxing and provides a list of men's non-world titles that qualify for the purposes of meeting criterion #2 of WP:NBOX. The list exclusively includes:
Those titles not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability for any fighters. Note that female title winners, interim title winners, and title challengers will be given no presumptive notability without winning one of the above titles or meeting another criterion of WP:NBOX. Any change to this list must be discussed and approved by way of consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing.
END TEXT
We already have Bennyaha, PRehse, and me on board for this change (see above - unless they want a wording change somewhere). I agree with PRehse that we need a bit more consensus to make this effective. Reaching out to Mac Dreamstate, Dwanyewest, Caribbean~H.Q., talk - you are active on this talk page and I have seen you opine on various topics. Care to chime in with your yes/no and comments? I would like at least four editors agreeing, but all six would be great (or even more, just reaching out to those that seem active). RonSigPi ( talk) 20:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems like we have a green light. Four editors on board and no one has said no. If after 48 hours I don't hear anything to the contrary, then I will make the update. RonSigPi ( talk) 02:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Update to WP:NBOX made (small change for clarification - instead of "Those titles not otherwise listed are considered to..." it reads "Those non-world titles not otherwise listed are considered to..." since it could be read to conflict with criterion #1. RonSigPi ( talk) 22:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd like some clarification over what should be included under the See also section of any given boxer's article. Fpwlada ( talk) 03:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
After looking at the boxing records table I have something I'd like to suggest for change instead of the using Type as the box for how the fight was won how about Method because it is in fact the "method" in which they won rather then the "type" of way they won JMichael22 ( talk) 20:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Result | Record | Opponent | Method | Round, time | Date | Location | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Win | 1–0 |
![]() |
TKO | 7 (12), 2:10 | Aug 19, 2017 |
![]() |
The Money Belt for the Mayweather vs. McGregor fight is being promoted by the sanctioned World Boxing Council and being promoted as a legitimate Title where does it say that this Belt isn't a real Title as stated by Mac Dreamstate and in which iv heard enough from him and would like to hear from others regarding this matters instead of just him, Wikipedia is a sight where if you have legitimate resources to back up your information it can be placed the President of the WBC has stated this is indeed a legit Title fight but for some reason a Wikipedia editor has taken it upon himself to deem this not a legitimate Title or Title fight. so I'd like to know why is it in the realm of Wikipedia not a Title or Title fight JMichael22 ( talk) 15:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
For those Project members who are adept at creating fight articles, we sorely need one for this all-time massive event. There's enough content at both the Leonard and Hagler articles to form quite a substantial article. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed that Wayne McCullough is listed with a UK flag on the Naseem Hamed record.
While not wanting to get into the political issue of the flags — being from and having fought for Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games, and then fighting for Ireland at the Olympic Games, should his flag not appear as the NI flag as more appropriate for his nationality?
I should add that many other boxers records list it with the Irish flag, which I don't know about either.
Just trying to clarify what it should appear as.
Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Jake LaMotta I think should have a more convential boxing record template on his page what does everyone else think? Dwanyewest ( talk) 00:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, definately. I wouldn't mind, but I have a rather lengthy to do list for some boxers profiles. Mahussain06 ( talk) 08:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a consensus on what name we use for Thai boxers, the most prominent Thai boxers are listed under their pseudonym but you see some boxers like Wittawas Basapean with their real name and champions at the lowest weights who haven't really fought in the West listed under their birth names as well. Most media publications (especially ones that focus on the region like Rappler or Asian Boxing) refer to Thai boxers by their fighting name and not their birth name, BoxRec is the only source that prefers using their birth names.
