Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing. 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.

Hello, I was wondering if it would be better to change the column "Date" to "Duration of reign" in the WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO list of world champions' pages, to match the List of IBO world champions page. I find by having only the date of assumption of title (in the WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO examples), instead of the entire reign? gives the mistaken appearance that many of the WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO champions' reigned for only 'one' day. GoodDay (talk) GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Highly agree. Date by itself forces the reader to have to glance up and down constantly to find out the span of the reign from the next titleholder's row. The IBO list has the right format. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

T'would make more sense. Duration of reign seems more relevant than date of win in those lengthy lists. Would it be worth trimming the dates down to just the years, except in the current year or when a reign ended the same year it was won, we can include months? The full dates have always annoyed my eyeballs. – ².O.^Boxing 19:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Not a good idea as they're surely meant to be exhaustive lists. To find out the date when a boxer won a title, a reader shouldn't have to navigate to their corresponding article and scroll down to the succession box. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Sorry eyeballs. – ².O.^Boxing 21:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

To lessen clutter, one can adopt the abbreviation style, for the months. Use (for example) "Feb 7, 2019 – Feb 7, 2021". GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I do like abbreviated months in tables, but seeing as you've started I'm fine with them spelled out. Saves you going back over the ones you've already done. – ².O.^Boxing 23:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It's going to take a few days to bring'em all in line with the IBO champions page. Indeed the WBA champions page is a nightmare of sorts, due to its history & adoption of having concurrent (i.e Super/Regular) champions in each division. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It appears that @Blizzythesnowman: opposes my implementation, concerning the 'reign' dates. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: & @Mac Dreamstate:, gonna need your advice here. Shall I continue making the proposed changes or throw in the towel. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Blizzy needs to come here and voice his opposition. The more look at it, this format looks poor. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no problems if majority agrees with the new format. It was an old format that I followed when I was editing all of those pages 2 years ago. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO & Ring Magazine champions lists, are completed. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't mentioned in the above RFC but I think it's safe to say the exclusion of upcoming fights extends to exhibition records, per the same rationale; they're not guaranteed to happen and the record table is a record of what has happened, not what might. Pinging @GhaziTwaissi: as we've had a revert or two on the matter. – ².O.^Boxing 12:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely that should be the case. Lack of common sense if they think a different guideline applies. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone who reads an article about a boxer knows all the abbreviations. For example, in the article on Dmitry Bivol, there is a box column with his fights. A lot of them have "UD" in a column called "type"(a general word that is used with some sort of specific meaning). The article nowhere explains what "UD" means. It should be explained in some way, e.g., in a footnote or maybe a mouse-over. Kdammers (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ACRO1STUSE gives two options; link UD on the first occurrence in the record table or spell it out with the acronym in parenthesis in the prose. The latter is something I've done in a bunch of articles (see Jack Catterall), and I think fewer links is better when it comes to tables, so I prefer that option. – ².O.^Boxing 01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Aren't the tooltips sufficient? They begin from the bottom of the table. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

ACRO1STUSE seems to suggest no, To save space in small spaces, acronyms do not need to be written out in full...When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be linked. For usage of the tooltip it says, Upon later re-use in a long article, the template {{abbr}} can be used to provide a mouse-over tooltip. ².O.^Boxing 20:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Then perhaps a key, like they do at F1 articles. Long ago I had one in mind whilst compiling the MOS, but template:abbr was the quickest to implement at the time. Anything to avoid spelling out the result acronyms in the table—I've never liked the MOS:MMA way of doing it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I must say, that's a pretty cool template. Not quite sure about using it for boxing though. I'd prefer to spell it out with the acronym in parenthesis on first use, then use acronyms throughout the article. We'd also keep the tooltips with that option, which I think are handy, even though they don't work on my mobile device. My least preferred option would be linking them in the table. And let's agree to just ignore how MMA do things lol (no offence, folks). – ².O.^Boxing 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand this change was caused by the adding of fights with no official announcements, however it is misleading and has lead to actual fight articles being poor in quality. For example, Spence vs Crawford was one of the most anticipated fights of this generation and the quality of the article was appalling. In some instances, some important fight articles, like Fulton vs Inoue, haven’t been made due to fight articles typically being accessed and created through the record table. Moreso, it is misleading because it leads people reading Wikipedia to believe that said fighter has no upcoming fight. BoxRec displays this well and it is one of the main authorities of boxing record-keeping. Therefore, I request a discussion to add back upcoming fights to record tables. As per, choices are to Support or Oppose. Cheers. Faren29 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment – Wikipedia is not BoxRec or a news ticker; it's an encyclopaedia. Opening a new RfC just months after a clear consensus on the previous one is in very bad faith: WP:CCC, "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." Quite frankly this is an insult after all the effort it took. You had all the time in the world to participate in the original RfC but you ignored it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Spare the dramatics. Opening a new RfC shortly after the previous one has closed is only bad faith if it’s quite clearly just a desperate attempt to revert a change that one doesn’t like. This has caused a serious issue and needs to be rectified. My take in the original discussion would’ve had no bearing on the verdict because a consensus was already pretty clear. Faren29 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Well there's an admission of futility if anything. "Spare the dramatics" – way to deflect. "quite clearly just a desperate attempt to revert a change that one doesn’t like" – which is what this is. "My take in the original discussion would’ve had no bearing on the verdict because a consensus was already pretty clear" – way to prove my point. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

