Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of current world boxing champions/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was removed by Dabomb87 23:31, 13 February 2011 [1].

List of current world boxing champions edit

List of current world boxing champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Claudevsq, SaskatchewanSenator, WikiProject Boxing

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of a number of issues on the article's talk page. Initially there was some hostility towards my suggestions when I placed it "at risk" of demotion, but some work was done. However, that's now stagnated and the list is still showing its age (promoted August 2006). In general, the lead is inadequate, it could use images, the tables could be merged (per the top of my sandbox), referencing needs to be more direct, several terms (Super champion, for instance) go without explanation and still some deadlinks. Complete discussion is still on the article's talkpage. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist most notably this list fails to explain why are there 5 distinct world champion titles for the same category. Ah, and the lead does not correspond to any standard, and is not engaging. Nergaal (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – Since the last activity here, the lead has been expanded, and looks improved from the prior version. However, more work is still needed for this to meet standards, particularly in referencing. There are some formatting issues as well, but they are less important.
    • Anything not cited in the body should be referenced in the lead, such as the first fight sanctioned by the WBA and Pacquiao's number of championships.
    • The body could probably use a few more cites as well; the last bit of the WBC section stuck out at me.
    • About.com, used in reference 13, is not typically considered a reliable source.
    • Space needed after reference 12, and one that should be removed before ref 15.
    • "The Ring has its own version of lineal championship...". Needs "the" after "of", I believe.
    • Ref 11 should have the same PDF indications that a couple other references have.
    • Ref 12 should have the publisher in italics, since it's a printed publication.
    • This is atypical in that the table of contents is showing up in the top-right of the article, a place usually reserved for an infobox, photo, or both. Is there a particular reason that the contents don't appear after the lead, like in most articles?
    • I agree with the editor above when they wonder why five different sanctioning bodies were formed, particularly for the later ones when multiple world champions already existed in each weight class. Right now, you would think that money never played a role in any of this, which I'm sure is not the case. There must be an interesting story or two regarding the bodies' formation that could be included. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in your thoughts on the lead. Other than the citation issues you mentioned, do you think it meets featured list standards?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the lead isn't bad, but I think more could be done with it. The ideas TRM are providing below are sound and would go a long way towards making the lead a true FL-caliber one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - without wishing to sound repetitive but it would certainly be possible to merge the individual sections into a single table with a nav box to go straight to a particular section, e.g per my example. The TOC is terribly distracting and the prose in the lead needs work. Still mixed date formats in the references. I'll do another review in due course, but am most interested in the idea of merging the individual sections into a single table. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the prose in the lead do you think needs more work?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the lead is too bad, but it needs copyediting, and some claims are unreferenced (per Giants2008's concern). But as I keep saying, the numerous subsections make this a very inelegantly structured "list". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier for you to do the copy editing of the lead, rather than explain your concerns, but if you'd rather not edit it yourself could you explain what concerns you have with the prose in the lead?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well as you know, I'd like to restructure the whole list, including the lead, but I'm no expert. I'm glad to see some of the changes I suggested have already been made but there's a way to go. I think we need to merge the subsections for the various organisations and just briefly discuss them (along with links) and I strongly think the subsections for each category should go. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would you like to see restructured in the lead?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think, given the current excessive number of subsections to the list, you should be able to write three or four decent paragraphs to synopsise the concept of world champion, the various organisations, the multiple holders, the terminology and then merge the dozens of individual tables thereafter into a nice single list. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. By concept of world champion do you mean something like "To become a champion a boxer usually must defeat the current champion."?
  2. You'd like to see the subsections on the 5 organisations eliminated and some of the material about those organisations incorporated into the lead?
  3. What do you mean by multiple holders?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you should discuss in brief the idea that there are multiple organisations, that single champions can hold multiple belts, reunification fights etc, you should discuss some of the more notable boxers, those who hold (or have held) multiple titles at once, you should look at reorganising the table into a single, navigable list, and all facts need verifiable references. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure I understand you, your answers are:
  1. No, and you mentioned some ideas on the concept of world champion.
  2. Yes.
  3. Those who hold multiple titles at once.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good start. Ordinarily you should spend this much effort reworking the article, not getting too forensic on what's expected. After all, this is just my opinion. I'm only one editor. Rework the lead, fix the terrible subsections for each class (like my sandbox) and then let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist on references alone I'm afraid...
  • What makes boxrec.com a reliable source? Especially when the site itself has the disclaimed "this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate"...
That is too big an issue to tackle here. I think there have been discussions on this, but I don't know if there was any consensus.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is that it can't be a reliable source if the site itself says the data may be incomplete and/or accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the consensus that the discussion arrived at?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well you tell me. But if you honestly believe a website that has a disclaimer saying "this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate" should be considered a WP:RS, I would be very surprised. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is on the WBC site. Click on "Ratings" to find it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WBC Superwelterweight shows Floyd Mayweather as an interim champion but that's not shown here.
No, Mayweather is an emeritus champion. This list does not include emeritus champions. Darchinyan and Sosa (that you asked about below) are also emeritus champions.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say they're emeritus champions on that website? I couldn't see that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Ratings" area. Because it's a flash site I can't link to it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see Soto's single WBC "no contest" doesn't seem to be referenced by this website - where is it referenced?
  • WBC site shows Vic Darchinyan as interim champion at superflyweight. This is not shown in this table. Why not?
  • WBC site shows Edgar Sosa as interim champion at Light Flyweight. This is not shown in this table. Why not?
  • WBC site shows Sithsanerchai's record as 34 wins 12 KOs, this list says 35 wins 13 KOs. Where is the difference accounted for?
Sithsanerchai won by knockout on Dec. 24, after the WBC site was last updated. His record is up to date on The Ring site.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shouldn't have to go looking to piece together one fact and another fact here and there to come up with verification for the claims. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is how the list is maintained. It does make it difficult, but some of the sources aren't updated very frequently.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for specific records where multiple sources are needed, they should be explicitly referenced inline, not using a mixture of general references. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about a note indicating that boxers records are all supported by a single source (probably The Ring since I think it is a comprehensive, frequently updated reliable source) and inline citations for any exceptions to that?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, well you need to ensure that anyone without expert knowledge can verify the claims in the article. I haven't yet looked at the Ring website, but every record should be accounted for using easily accessible references and explanatory notes where there's a difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where are the IBF champions' records sourced? The official website doesn't seem to show them, at least not on the page you linked.
  • Where on the WBO link is Jesus Gelus mentioned as an interim champion?
  • Where on the WBO link is Garcia explicitly mentioned as an interim champion?
The rankings page on the WBO site makes it more clear. I changed the link to that page.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where on the WBO link are the champions' records?