I think it's for the best that most of them are moved to their pseudonym. I propose that the only time when we should default to the birth name is when a fighter has fought with 2 or more different names, other than their birth name. Category: Thai male boxers is relatively small so I could do this on my own but I wanted everyone's input. Fpwlada ( talk) 14:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This has probably been raised before, but do we include AIBA Pro Boxing bouts as part of a boxer's professional record? The question sprung to mind as Alberto Melián's "pro debut" is happening this month. The Argentinian commission counts six fights under AIBA Pro Boxing as part of his record. BoxRec is probably not a reliable source in this case as Mathieu Bauderlique's APB fights are included in his record but Tony Yoka's are not. Fpwlada ( talk) 19:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Boxing
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I made an edit recently and once I was finished I saw someone had come in a changed it a bit. I'm curious to know why Wiki chooses to add a – Inbetween Super-Middleweight I feel it doesn't serve any purpose and don't understand why it's needed. If anyone could explain this edit to me I'd greatly appreciate it. Also want to note after doing my research visiting different boxing sites and such I see no one uses the – besides BoxRec for the Inter-Continental other then that no major boxing Organizations use the –. JMichael22 ( talk) 16:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
After multiple disputes over the location of the Casino with Mac Dreamstate. I provided multiple sources while he provided none and he continued to attempt to argue the facts. So with this talk page I'm going to provide every source I have that states the Foxwoods Resort Casino is located in Mashantucket, CT and Not Ledyard, CT JMichael22 ( talk) 03:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Foxwoods Resort Casino Facebook Page
Official Foxwoods Resort Website Casino Contact Information
BoxRec Locations: Foxwoods Resort Casino
Trip Advisor Foxwoods Resort Casino Information
Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center this source is of the Museum within Mashantucket as some have said Mashantucket isn't a official town it seems one as a official Museum for the town has been established JMichael22 ( talk) 17:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Another Source The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation shows the address within the town of Mashantucket JMichael22 ( talk) 17:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Google maps over the official site really? JMichael22 ( talk) 17:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate every source I've provided are official links from creditable Foxwoods Resort accounts and website which all state Mashantucket, CT not Ledyard, CT. looking at a map I see them both separate from each other and even pointed out one of your sources which has Ledyard as the title and Mashantucket in the article stating the surrounding area of Mashantucket not the surrounding area of Ledyard. at this point I don't know what more I can do to support my claim. I even gave a official very strongly creditable video from there website where they state Mashantucket. Now I don't know if a consensus will be reached JMichael22 ( talk) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is a new source I have found regarding Foxwoods being located in Mashantucket, CT The Fox Tower @ Foxwoods Resort Casino JMichael22 ( talk) 00:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Should the location of Foxwoods Resort Casino be changed to Mashantucket, Connecticut; or remain as Ledyard, Connecticut?
Based on the above sets of discussion and multitude of sources provided by User:JMichael22 and myself, it can be considered acceptable to list the location of Foxwoods both ways, according to mainstream media. If going by the sources, neither location is wrong; therefore this is simply a labelling issue that needs a multi-editor consensus. Please read both viewpoints carefully, as well as the sources.
Before posting your messages of Support change or Oppose change, consider whether or not it is warranted that Foxwoods should be an exception from the standard format of "[city/town], [state]" for U.S. locations, per the current edition of MOS:BOXING/RECORD. If the location is changed to Mashantucket, this will need to be reflected in the MOS, and will affect about 120 articles. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I need to post both these sources here Foxwoods Commercial Foxwoods Commercial 2 Foxwoods Commercial 3 three legitimate commercials from the official Foxwoods Resort stating three live shows at the Casino Located in Mashantucket, CT at this point if people can argue with these even more credible sources then people need to study the state of CT and the Mashantucket tribe to learn Mashantucket is its own town JMichael22 ( talk) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Comiconn 2018 Mashantucket, CT another source to show Mashantucket is separate from Ledyard if the casino was in Ledyard why wouldn't they promote it in Ledyard? why are all of these sources promoting it in Mashantucket? JMichael22 ( talk) 21:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Pat O'Keefe#Request edit on 5 January 2018. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
22:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated Susi Kentikian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Lizard ( talk) 17:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
At MOS:BOXING/TITLES, for the "Stripped" parameter after the date range, Stripped (title lost on the scales) is now simply Stripped. The reason for this is because, within the cramped table, we already don't state the myriad other reasons a boxer may have been stripped (inactivity, sanctioning bodies being shady, etc.) Brevity is key. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In fight records, please go ahead and change Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Hollywood to Hard Rock Live, and Hard Rock Hotel and Casino (Las Vegas) to The Joint, as those are the arenas in which boxing takes place. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Our current format of weight classes was agreed upon via consensus in November 2015, and put into practice at MOS:BOXING/WEIGHT. I would say it's worked OK since then, at least insofar as eliminating the hideous use of proper nouns ("Light Heavyweight") and determining when hyphens are used (US/"light heavyweight"; UK/"light-heavyweight"), but one thing with which I've never been truly happy are the varying names as it relates to sanctioning bodies.
The system we currently have in place gets especially irksome when a boxer, having first won (e.g.) the WBC "super lightweight" title, later unifies and wins the WBO "junior welterweight" title. I know I'm not the only who finds it silly to then have to retroactively change it to "light welterweight". Picking hairs. It is also not feasible to favour either "super lightweight" or "junior welterweight", because WP:COMMONNAME falls flat: "super lightweight" is used by the WBA, WBC, and BoxRec; "junior welterweight" is used by the IBF, WBO, and The Ring.