(Here from a notification at WP:NOT) Can I just say you question reads like the start of a discussion, rather than an RFC question. It's certainly not WP:RFCBRIEF. Maybe discussing this with other editors will come to a satisfactory compromise, rather than jumping to the RFC stage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

• The clear answer is no, per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#DATABASE and WP:NOT#SOCIAL. WP does not try to predict the future, and is not a ticket-sales or event-planning venue, nor a social-networking site for listing upcoming (you hope) events.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strong no per WP:CRYSTALBALL, Wikipedia is not meant to predict events/outcomes that may or may not occur in the future. I disagree with the statement that "[w]hen Fury vs Usyk inevitably happens and the fight article is poor because the fight isn't displayed on the table, that's going to be a very poor look". There is nothing stopping an editor from adding it in after the event in question has taken place, once a WP:RELIABLE source provides coverage of it. It is arguably an even worse look for Wikipedia if the information is added to the article, and the event doesn't happen. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment – "It is arguably an even worse look for Wikipedia if the information is added to the article, and the event doesn't happen"; this was exactly the case prior to the previous RfC. Fights were being added to record tables often with just a speculative month, or a "confirmed" date by all manner of interested parties (boxers themselves, promoters, TV networks, venue organisers, etc.), only to fall apart because of routine injuries or financial terms unable to be hashed out.

A sporting record, in the encyclopaedic sense, is a collection of information which has been verified to have taken place. I said it in the first RfC that it makes a mockery of WP, particularly the tenets WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL, to include upcoming information on a record table pertaining to such a volatile and shambolic sport as professional boxing. It is a stark outlier to all other major sports where world-famous scheduled events rarely go awry. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Am I missing something, but wasn't this already addressed & decided here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 10#RfC on omitting upcoming fights in professional boxing record tables? RonSigPi (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment – It appears your problem here is more to do with the quality of fight articles, rather than the actual topic at hand. An issue that needs to be resolved, yes, but starting an RfC to revert a valid change is not the way to go. There are other ways around the problem. Quettagon (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

If the RfC starter is so concerned about the quality of boxing event articles, they seem to be forgetting or are unaware that they're welcome to start those articles themselves. I did just that with Froch–Groves and Froch–Groves II after becoming a bit frustrated about the lack of coverage for those two events. And it had nothing to do with record tables. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Technical decision, which is unsourced, came up as an example in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. I don't know anything about boxing, but if someone here knows where to find sources, I'm sure it would be appreciated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Association of Boxing Commissions (ABC) describes it: "If an intentional foul causes an injury and the bout is allowed to continue, and the injury results in the bout being stopped in any round after the fourth (4th) round, the injured boxer will win by TECHNICAL DECISION if he is ahead on the score cards". The ABC offically oversees the commissions which oversee boxing matches, so they can be considered a credible authority. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you please add that information to the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There appears to be a major mix up over when Bob Foster was born. Was it 1937, 1938 or 1942. GoodDay (talk) 06:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've been looking at infoboxes from other sports and some have cool stuff we could implement. Template:Infobox baseball biography and Template:Infobox tennis biography have fields for when a player turned professional and retired, which are nice to see. For boxers, readers have to scroll all the way down to the bottom of the record table or Professional career section. Why not simply copy the fields for our purposes? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Ronten5 brings up a valid point regarding Gervonta Davis, in that it can be questioned as to whether he is a legitimate three-weight champion. There are sources which say both, but we could nonetheless try to come up with our own compromise on WP, without outright denying that a boxer won a WBA Regular "world title".

