Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing

Latest comment: 2 days ago by WhatamIdoing in topic Technical decision
WikiProject iconBoxing Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject Boxing "To Do":

Help pick the next article for collaboration.


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)

Boxing fight article parameters edit

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)

Another RfC on capitalization of all our articles edit

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)Reply[reply]

RfC on readding upcoming fights in professional boxing record tables edit

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
(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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
    • 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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

Technical decision edit

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)Reply[reply]

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