After nearly three years and a shitload of having to explain things to confused new editors, I propose we ditch this clunky element of MOS:BOXING and use WP's own neutral article titles—especially light welterweight and light middleweight—and apply them to the entirety of all professional boxing articles, except for the champions lists ( WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, The Ring, etc.)
How it would look in practice: no longer would we refer to any WBO cruiserweight champion as a "junior heavyweight" champion—screw it, gone. Likewise no more "junior lightweight" for Vasyl Lomachenko (he's a super featherweight; easy), or "junior welterweight" for Mikey Garcia (he's a light welterweight; easy).
Let's have some Support or Oppose below. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hulu Buys Rights - What are we doing in regards to this on a boxers record table? I'm assuming as the time they hold the rights, we should be writing this as The Hulu Theater? Or the The Hulu Theater at Madison Square Garden? -- Mahussain06 ( talk) 10:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
As discussed here on passed discussion [1] I would like to open the floor to do the annual review on boxing notability in their regional titles or even for other stuff.
I would like to invite : RonSigPi : PRehse to be part of this discussion as they were part of the original discussion about the notability changing
tell me what you think -- Bennyaha ( talk) 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
According to criterion #2 of WP:NBOX only British Boxing champions from 1929 onwards are defined as notable. Only the British Boxing Board of Control is listed here as an authority for the Brit’s. Yet BoxRec recognises National Sporting Club (NSC) sanctioned title fights between 1891-1929 as legitimate British championship fights too. I recommend the NSC (1891-1929) is added to the list of authorities. Okeeffemarc ( talk) 23:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
My thoughts
And regarding Okeeffemarc, I think the NSC title starting in 1909 is fine to add. RonSigPi ( talk) 22:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
RonSigPi Okeeffemarc With women boxing starting really kick off over last 2 years, more titles are being fought for both in regionals and world title. WBC have been very serious about the female division and been active with their titles. The other couple of sanctioning bodies last year only started to catch up. Even in Boxrec with their own version of wikipedia they list the current world champions in the sanctioning bodies [2]. My change with criterion #2 of WP:NBOX is to remove the note that states "Note that female title winners... ...will be given no presumptive notability without winning one of the above titles or meeting another criterion of WP:NBOX", just the female part. Then Again I really only noticed WBO Asia Pacific (ignore boxrec as they only added it to boxrec recently and need to catch up on editing the champions in), WBC OPBF, WBA Oceania (again Boxrec needs to catch up on their edits) and WBC ABCO, which means asia pacific regions are being pro active with the regional titles. -- Bennyaha ( talk) 10:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
After reading through the comments I have put these together one proposed changes. Any further comments or discussions feel free to add above. Please comment under each change if you oppose or support as listed below I invite all members to vote including the following people who contributed to the discussion
-- Bennyaha ( talk) 10:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
vote here
vote here
vote here
vote here
vote here
vote here
vote here
vote here
Comment I didn't vote on 9 yet. Why are we adding that? Isn't that already covered by BBBofC and National Sporting Club (1891-1929)? RonSigPi ( talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I will give votes an extra 48 hours to come in and make changes accordingly but looks good -- Bennyaha ( talk) 07:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Changes will be made now to the votes that were unanimously voted yes. Voting has now closed -- Bennyaha ( talk) 07:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Been working on the Lonsdale Belt article recently and have nominated it for GA, please take a look. Feel free to make changes or even review it. Anyone can review an article for GA. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc ( talk) 01:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to point this out to the regular editors of the boxing articles so we can all be on the same page. I've noticed a lot of articles mention a Silver International title. Which doesn't exist. It should actually state "International Silver" title. Its the fourth-tier belt in the WBC's hierarchy: World~~Silver~~International~~International Silver.