If they have won a mix of WBA Super/Regular titles, and if there is a dispute—such as in the case of Regular titlist Davis not facing his Super titlist peers—we could perhaps avoid linking to the triple champion (and upwards) articles. Just list the titles they have won, but not label them as an x-weight champion. This would apply to several boxers of the past three decades since the WBA Regular titles were introduced. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes let's just list the titles they won, instead of labeling them as x-weight champion. Ronten5 (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The article Omar Albanil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable boxer or businessman

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Thanks and God bless!

Antonio Locococoloco Martin (He he he he) 11:12, August 23, 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to establish some parameters as far as notability for boxing fights. As there have been tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of boxing fights, including world championship ones, parameters should be established as to which boxing fights should have an independent article apart from being mentioned in the respective boxers' articles and which should not. The article criteria should be:

• Main or co-main events on Pay Per View
  • HBO
  • Showtime
  • Or another country's equivalent to those American channels
• Fights with a proven historical context or impact (therefore Wilfredo Gomez versus Carlos Zarate, Gomez vs. Salvador Sanchez, The no Mas Fight and Jack Dempsey vs. Georges Carpentier, for example, would qualify)
• Fights where a country or a continent crowned its first world boxing champion
• Major organization's (IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO) unification bouts
• Ring Magazine fight of the year award winning fights
  • Knockout of the year
  • Upset of the year
  • Fight of the decade
• Fights that led to major changes in boxing rules or where a major scandal took place

should qualify as notable enough or as notability establishing standards for boxing fights as events notable enough to have their articles on wikipedia. What do you all think? Thanks and God bless! Antonio Beaten by a knockout Martin (loser talk) 14:46, July 25, 2022 (UTC)

There's an RFC concerning how Imane_Khelif genetics and gender should be referred to in the lead at Talk:Imane_Khelif#RfC_lead. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath^talk 10:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey Can someone help me out please? I am not sure what to do next. I am pretty sure I am done. If i need to do more I can but I want to see if this is ready to be publish and how do i do that with this. for context here is this [1] [2]. Bennyaha (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I've recently stumbled across a group of British boxers who I don't think are notable enough for Wikipedia pages, including Louis Norman, Thomas Essomba, Joe Maphosa, and a few other related fighters. Anyone have differing opinions on any of these fighters? I'd feel a bit bad going on deletion spree without some input. Most of these are out of date/don't follow the MOS so I'll try to update any we choose to keep around. ZenZekey (talk) 06:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Norman (challenged for a British title) and Essomba (won a European title) would fulfil notability, but not Maphosa as he doesn't appear to have challenged for any titles. Stratch that, I was going by an old edition of WP:NBOX. I would still say Essomba is worth keeping, because the European title is the highest regional achievement on the continent. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the input! Essomba was the main one I was debating with myself. I'm traveling for the next couple days but when I'm back home I'll update his article and nominate the others for deletion. ZenZekey (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

For anyone in an article-creating mood, the 2024 Summer Olympics starts in 10 days and there are a number qualified boxers still missing articles, many of whom are likely notable. See here: 52 men's boxers and 39 women's boxers missing articles. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

In multiple boxer articles across Wikipedia, I have noticed and removed[3][4] the "dynamic" listings of rankings in the lead of their respective articles because a) they are often not regularly updated and more importantly (b) they are not cited to independent reliable sources outside of the ranking organisations themselves which causes WP:NOTCV and WP:UNDUE concerns. WP:LEADs are supposed to be summaries about major parts of the article. There was a previous discussion at WP:BOXING about the rankings where there didn't seem to be consensus about their inclusion in the lead.[5] I believe that if dynamic rankings are to be included anywhere, they should be in the infoboxes. Should there be a RfC about this to gain wider feedback outside the Wikiproject? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as divisional and all-time rankings go, I'd like to see the back of them. I particularly dislike BoxRec's "all-time greatest" dynamic rankings peppered everywhere. I've said it before that they're a chore to go around updating, and User:Morbidthoughts presents a good point with regards to WP:WEIGHT. Which are more credible—myriad outlets such as The Ring, TBRB, BoxRec, or ESPN; or the sanctioning bodies themselves? I think neither, really. I also would not mind getting rid of pound for pound rankings, although The Ring's rankings tend to get significant coverage whenever there's a clear world's number one. However, when it comes to TBRB and all the others being shoehorned into lead sections—who cares? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