I'll stop here in case I'm missing something but these questions need to be answered, and probably by editing the article so the confusion doesn't affect other readers. Once I see answers to the above I'll check every other source in the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The list is way better, however:
  • I don't think it is explained why are there multiple champions in a single category title
Yes, there does need to be something written about interim champions and the Super champion explanation needs to be improved.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be some color coding for "super champions" and interms (with legend of course)--Nergaal (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to an example of what you're thinking of for color coding? I find the underlining verges on being distracting.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example the WBF and IBO for the heavyweight. That guy is particularly notable so I would make his entry a bit more outstanding. Nergaal (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are many, many outstanding issues here. It's fine to make one or two edits a day to the article but I'm afraid the main contributors need to start addressing these comments comprehensively. The nomination for delisting has been active now for nearly a month, and time was allowed beforehand when the list was "at risk", the efforts to save the list are commendable but simply aren't coping with the list of issues here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding issues

  • Lead I think the lead is very close to featured list standard. Material may be added to it depending on how some of the following issues are resolved.
  • Interim and Super Champion There needs to be something written about interim champions and the Super Champion explanation needs to be improved.
  • Sanctioning bodies subsections Giants2008 wants to see these sections expanded with more about the organisation's formation, The Rambling Man wants to go the other direction and eliminate the subsections, moving some of the material to the lead. This should be discussed to build consensus on what should be done.
  • Supporting citations It could use a few more. Wikipedia's standard is that citations are required for quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Is there a different standard for featured lists?
  • Problems with references Most of these issues have been fixed (broken links, date formats, missing publishers, accessdate, etc.) but there is still some work to be done, such as making it clear how the general references support the information in the tables.