This is the official page of the WBC International Committee [3] Its headed by Mauro Betti, who's also the WBC Vice-President. A link to that website is also included in the main WBC site (see bottom-right panel, right below Muay Thai) in case anyone suspects its a fake. Here is the list of current International and Int'l Silver champions per the site [4] (right column). Click on the names for a list of past champs of the division. A directory with a few PDF newsletters from the Int'l Committee [5] (the ones with "Mauro" on the title) on the WBC site for anyone curious. DA1 ( talk) 17:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
[[World Boxing Council|WBC]] International [[WBC Silver|Silver]]
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
20:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Hello. The page Bare Knuckle Boxing Hall of Fame was recently expanded significantly and a passing editor saw fit to remove its {{boxing-stub}} template, as it has surpassed the quality of a stub-class article. However, its class from this project on its talk page remains stub, and it has not been assigned any other class. As someone with little knowledge of boxing or classes in general I do not know what class to reassign the page to, so could someone from this project please visit the page and change it? Thanks :) GeorgmentO ( talk) 20:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I was editing some of the WBA lineages as they were seeming rather ambiguos to me. The WBA policy of having multiple champions at one weight class at the same time and each one of them being referred to differently is even more perplexing to normal readers. Yes, they may have a “Super champion” or “Unified champion” but having two champions at the same time is just obsolete. They don’t even have a rigid criteria which explicitly explains when a champion can be referred to as “Super”. E.g last week Gervonta Davis won the “Super title” at the super featherweight division although there was already a “regular” champion ( Alberto Machado). Last year such was the case with the super middleweight division where there was a champion already ( Tyron Zeuge), but George Groves and Fedor Chudinov fought for the "Super title". And while the "Super-Regular" case may not be that hard to understand, here comes the "Unified title" and even "Undisputed". You know what, I am okay, provided there is strict criteria which says e.g "A champion with two major titles is 'Unified', a champion with three major titles is 'Super' and a champion with all four major titles is 'Undisputed'". But the case is different. It is as if they call their champions however they like. And thus it becomes even more complicated to trace the "true" lineage of the title. The "Super" has its own lineage, the "regular" has its own. But do "Unified" and "Undisputed" also have different lineages? It is truly complex to comprehend.
As far as I am concerned, the "special" titles should have only one lineage, judging by the fact they all offer the same priviliges to the respective champions (except maybe for the mandatory defence period, but I am not sure) and they only differ in name. Additionally, I believe if there are to remain all these different titles, at least we should maybe have a more clear criteria which correctly explains why and how a boxer can receive one of the "special" titles. Because when you see Sergey Kovalev (who held the WBA, IBF and WBO titles before his losses against Andre Ward, whilst the WBC was in possesion of Adonis Stevenson) being referred to as "Undisputed" by the WBA and then you see Terence Crawford (who held the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO in addition to The Ring and Lineal titles in 2017 before vacating them) being referred to as "Super" by the WBA, you witness a pretty good example of sheer inadequacy.
After all, perhaps it would be best if the WBA had only one champion, being referred to as, simply, "champion" which is the case with the other major organizations. Or they may create a kind of honorary title, similarly to WBO, to award boxers who have accomplished resounding success. Dabo2000 ( talk) 22:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's one example of my thought process for when I tried labelling some of the Super/Regular/neither/interim title lineages:
When David Haye held the WBA heavyweight title, no Super or Regular version had yet existed at heavyweight. When he lost it to Wladimir Klitschko, there is an argument to be made that it 'became' the Super title (more on that below). In Haye's succession box, I've gone back and forth between labelling either Klitschko as the successor (Champion → Super champion), or having the title vacant and next held by Alexander Povetkin (Champion → Regular champion). However, each path has its own problems.
Fucking hell, I'm only confusing myself now.. ;-) Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 21:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
What is consensus on this on Wikipedia? -- Mahussain06 ( talk) 09:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
PRehse, I am unsure why Pavel Malikov was tagged citing WP:NBOX, when he satisfies NBOX per rule #3 and rule #2. Having held both the WBC ABCO title (indicated in the article) and the WBA Asia title (#2), and being ranked in the world's Top 10 by one of the four major bodies (#3). A few days ago, you did the same to Isa Chaniev (also ranked in the Top 5).