There are currently two RFCs at Talk:Imane Khelif. Interested editors are invited to participate at Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 4#RfC lead and Talk:Imane Khelif/Archive 4#RfC on weight of "misinformation" in lead. TarnishedPath^talk 10:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Rocky Balboa (film) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

As far as boxing match articles go, is it the champion that goes first or the top billed fighter that gets listed first. I generally listed the champion first in years past, but one such article I created, Terry Norris vs. Sugar Ray Leonard was moved to it's current title, Sugar Ray Leonard vs. Terry Norris as the poster for the fight billed Sugar Ray Leonard before the champion Terry Norris. Recently I just created Tavoris Cloud vs. Bernard Hopkins but with Hopkins first as he was billed before the champion Tavoris Cloud. Also, I see that Floyd Mayweather's fights (i.e. Victor Ortiz and Miguel Cotto) he is billed over the champions and that is reflected in the article. I'm fine with either way, just wanted to know the consensus for the titles.Beast from da East (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It would be good to reach a consensus, as it's likely never been discussed. Articles being moved back and forth on a whim is not good practice. If we go by top billing on posters, we run into a problem if such posters cannot be found. The champion being listed first makes the most sense, although I have changed a few article titles in the past to reflect top billing over champion; Mayweather–Ortiz being one such example. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It appears here on Wikipedia, it mostly skews towards top billed on the poster (Mayweather, Pacquiao, De La Hoya, Etc.) Boxrec though for example almost has the champion first in their articles, I'm fine with either way, just would like a consensus so everyone knows what is the correct way as I've seen pages moved both ways.Beast from da East (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know enough to even start such an article; but it strikes me as a glaring hole in Wikipedia, which has such articles on several other games and sports (including, ptui!, Glossary of professional wrestling terms). There are the technical terms; and expressions which have entered everyday language include: toe the line (from bareknuckle days), saved by the bell, box into a corner, out for the count, and left/right hook in the military sense. Do any members of this WikiProject feel able to step up to the mark (another term from bareknuckle days)? Narky Blert (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention (duh) knockout and low blow. Narky Blert (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Jermain Taylor has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

All of User:Sam11333's newly created articles need clean-up for capitalised weight classes, flagicons, and the inclusion of 'lineal' titles—it's all gotta go. Unfortunately he hasn't taken on board any of the style guide advice provided. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey can someone help me update a couple of these as I just dont have the time to maintain them anymore and they are getting neglected.

Andrei Mikhailovich needs his profile to reflected on the fact that he was declared mandatory challenger by IBF, negotiations were lengthy, a lot of post poned fight, eventually got a fight after 1 year hiatus due to waiting for the elimination fight, and then his world title which ended in him losing

Isaac Peach

Jerome Pampellone

Mea Motu needs to be expanded more recent events, especially her fights in 2024 and her being on TV

David Letele for more his community work

David Higgins (event promoter)

Duco Events especially with David Nyika, T20 Black Clash and Synthony events

Lani Daniels espeically expansion of her being on TV

Uila Mau'u

Floyd Masson

Boxing NZ reflecting on leaving IBA and joining World Boxing

Mose Auimatagi Jnr

Junior Fa retiring in his career, leaving the church, big life change and his last loss

Hemi Ahio

any help would be very much appreciated Bennyaha (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Sam11333 has begun making bulk changes to succession boxes by re-labelling the WBA's various secondary titles (Regular/Unified/Undisputed) under the "minor boxing titles" heading – [6] – putting them on par with actual lower-tier organisations such as the IBO, WBF, etc. This, to me, is greatly misleading. We all know the secondary titles tend to be bogus, but they absolutely cannot be compared with the other aforementioned organisations. WBA Regular champions were/are still "major" titleholders.