A variety of other issues have been fixed: flags, format of records, footnote, etc.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 11:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References are in a very bad way, which alone would be enough to delist the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a little more specific?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are several examples of specific issues with the references above which have seemingly been ignored entirely. Readers shouldn't have to add two or three general sources together to get the answer you expect them to. You say above "Wikipedia's standard is that citations are required for quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged. Is there a different standard for featured lists?" - answer - "No". I challenged the win records of each of the boxers, I couldn't easily prove they were as you have them in the list without going searching through a number of different references, none of which are directly referred to from the main body of the list. Not good enough I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, out of interest, you wrote your "summary" just over two weeks ago. I didn't see anyone addressing these issues. The original nomination was (officially) six weeks back. You've had time to fix these issues since 7 December last year when I started this process. I guess this nomination for deletion is stale. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the edit history you will see that there have been changes to address these issues in the last two weeks. What do you mean by stale?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no edits here on this nomination to help the community determine if anything specific has been addressed. Stale means "no edits for a while", e.g. two weeks. There are many comments in this nomination which haven't even been responded to, let alone addressed. Just go and look at all the comments I've made which have no responses. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you meant addressing the issues by fixing the list. I can update the progress on some of these issues: Interim and Super Champion material has been added, small improvements have been made to the lead, sanctioning bodies subsections and citations.
I reviewed The Rambling Man's comments and the only one I saw that has no response is support for the "no contest" on Soto's record. I think this is part of the bigger issue of how to indicate which source was used to support each boxer's record. I'll try to tackle that next with a note or something in the general references or current champions section. If someone could suggest an example where material in a list is supported by a small number of sources, that would be a helpful starting point.
If there are any other issues that haven't been responded to, let us know.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the referencing issue is by far the most important. How does a reader reference each of these claims (i.e. the boxers' records)? One of the problems that you have to solve is that you expect readers to combine certain references (but don't tell them which ones) in order to support the claims. This is not the way to use a bunch of general references, in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It should be made clearer precisely how the general references support the information in the tables. I was going to work on that next.

I'm also waiting for evidence that BoxRec.com (which itself claims could be inaccurate and incomplete) is a WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked some talk archives and couldn't find much discussion on this issue. I started a new discussion at WikiProject Boxing.

I also found the following points which had no direct response:

  • I can't see Soto's single WBC "no contest" doesn't seem to be referenced by this website - where is it referenced?
I addressed this in my previous post.
  • WBC site shows Vic Darchinyan as interim champion at superflyweight. This is not shown in this table. Why not?
See above where I explained that Darchinyan and Sosa are emeritus champions.
  • WBC site shows Edgar Sosa as interim champion at Light Flyweight. This is not shown in this table. Why not?
See immediately above.
  • Where on the WBO link are the champions' records?
They aren't. This will be addressed as part of the bigger issue of how to indicate which source was used to support each boxer's record.
Are you addressing this? If I don't see some positive movement on this serious issue then I'll demote the page myself. This has been going on far too long. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All these points still seem to be confusing, outstanding and (perhaps) part of a to-do list which isn't actually being "done". It's all very well to list things that need to be addressed but you actually need to address them. Otherwise this list cannot be considered to be an example of Wikipedia's finest work. Not by a long chalk. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that you have studiously avoided discussing the idea of merging the tables so you don't have so many tiny subsections with ridiculously long section headings. That's a shame given the solution I've provided to you as an example. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a detailed discussion on this issue on the talk page . There was no consensus that your suggestion was an improvement. Like the rest of this process, it would probably be beneficial to have input from more editors.
No consensus as no-one commented. I suppose that's no consensus. Either way the current format is entirely undesirable for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also didn't answer Giant's query on the TOC. Why aren't there any images in this list? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good question about the TOC.
I did add some images, but it looks like they've been removed. I'll put them back.

Some specific issues with "The Ring" as a reference, just the first three I tried:

  1. I tried to use the "Ring" link to find who was their Lightweight champion, I got nowhere with that.
  2. I tried to use the "Ring" link to find the Featherweight champion. This list says "vacant", the ref says "Juan Manuel Lopez".
  3. I tried to use the "Ring" link to find the Flyweight champion. The ref says doesn't indicate the date when Wonjongkam became champion for The Ring.
  1. What is the problem?
    I couldn't use the reference to find the lightweight champion. Do I need to make it clearer than that? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it does. How interesting. Perhaps the site is subject to instability. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The Ring site says "vacant."
    The Ring doesn't say that. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it does. How interesting. Perhaps the site is subject to instability. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Ring doesn't list the date they awarded the title in their rankings.
    So where do I get the dates? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find a list where the dates are collected in one place. I guess they'll need to be cited individually.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with that approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use indented replies above to avoid any confusion.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist for the third time. This has become something akin to peer review and it's painfully slow. There's little (or no) interest from the boxing project, besides User:SaskatchewanSenator. There are absolute and clear issues with the references which, alone, are enough to demote the list. The structure is still questionable, and there's nothing to guarantee the links provided are reliable. We can't wait forever on responses from projects which seem to be poorly supported. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions/archive1&oldid=1089075224"