Pavel is currently ranked #6 by the IBF [7]. The article was already tagged with {{ BLP Sources}}, I don't see why an additional {{ Proposed deletion}} nomination is necessary citing WP:NBOX, which it already satisfies. – DA1 ( talk) 09:23, 8 May 2018 (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 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I would like clarification on how we should handle this phrase in lead sections. Let's use Carl Froch as an example: in the current lead he is listed as a three-time world champion, to mean that he had three reigns as champion. However, there is a case to say that he is actually a four-time world champion, since he won four separate titles; his IBF and WBA reigns overlapped. Another example is Timothy Bradley: his lead recently listed him as a four-time world champion, to mean four reigns, but he has won five world titles. I'm torn on which definition we should use—cumulative title reigns or titles alone. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 00:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm seeing this horrible.. row thing.. creeping into record tables whenever a boxer had an extended period of inactivity:
No. | Result | Record | Opponent | Type | Round, time | Date | Location | Notes | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2 | Win | 2–0 | test | test | test | test | test | ||
Example text | |||||||||
1 | Win | 1–0 | test | test | test | test | test | test |
So far it's in the tables for Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Mike Tyson, and most recently Tommy Morrison. They were briefly in place for Dillian Whyte, Kid Galahad and David Haye, but I'm having none of it without consensus. I absolutely hate the damn thing for several reasons:
They're gone now. A note will be made at MOS:BOXING/RECORD to not insert them in future. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
As discussed above, there is a desire to change criterion #2 of WP:NBOX to the following:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment will read:
This page is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject on Boxing and provides a list of men's non-world titles that qualify for the purposes of meeting criterion #2 of WP:NBOX. The list exclusively includes:
Those titles not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability for any fighters. Note that female title winners, interim title winners, and title challengers will be given no presumptive notability without winning one of the above titles or meeting another criterion of WP:NBOX. Any change to this list must be discussed and approved by way of consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing.
END TEXT
We already have Bennyaha, PRehse, and me on board for this change (see above - unless they want a wording change somewhere). I agree with PRehse that we need a bit more consensus to make this effective. Reaching out to Mac Dreamstate, Dwanyewest, Caribbean~H.Q., talk - you are active on this talk page and I have seen you opine on various topics. Care to chime in with your yes/no and comments? I would like at least four editors agreeing, but all six would be great (or even more, just reaching out to those that seem active). RonSigPi ( talk) 20:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Seems like we have a green light. Four editors on board and no one has said no. If after 48 hours I don't hear anything to the contrary, then I will make the update. RonSigPi ( talk) 02:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Update to WP:NBOX made (small change for clarification - instead of "Those titles not otherwise listed are considered to..." it reads "Those non-world titles not otherwise listed are considered to..." since it could be read to conflict with criterion #1. RonSigPi ( talk) 22:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd like some clarification over what should be included under the See also section of any given boxer's article. Fpwlada ( talk) 03:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
After looking at the boxing records table I have something I'd like to suggest for change instead of the using Type as the box for how the fight was won how about Method because it is in fact the "method" in which they won rather then the "type" of way they won JMichael22 ( talk) 20:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Result | Record | Opponent | Method | Round, time | Date | Location | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Win | 1–0 |
![]() |
TKO | 7 (12), 2:10 | Aug 19, 2017 |
![]() |
The Money Belt for the Mayweather vs. McGregor fight is being promoted by the sanctioned World Boxing Council and being promoted as a legitimate Title where does it say that this Belt isn't a real Title as stated by Mac Dreamstate and in which iv heard enough from him and would like to hear from others regarding this matters instead of just him, Wikipedia is a sight where if you have legitimate resources to back up your information it can be placed the President of the WBC has stated this is indeed a legit Title fight but for some reason a Wikipedia editor has taken it upon himself to deem this not a legitimate Title or Title fight. so I'd like to know why is it in the realm of Wikipedia not a Title or Title fight JMichael22 ( talk) 15:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
For those Project members who are adept at creating fight articles, we sorely need one for this all-time massive event. There's enough content at both the Leonard and Hagler articles to form quite a substantial article. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed that Wayne McCullough is listed with a UK flag on the Naseem Hamed record.
While not wanting to get into the political issue of the flags — being from and having fought for Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games, and then fighting for Ireland at the Olympic Games, should his flag not appear as the NI flag as more appropriate for his nationality?
I should add that many other boxers records list it with the Irish flag, which I don't know about either.
Just trying to clarify what it should appear as.
Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Jake LaMotta I think should have a more convential boxing record template on his page what does everyone else think? Dwanyewest ( talk) 00:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, definately. I wouldn't mind, but I have a rather lengthy to do list for some boxers profiles. Mahussain06 ( talk) 08:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a consensus on what name we use for Thai boxers, the most prominent Thai boxers are listed under their pseudonym but you see some boxers like Wittawas Basapean with their real name and champions at the lowest weights who haven't really fought in the West listed under their birth names as well. Most media publications (especially ones that focus on the region like Rappler or Asian Boxing) refer to Thai boxers by their fighting name and not their birth name, BoxRec is the only source that prefers using their birth names.