This urgently needs discussion, because our valued Sam has a habit of really going for it (as he should, because his boxing event articles are great for the most part.. except his devotion to using flags). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

As a "title"—they need to go. There's only one IP who seems to love adding these intangible labels (which is what they are), so maybe they're working for them. Either way, start zapping. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Folks of the Project, please read—this could be quite important. Is this something we should be doing? I know most other sports on WP use ascending chronological order for tables, but for some reason the major combat sports (boxing, MMA, kickboxing) use descending, so most recent fight on top. For boxing, it seems we've mainly lifted this format from BoxRec. I have no opinion as to which order makes the most sense or looks better, having simply gone with the way I've seen it being done for almost two decades. I invoke neither WP:ILIKEIT nor WP:OTHERSTUFF.

However, I will say that I've found nothing whatsoever in MOS:TABLE or MOS:ACCESS which stipulates that tables must use either ascending or descending order. I also fail to see the merit of making such a trivial change to potentially thousands of articles. Perhaps presumptuously, I would guess most readers of boxing articles on WP are very much used to clicking on the Professional boxing record TOC link to conveniently see the most recent fight on top. I would therefore like to invite User:GhostInTheMachine to discuss this further. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi everyone. i think we should leave it as it is. It's not broken. Let's not fix it. At this point, i'm just so used to seeing the last fight at the top anyway. Is there anyone who wants to make this change? Mahussain06 (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• There are two independent points here, so I am boldly creating two sections for any further discussions — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I altered the table to use the {{Table alignment}} template. This allows left/right alignment to be defined once for a whole column in a table and removes any need for text-align styling on several cells of every single row of the table. This saves typing and simplifies the table code. This just makes editing easier, both when making the table, and also when maintaining it later.

There is no need to alter all existing tables to use this method, just keep it in mind when creating new articles or when making large changes to existing ones — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Does the project have a "blank article" used as a template for new articles? If so, best adjust it to use the simpler / cheaper / kinder alignment method — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tyson Fury vs. Anthony Joshua is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Fury vs. Anthony Joshua until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

162 etc. (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Our English language writing system flows downwards – text starts at the top and works downwards. So, a narrative starts at the top of a page and later events are below that.

A list then follows this basic pattern – it starts at the top with the first item and later items follow below that. Lists of names are sorted into alphabetical order with A at the top and Z at the bottom. Lists of numbers are sorted into numerical order with the lowest number at the top and largest number at the bottom. Lists of dates are sorted into chronological order with the oldest item at the top and the newest at the bottom.

A table is just a "wider" list – each item in the list just has more attributes – displayed conveniently in columns – but it still follows the same basic pattern as a list. So a table of events starts with the oldest item at the top and the newest item at the bottom.

There is no need to alter all existing tables to display in chronological order, but all new articles should do this and existing articles should probably be corrected over time — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As above – update the new article template to use correct chronological ordering — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Do we have a choice in the matter—RfCs and such? That's kinda how we've always handled major formatting changes on this WikiProject, whilst being mindful of WP's overarching MOS. With that said, I will repeat my request to be pointed to a WP guideline—whether it's at MOS:TABLE, MOS:ACCESS, WP:MOSNUM, etc.—which stipulates that WikiProjects must use a low-to-high numbered format for tables.

You're encountering a decent amount of resistance to your edits simply because boxing record tables have used the format of 'most recent fight on top' for two decades. If we are to make such a significant change to our local style guide (or "MOS", as I affectionately—and sometimes defensively—call it), one which would affect many thousands of articles, I'd like assurance that it really is necessary.

I will say, however, that I have always toyed with the idea of making our tables sortable. I just never bothered with it, as that would likely require a bot to perform thousands of edits. Either way, a sortable table would be useful in that readers could decide for themselves in which order they wish to view them. I believe that would be the best solution going forward. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Lists (and tables) being sorted alphabetically, numerically or chronologically is so basic that there does not seem to be a specific policy that actually states it. Date sorting is mentioned in a couple of places, such as MOS:SORTLIST, MOS:DATELIST and WP:SALORDER, but again without expanding on the reasons.

Not many projects actually have a style guide of any sort, so you are definitely ahead of the game. Currently, the example table in your MOS does use the inverted order, but does not state any need for it or explain any reason for it. Adding something to your MOS about wanting the fight record table to be listed in date order might need some formal action beyond this talk post. If the project members then chose to retain the inverted date order, then you do need to add something to the MOS to explain why.

The project claims about 18,000 articles and the {{Boxing record summary}} template has a use-count of around 3,800, so I imagine that the number of fight record tables could be anywhere from 4,000 to 9,000. Clearly, fixing all of these is a sizable task, but we do have bots and scripts to help with a fair bit of the work.

If you do move toward adding sorting to the tables, then I strongly suggest that the table header is converted into a template. (Sadly {{Boxing record start}} already exists and does not match the current MOS example. It has only 30 uses, so it could be redefined without much cost.) The new "... start" template could then include the table alignment template and the table holding the key to the abbreviations as well as starting the wiki table and providing the headings. That way you get consistency and several wins for the effort. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Going forward, adopting the long-forgotten {{Boxing record start}} looks like the ideal solution. Over at MMA articles they've long had the right idea with {{MMA record start}}, although their smaller font size overall could not be implemented for our boxing records due to the small text invariably present in the Notes column. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Look to reliable sources to see what order they use for boxing records. BoxRec and ESPN both use reverse chronological. I think those are our two best sources for the records. Are there any that use chronological?--Jahalive (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Besides BoxRec and ESPN, what other sites even deal with records? FightFax is a paysite, so can be discounted. I can't think of a single occasion in which I've used anything other than BoxRec to check a fight record. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at FightFax in a long time, but I just checked out fightfax.com and they relaunched their site in August. It looks like it's free, so it might be a good source. They also list the records in reverse chronological order.--Jahalive (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Not boxing, but Sherdog also uses reverse chronological order for their MMA fight records. There is a prevailing pattern here which appears to make combat sports an anomaly when it comes to sporting records. I wonder if reliably sourced sites for other sports do the same. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Recent edit warring at Conor Benn highlighted a disagreement on how weight classes are listed in the infobox. Specifically, if a boxer has only competed in a division a handful of non-notable times, and for no regional/minor/world titles. Common examples:

• Canelo Álvarez had a grand total of two fights at light welterweight. According to a single-edit account, his infobox should therefore him list him as a light welterweight boxer. I strongly disagree because he is not notable for those fights or that weight class, and the opponents were nobodies.
• Manny Pacquiao had five fights at light flyweight. Like Álvarez, he did nothing notable in that division, and the opponents were likewise non-notable.
• Roy Jones Jr. had two fights at light middleweight, making no waves whatsoever in that division, against nobody opponents.

Back to the present, Benn has had two throwaway fights at light middleweight, for no titles. We shouldn't even have to discuss the inclusion of middleweight, since that (re)'scheduled' fight has not taken place yet. Until he regularly starts fighting at light middleweight, I maintain it should be left off his infobox. MOS:BOXING/INFOBOX/weight has handled this criteria for almost a decade. Surely it doesn't need changing now? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Roy won an Olympic silver medal at light middleweight. That makes a pretty good argument for including it. I agree on the others.-- Jahalive (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Medals are already in their own section, though. The main weight classes on the top I've always deemed to be professional ones. It would look really, really weird if we were to list Callum Smith as a welterweight because of his Commonwealth Games medal. Likewise Usyk as a middleweight. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

See this recent discussion I had with User:Sam11333. The user appears to be under the impression that there is a consensus here to change "vs" (no dot) in boxing-related articles to "vs." This has resulted in a number of edits and pagemoves which violate WP:RETAIN. Posting here for comment before moving further with dispute resolution. 162 etc. (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

So are we using vs. or vs? Mahussain06 (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the national variety of English used in the article. If it's British use "vs", if it's American use "vs." Read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing/Archive_10#RfC_about_replacing_"vs."_and_"v"_with_"vs"_in_boxing_match_article_titles-- Jahalive (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Here's something we could add above every record table, alongside Template:BoxingRecordSummary. This way we can ditch the many haphazard instances of {{abbr}} buried deep within the record table, which has tended to confuse readers unfamiliar with boxing terminology.