I think it's for the best that most of them are moved to their pseudonym. I propose that the only time when we should default to the birth name is when a fighter has fought with 2 or more different names, other than their birth name. Category: Thai male boxers is relatively small so I could do this on my own but I wanted everyone's input. Fpwlada ( talk) 14:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This has probably been raised before, but do we include AIBA Pro Boxing bouts as part of a boxer's professional record? The question sprung to mind as Alberto Melián's "pro debut" is happening this month. The Argentinian commission counts six fights under AIBA Pro Boxing as part of his record. BoxRec is probably not a reliable source in this case as Mathieu Bauderlique's APB fights are included in his record but Tony Yoka's are not. Fpwlada ( talk) 19:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Boxing
Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I made an edit recently and once I was finished I saw someone had come in a changed it a bit. I'm curious to know why Wiki chooses to add a – Inbetween Super-Middleweight I feel it doesn't serve any purpose and don't understand why it's needed. If anyone could explain this edit to me I'd greatly appreciate it. Also want to note after doing my research visiting different boxing sites and such I see no one uses the – besides BoxRec for the Inter-Continental other then that no major boxing Organizations use the –. JMichael22 ( talk) 16:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
After multiple disputes over the location of the Casino with Mac Dreamstate. I provided multiple sources while he provided none and he continued to attempt to argue the facts. So with this talk page I'm going to provide every source I have that states the Foxwoods Resort Casino is located in Mashantucket, CT and Not Ledyard, CT JMichael22 ( talk) 03:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Foxwoods Resort Casino Facebook Page
Official Foxwoods Resort Website Casino Contact Information
BoxRec Locations: Foxwoods Resort Casino
Trip Advisor Foxwoods Resort Casino Information
Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center this source is of the Museum within Mashantucket as some have said Mashantucket isn't a official town it seems one as a official Museum for the town has been established JMichael22 ( talk) 17:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Another Source The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation shows the address within the town of Mashantucket JMichael22 ( talk) 17:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Google maps over the official site really? JMichael22 ( talk) 17:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate every source I've provided are official links from creditable Foxwoods Resort accounts and website which all state Mashantucket, CT not Ledyard, CT. looking at a map I see them both separate from each other and even pointed out one of your sources which has Ledyard as the title and Mashantucket in the article stating the surrounding area of Mashantucket not the surrounding area of Ledyard. at this point I don't know what more I can do to support my claim. I even gave a official very strongly creditable video from there website where they state Mashantucket. Now I don't know if a consensus will be reached JMichael22 ( talk) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Here is a new source I have found regarding Foxwoods being located in Mashantucket, CT The Fox Tower @ Foxwoods Resort Casino JMichael22 ( talk) 00:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Should the location of Foxwoods Resort Casino be changed to Mashantucket, Connecticut; or remain as Ledyard, Connecticut?
Based on the above sets of discussion and multitude of sources provided by User:JMichael22 and myself, it can be considered acceptable to list the location of Foxwoods both ways, according to mainstream media. If going by the sources, neither location is wrong; therefore this is simply a labelling issue that needs a multi-editor consensus. Please read both viewpoints carefully, as well as the sources.
Before posting your messages of Support change or Oppose change, consider whether or not it is warranted that Foxwoods should be an exception from the standard format of "[city/town], [state]" for U.S. locations, per the current edition of MOS:BOXING/RECORD. If the location is changed to Mashantucket, this will need to be reflected in the MOS, and will affect about 120 articles. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I need to post both these sources here Foxwoods Commercial Foxwoods Commercial 2 Foxwoods Commercial 3 three legitimate commercials from the official Foxwoods Resort stating three live shows at the Casino Located in Mashantucket, CT at this point if people can argue with these even more credible sources then people need to study the state of CT and the Mashantucket tribe to learn Mashantucket is its own town JMichael22 ( talk) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Comiconn 2018 Mashantucket, CT another source to show Mashantucket is separate from Ledyard if the casino was in Ledyard why wouldn't they promote it in Ledyard? why are all of these sources promoting it in Mashantucket? JMichael22 ( talk) 21:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Pat O'Keefe#Request edit on 5 January 2018. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
22:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I have nominated Susi Kentikian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Lizard ( talk) 17:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
At MOS:BOXING/TITLES, for the "Stripped" parameter after the date range, Stripped (title lost on the scales) is now simply Stripped. The reason for this is because, within the cramped table, we already don't state the myriad other reasons a boxer may have been stripped (inactivity, sanctioning bodies being shady, etc.) Brevity is key. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
In fight records, please go ahead and change Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Hollywood to Hard Rock Live, and Hard Rock Hotel and Casino (Las Vegas) to The Joint, as those are the arenas in which boxing takes place. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 17:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Our current format of weight classes was agreed upon via consensus in November 2015, and put into practice at MOS:BOXING/WEIGHT. I would say it's worked OK since then, at least insofar as eliminating the hideous use of proper nouns ("Light Heavyweight") and determining when hyphens are used (US/"light heavyweight"; UK/"light-heavyweight"), but one thing with which I've never been truly happy are the varying names as it relates to sanctioning bodies.