How does this look to everyone? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I would adjust the table a bit to:

• reduce the text size
• use a table title instead of an extra table row
• move "Abbreviation" into the title to reduce the width of the first column:
• drop the table headings – the title now says enough

Key to abbreviations of results

DQ	Disqualification
KO	Knockout
MD	Majority decision / majority draw
NC	No contest
PTS	Points decision
RTD	Corner retirement
SD	Split decision / split draw
TD	Technical decision / technical draw
TKO	Technical knockout
UD	Unanimous decision / unanimous draw

This is smaller and so less in the way — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess we should have a key. I don't like how big it is. GhostInTheMachine's version is a little less intrusive, so better. It's probably not practical to only include the results that are actually in each fighter's record. Almost no one has PTS or TD. It's possible a bot could do that, but I don't know how.--Jahalive (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The key would be above a table that is generally quite wide, so the key could be even shorter by converting to 2 columns (luckily 10 is an even number):

Key to abbreviations used for results

DQ	Disqualification	RTD	Corner retirement
KO	Knockout	SD	Split decision / split draw
MD	Majority decision / majority draw	TD	Technical decision / technical draw
NC	No contest	TKO	Technical knockout
PTS	Points decision	UD	Unanimous decision / unanimous draw

Being selective about which abbreviations to include is certainly possible, but that would add a huge layer of complexity. Using one, centrally defined, key would make life a lot simpler — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm liking it more and more. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Ghost, I've rearranged the columns of {{Boxing record start}} to match those used in our MOS. Could you assist in getting your two-column abbreviation key shunted into the template, as well as making it sortable? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Working on it ... Question: As policy should all boxing record tables have one column: Round(s), time or two columns: Round(s) and time? Articles have both versions. Your MOS currently specifies one combined column. Should it be two columns? Should it allow both versions? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

One column only for "Round(s), time", please. This is simply to avoid a clunky-looking, half-empty column of "?" or "N/A" where fights went to a decision. Most new record tables (likely numbering in the high hundreds, or thousands) have used the single-column format since 2015. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

The single column is the default in the template, with the split being available if really necessary. (I think 28 of the 30 articles I changed did use the split format.) The {{Boxing record start}} template could be made to track use of the switch and so be a TO DO list for altering older articles to use the preferred style. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Going forward, are there bots available to convert existing tables (e.g., Daniel Dubois, where all this first came to light) to {{Boxing record start}}? I haven't the faintest idea of how bots work, other than their usefulness for performing bulk tasks. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

In the end, I created 3 templates, along with documentation, sandboxes and tests:

• {{Boxing record key}} — this is the table from above that shows the abbreviations used.
• {{Boxing record header}} — this is the header for the table. It includes an option to create a 9-column table or a 10-column table. The MOS specifies the 9-column version, but some articles do use the 10-column version. The template handles both.
• {{Boxing record start}} — this is the template that should be used in the articles. It calls the other two and accepts a parameter. The plain version generates the 9-column table, but using {{Boxing record start|round-time-split=y}} generates the 10-column version.

I have updated all 30 of the articles that used the old version of the template. See a couple of examples:

• Daniel Škvor for the 9-column table.
• Errol Christie and Dewey Cooper for the 10-column table (with differing colour styles).

As a side-effect of all this, the tables no longer need to include style="text-align:left;" all over the place — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Love it, love it! Can't wait to start using it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Which columns should be aligned left/centre/right?

Based on this (albeit not yet using {{Boxing record start}}), I think the Date column should be centre-aligned, and possibly even use {{nowrap}}. All other columns look fine as they are. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't think of this earlier, but what should we do for newspaper decisions (NWS)?--Jahalive (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh dear, how distressing ... 11 is a prime number. You will have to think of something extra for the twelfth cell — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 11:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think User:Blizzythesnowman has been listing those as NCs for a while. Not a huge problem. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

These types of images are being added again (ex. List of current world boxing champions#The Ring). They violate several policies and MOS. Some of these problems can be fixed but I think it is better to present the info in these images in tables and we shouldn't use them.-- Jahalive (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

They've got to go. User has been told repeatedly about this. Revert on sight. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

With the announcement by Turki and Dana White of their new boxing league, this could be the start of a new era in boxing (possibly a five-belt era?). Obviously, very little details have been released so far and we’ll have to wait and see as they release more info in the coming months. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, we will need to wait and see what they do. The first card will be in September 2025. Mahussain06 (talk) 08:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Sharmba Mitchell and Roy Jones Jr. vs. Clinton Woods articles need class assessment from someone in wiki-boxing project. I gave importance assessment for WikiProject Oregon, where fights took place.--Orygun (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

hello I made this draft and I need help polishing it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Leonardo_Perdomo SpainMMAfan123 (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi guys! The page I made for boxer Antonio Amaya has been sent to Draft:Antonio Amaya (boxer). The person who sent it there refuses repeatedly to bring it back, despite the fact Amaya was a three time world title challenger on the WBA and WBC.