The system we currently have in place gets especially irksome when a boxer, having first won (e.g.) the WBC "super lightweight" title, later unifies and wins the WBO "junior welterweight" title. I know I'm not the only who finds it silly to then have to retroactively change it to "light welterweight". Picking hairs. It is also not feasible to favour either "super lightweight" or "junior welterweight", because WP:COMMONNAME falls flat: "super lightweight" is used by the WBA, WBC, and BoxRec; "junior welterweight" is used by the IBF, WBO, and The Ring.
After nearly three years and a shitload of having to explain things to confused new editors, I propose we ditch this clunky element of MOS:BOXING and use WP's own neutral article titles—especially light welterweight and light middleweight—and apply them to the entirety of all professional boxing articles, except for the champions lists ( WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, The Ring, etc.)
How it would look in practice: no longer would we refer to any WBO cruiserweight champion as a "junior heavyweight" champion—screw it, gone. Likewise no more "junior lightweight" for Vasyl Lomachenko (he's a super featherweight; easy), or "junior welterweight" for Mikey Garcia (he's a light welterweight; easy).
Let's have some Support or Oppose below. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 20:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Hulu Buys Rights - What are we doing in regards to this on a boxers record table? I'm assuming as the time they hold the rights, we should be writing this as The Hulu Theater? Or the The Hulu Theater at Madison Square Garden? -- Mahussain06 ( talk) 10:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
As discussed here on passed discussion [1] I would like to open the floor to do the annual review on boxing notability in their regional titles or even for other stuff.
I would like to invite : RonSigPi : PRehse to be part of this discussion as they were part of the original discussion about the notability changing
tell me what you think -- Bennyaha ( talk) 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
According to criterion #2 of WP:NBOX only British Boxing champions from 1929 onwards are defined as notable. Only the British Boxing Board of Control is listed here as an authority for the Brit’s. Yet BoxRec recognises National Sporting Club (NSC) sanctioned title fights between 1891-1929 as legitimate British championship fights too. I recommend the NSC (1891-1929) is added to the list of authorities. Okeeffemarc ( talk) 23:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
My thoughts
And regarding Okeeffemarc, I think the NSC title starting in 1909 is fine to add. RonSigPi ( talk) 22:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
RonSigPi Okeeffemarc With women boxing starting really kick off over last 2 years, more titles are being fought for both in regionals and world title. WBC have been very serious about the female division and been active with their titles. The other couple of sanctioning bodies last year only started to catch up. Even in Boxrec with their own version of wikipedia they list the current world champions in the sanctioning bodies [2]. My change with criterion #2 of WP:NBOX is to remove the note that states "Note that female title winners... ...will be given no presumptive notability without winning one of the above titles or meeting another criterion of WP:NBOX", just the female part. Then Again I really only noticed WBO Asia Pacific (ignore boxrec as they only added it to boxrec recently and need to catch up on editing the champions in), WBC OPBF, WBA Oceania (again Boxrec needs to catch up on their edits) and WBC ABCO, which means asia pacific regions are being pro active with the regional titles. -- Bennyaha ( talk) 10:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
After reading through the comments I have put these together one proposed changes. Any further comments or discussions feel free to add above. Please comment under each change if you oppose or support as listed below I invite all members to vote including the following people who contributed to the discussion
-- Bennyaha ( talk) 10:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
vote here
vote here
vote here
vote here
vote here
vote here
vote here
vote here
Comment I didn't vote on 9 yet. Why are we adding that? Isn't that already covered by BBBofC and National Sporting Club (1891-1929)? RonSigPi ( talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I will give votes an extra 48 hours to come in and make changes accordingly but looks good -- Bennyaha ( talk) 07:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Changes will be made now to the votes that were unanimously voted yes. Voting has now closed -- Bennyaha ( talk) 07:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Been working on the Lonsdale Belt article recently and have nominated it for GA, please take a look. Feel free to make changes or even review it. Anyone can review an article for GA. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc ( talk) 01:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to point this out to the regular editors of the boxing articles so we can all be on the same page. I've noticed a lot of articles mention a Silver International title. Which doesn't exist. It should actually state "International Silver" title. Its the fourth-tier belt in the WBC's hierarchy: World~~Silver~~International~~International Silver.