I sent it to Draft review and it's taking days. I was wondering if you could take a look at it. Thanks! Jeaneete Knockout babe Martin (dime?) 06:15, 13 February, 2025 (UTC)

You should focus on his fights that were covered by press/books rather than describing his career based on your analysis of his Boxrec profile. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

What got you interested in this boxer-??- I looked him up... BoxRec I use and it WILL be there. But... BoxRec getting more and more limited far as time one can stay on it; also what the will "show easily."

I know that Antonio Amaya fought Hiroshi Kobayashi twice and that AT LEAST ONE OF those was for World JL WBA title. Was both matches? The one I can pick up immediately was 15RD "split decision" loss. &: boxer passed at age 79 January this year (2025).

Hiroshima Kobayashi's record far as time-lines holding WBA JL (*Super FeatherWT.) is "confused" on their chart on bio. Have you picked that up? Their is a back story about that-??-

Amaya career: 1963-'78. 77 pro matches and -it be the truth(?)- three X World Title challenger. Guy... came within a wisker by the judges tabulation on the one I can see in on today! 184.180.43.98 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

2Nd: I don't pick up your meaning when you say that his merrits aught be picked-up off of seperated media reviews instead of the BoxRec database(???). Are you trying to have Wikipedia run his profile?

The boxer has "great merit" BUT. I rather doubt it the would carry him because of the limits Wikipedia uses. Too many boxers much more significant than him that would not be listed. However - that said - isn't a conclusion because I am unsure really the depths they will or won't go to but.. i CAN rate your guy a.t. against other names on the database here (now) or unincluded. 184.180.43.98 (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Wyatt Earp has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

I have just created the article SS Argyllshire. The heavyweight boxer Sam McVey was a passenger on her maiden voyage in 1911; from England to Australia; travelling with his wife and manager. Australian newspapers reported that although McVey was a passenger; and Argyllshire was a brand new and very valuable ship; her Captain let him be one of her helmsmen. Newspapers also reported that McVey had previously served on US sailing ships, and that Argyllshire's Second Officer praised him as "a first-class seaman".

Being a merchant seaman under sail at the beginning of the 20th century was an arduous occupation. I imagine was a formative experience for McVey. I know nothing about boxing, and very little about researching biographies. However, I suggest that McVey's background in the US mercantile marine deserves to be researched, and to be included in his Wikipedia article.

Best wishes, Motacilla (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

There is an RFC about whether we should refer to the Khelif's sex as being uncertain. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPath^talk 10:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we start including the upcoming opponent, date, location, and rounds into the Boxing Record of a boxer. This is already the case for other data storing pages, including BoxRec. This is how I propose it should be done.

Keeping the same yellow tint colour that BoxRec uses helps keep it inline and allows readers to understand who exactly is next, where its taking place, the number of rounds, etc etc. It makes things more simple in my opinion, thoughts? GhaziTwaissi (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

It used to be done couple years back but got removed. I wasn't active on here at the time, so unsure why they got removed. But it may have been due to all the cancelled bouts we get and having to keep updating the records? Mahussain06 (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah cancelled bouts, postponements, late change of opponent, venue changes, etc. A lot of things can change to the lead up of the fight. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Dumb idea. There's already too many pages with x is scheduled to fight y on a certain date in the main article text that is never followed up on after the fight takes place and can stay like that for months or even years. Anxioustoavoid (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No. They need to stay gone. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tarick Salmaci § Full article update by subject (Tarick Salmaci). -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe someone from this WikiProject could take a look at the edit request made by the subject of Tarick Salmaci. They've basically proposing a total rewrite of the article, but nothing is supported by reliable sources. They tried to add their "draft" to the article's talk page, but removed it. It can be found in the talk page's history. They're also contesting what's written in the article about a fight they were supposed have with Joe Calzaghe. There is some older discussion of this on the article's talk page as well. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Chess boxing#Requested move 20 June 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. FaviFake (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised about the length of Muhammad Ali. Your input is welcome. See Talk:Muhammad Ali#Very long and Talk:Muhammad Ali#Split proposed. Stefen 𝕋ower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 19:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)