This is the official page of the WBC International Committee [3] Its headed by Mauro Betti, who's also the WBC Vice-President. A link to that website is also included in the main WBC site (see bottom-right panel, right below Muay Thai) in case anyone suspects its a fake. Here is the list of current International and Int'l Silver champions per the site [4] (right column). Click on the names for a list of past champs of the division. A directory with a few PDF newsletters from the Int'l Committee [5] (the ones with "Mauro" on the title) on the WBC site for anyone curious. DA1 ( talk) 17:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
[[World Boxing Council|WBC]] International [[WBC Silver|Silver]]
Mac Dreamstate (
talk)
20:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Hello. The page Bare Knuckle Boxing Hall of Fame was recently expanded significantly and a passing editor saw fit to remove its {{boxing-stub}} template, as it has surpassed the quality of a stub-class article. However, its class from this project on its talk page remains stub, and it has not been assigned any other class. As someone with little knowledge of boxing or classes in general I do not know what class to reassign the page to, so could someone from this project please visit the page and change it? Thanks :) GeorgmentO ( talk) 20:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
I was editing some of the WBA lineages as they were seeming rather ambiguos to me. The WBA policy of having multiple champions at one weight class at the same time and each one of them being referred to differently is even more perplexing to normal readers. Yes, they may have a “Super champion” or “Unified champion” but having two champions at the same time is just obsolete. They don’t even have a rigid criteria which explicitly explains when a champion can be referred to as “Super”. E.g last week Gervonta Davis won the “Super title” at the super featherweight division although there was already a “regular” champion ( Alberto Machado). Last year such was the case with the super middleweight division where there was a champion already ( Tyron Zeuge), but George Groves and Fedor Chudinov fought for the "Super title". And while the "Super-Regular" case may not be that hard to understand, here comes the "Unified title" and even "Undisputed". You know what, I am okay, provided there is strict criteria which says e.g "A champion with two major titles is 'Unified', a champion with three major titles is 'Super' and a champion with all four major titles is 'Undisputed'". But the case is different. It is as if they call their champions however they like. And thus it becomes even more complicated to trace the "true" lineage of the title. The "Super" has its own lineage, the "regular" has its own. But do "Unified" and "Undisputed" also have different lineages? It is truly complex to comprehend.
As far as I am concerned, the "special" titles should have only one lineage, judging by the fact they all offer the same priviliges to the respective champions (except maybe for the mandatory defence period, but I am not sure) and they only differ in name. Additionally, I believe if there are to remain all these different titles, at least we should maybe have a more clear criteria which correctly explains why and how a boxer can receive one of the "special" titles. Because when you see Sergey Kovalev (who held the WBA, IBF and WBO titles before his losses against Andre Ward, whilst the WBC was in possesion of Adonis Stevenson) being referred to as "Undisputed" by the WBA and then you see Terence Crawford (who held the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO in addition to The Ring and Lineal titles in 2017 before vacating them) being referred to as "Super" by the WBA, you witness a pretty good example of sheer inadequacy.
After all, perhaps it would be best if the WBA had only one champion, being referred to as, simply, "champion" which is the case with the other major organizations. Or they may create a kind of honorary title, similarly to WBO, to award boxers who have accomplished resounding success. Dabo2000 ( talk) 22:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Here's one example of my thought process for when I tried labelling some of the Super/Regular/neither/interim title lineages:
When David Haye held the WBA heavyweight title, no Super or Regular version had yet existed at heavyweight. When he lost it to Wladimir Klitschko, there is an argument to be made that it 'became' the Super title (more on that below). In Haye's succession box, I've gone back and forth between labelling either Klitschko as the successor (Champion → Super champion), or having the title vacant and next held by Alexander Povetkin (Champion → Regular champion). However, each path has its own problems.
Fucking hell, I'm only confusing myself now.. ;-) Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 21:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
What is consensus on this on Wikipedia? -- Mahussain06 ( talk) 09:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
PRehse, I am unsure why Pavel Malikov was tagged citing WP:NBOX, when he satisfies NBOX per rule #3 and rule #2. Having held both the WBC ABCO title (indicated in the article) and the WBA Asia title (#2), and being ranked in the world's Top 10 by one of the four major bodies (#3). A few days ago, you did the same to Isa Chaniev (also ranked in the Top 5).
Pavel is currently ranked #6 by the IBF [7]. The article was already tagged with {{ BLP Sources}}, I don't see why an additional {{ Proposed deletion}} nomination is necessary citing WP:NBOX, which it already satisfies. – DA1 ( talk) 09:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)