Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Boxing (Rated 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Boxing "To Do":
Help pick the next article for collaboration.

Proposed deletion of Omar AlbanilEdit


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)

Flagicons: the rematchEdit

Is it now time to get a new RfC going for these? I'm seeing it become an issue that some editors have encountered. The last RfC took place from December 2015 to January 2016, and ended in a no-consensus. Per bullet point #2, that is to mean flags which were present in a record table for a long time should stay in place, whereas tables which either never had flags (Nick Blackwell, Robin Krasniqi) or have been without them for many years (Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson) should not have them added/re-added. Obviously that confuses many new editors.

From the looks of it, we have a very different group of editors actively maintaining the Project compared to six years ago—whether that makes a difference remains to be seen, as I have no idea what y'alls stance is. Mine hasn't changed one bit. I maintain that professional boxers do not represent nationalities in the same way that amateurs do at an international level. Their licences also don't matter, as David Haye (or was it Derek Chisora?) famously boxed under a Luxembourgian licence in 2012, despite being British. Likewise another Brit, Danny Williams, boxed under a Latvian licence.

As I harped on about in the first RfC 'til I was blue in the face, the most logical reason to get rid of record table flags is that it would completely eliminate the edit wars which pop up in regard to Andy Ruiz Jr. (US/Mexican flags), Carl Frampton (UK/Irish flags), and many others. I'm also not willing to compromise on retaining country flags for the Location column—I want them all gone.

So, before I consider starting an RfC, it'd be helpful to know how many Project members are willing to chip in and be heard. The RfC would hopefully also draw in outside editors with no ties to the Project, for a most balanced set of opinions. It could all end up in another no-consensus, or even a consensus where everyone says "We love these cute little flaggies!".. ugh. Either way, that time might be now. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Now is the time. I added the record of Tommy Gibbons only to see it completely deleted and disrespected because some editors are too lazy to learn how to use search and replace and decided the best use of Wikipedia is to hide limit and restrict information.I like flagicons, but some “contributors” of Wikipedia have a vendetta against records saying this is not a database. If deleting flagicons is how we save records so be it. I like the icons and have kept my mouth shut on this topic because of it, but the alternative is to delete mass amounts of information because of know it alls that have never heard of boxrec. Some fighters on boxec have no nationality listed, therefore we need to delete all flagicons. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
A related but different subject is this, which concerns me greatly. It would appear as though there is an opinion amongst some editors that boxing records should not be present on WP at all. We will definitely need to invite them here for discussion, because such a rigid adherence to WP:NOSTATS could affect thousands, if not tens of thousands of boxing articles—many of which we've put shitloads of effort into over the years. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd welcome an RfC regarding flags. As for the record table issue, that would be a hill that I'd happily die on...I pretty much view them as a necessity for boxing BLPs (more so for modern boxers). – 2.O.Boxing 18:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It would be great to end the disputes about them, but I have to admit that sometimes I like them so I can quickly see things like "This boxer only fought guys from the UK for the first five years of his career."--Jahalive (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I won't deny their usefuless as a visual aid for that reason, but I believe the negatives (i.e., the edit warring they attract) outweigh their usefulness. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I have always liked the flagicons for that reason of knowing the nationality of the people they fought, but if deleting them will save all full records and allow me to continue mass adding records, I care more about the record. I have already begun mass deleting flagicons from historical fighters and champions just to be safe. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend mass-deleting flagicons for the reason above, unless you created the tables yourself. If a record table has had them for a while, it may be seen as disrupting WP:STABLE to remove such visually orientated content without a consensus in place. Before the MOS gathered ground, I made the mistake of pre-emptively mass-deleting flags across several articles, only for a pesky IP and some other guy to crawl out of the woodwork in protest of it. The last thing I want with a fresh RfC is for a bunch of concurrent edit wars to bog it down, as happened last time. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I am only mass deleting flags for the records I put in (over 250). Part of my initial goal was to add so many records with flagicons that it would become the consensus, but after this issue with Tommy Gibbons, I am going to do the exact opposite. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the majority of fighters with flagicons pre 1960 are riddled with modern flags that didn’t exist at the time so I think that is a good place to start. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm wary of having concurrent topics running, but this other record table issue—meaning, whether to include them at all—is a serious one with a lot of overlap to the flagicons. It could be that modern boxers (who didn't have hundreds of fights) might need to be treated differently than historical ones. Or, looking at bullet #3 of WP:NOTDATABASE ("Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article..."), we could start adding a collapsible parameter to the really lengthy records. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This is what I have been doing to each record that has newspaper decisions, but it should also be added to any record over 80 fights in my opinion.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been adding collapsible options for fighters with newspaper decisions already. See Jack Britton and Ted Kid Lewis for examples of how I want it to be. Modern fighters will be affected if we delete fights. See Roberto Duran and Julio Cesar Chavez for examples. I personally feel the collapsible parameter should be in place for every career.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

("Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article...") I do not feel this applies to any record whatsoever regardless of a collapsible parameter as this is the reason we place boxing records at the bottom of the article. The reason I feel all records should be collapsible for those nerds such as us that want to go down to the sources.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The biggest issue with this is not only that we haven't come to a conclusion, but that there is no consistency. There are plenty of fighters that can't have flagicons because the ethnicity of the fighters some boxers with articles faced is not known. If some articles cannot have flag icons, for the sake of consistency, no records should have flagicons.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Already there's your first stumbling block, and I did try to warn you about mass-deleting them—some editors are (justifiably) sticking to the existing RfC, when there hasn't been a new one to usurp it yet. I really wouldn't advise zapping any more of them until that has taken place. As I said, I know full well what happens when it backfires: [1], [2], [3]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

When are we going to do anything about this? We need to also think about ease of reading for the visually impared...CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

So does this mean that we just don’t care about people who have visual impairments and have difficulty see through all the pretty colors? Someone on this project said they had difficulty seeing the difference between the previous orange for newspaper decisions and losses. We can’t pretend like people with worse visual ailments couldn’t possibly care about boxing. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How can flag icons be used in cases such as Spain in the 1930s…? What flag is to be used in cases of civil wars where there was no flag consensus…? Also, why must flagicons be protected so much when we do not even list flags that existed at the time…? Cases like Ezzard Charles where the American flag showing is not the 1912 flag that was used at the time. We show the flag of Italy that isn’t representing the Kingdom of Italy in 1944 and instead a flag that was not used until 1946…If we “need” to retain flagicons, perhaps they should be consistent with the flags that existed…? CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Besides MOS:FLAGCRUFT and MOS:SPORTFLAG, this is just another reason to get rid. – 2.O.Boxing 20:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good either way. I'll get that RfC started this week. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Let's begin! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Just as an observation, reading these boxers records when the flags are present make it look so much better and it's easier to see where they have competed. Would love it to be changed back to that. 2001:569:7120:D500:8D1F:93B3:C4C:B62C (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Credible sites for bout records besides BoxRecEdit

Are there any credible sites with accurate boxing records besides BoxRec? Working on a retired Olympic boxer Justann Crawford from Australia but could only find 12 records on BoxRec. Thank you --Hopefullynotilliterate (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hopefullynotilliterate: is this for an amateur record and not professional? If so, I don't know of any reliable (or unreliable) site that lists accurate amateur records. And in response to your previous question; no, we don't list amateur records in the infobox, only professional. – 2.O.Boxing 11:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

There is this one site that is credible in searching up amateur boxing history. --Bennyaha (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Remove upcoming fights from record tables, take 2Edit

OK, need to vent. I hate the sight of something like this. "Confirmed" date or not, it looks unprofessional, incomplete, reeks of fanboy'ism ("I get to add it first, wheee!"), and above all it's unencyclopaedic. Let's remind ourselves what an encyclopaedia is: a publication of factual information which has taken place or been otherwise proven. An upcoming boxing match has not taken place, has not been proven to exist until the bell rings, and could be cancelled within hours of said bell ringing (ask Alexander Dimitrenko).

We've got to get in line with MMA records and do away with upcoming fights—it looks bad on us, as a WikiProject, to include them in tables which are meant to present facts. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Agreed. --Michig (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No objection from me. I assume this would also include the ones I've seen being added inside a hidden comment? – 2.O.Boxing 10:50, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Worth noting that while a date has been set for the Fury v Whyte fight, Whyte hasn't signed the contract yet so it still isn't confirmed. Even if it is confirmed, one party could still develop a mysterious training injury which causes the fight to not go ahead, or mistakenly eat some wild boar which causes testing issues. A slightly different case is Dave Allen, who has repeatedly been added to Dennis Hobson cards (no doubt selling a lot of the tickets as the rest of his cards are generally crap) only for the fights to be pulled. --Michig (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Again I also need to bring up the stark comparison to other sports, such as football (soccer and American), snooker, tennis, or motorsport. They are annual events scheduled years in advance, and only something Earth-shattering like COVID could ever postpone or cancel those. This is completely unlike boxing, which is never an annual event (not even Canelo's traditional May or September dates are sacred; he's missed a few of those due to promotional and other issues), and—as I keep harping on about—every single fight on the card is subject to change on the same day. No other major sports besides wrestling have that phenomenon. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Based off of this notion of no upcoming fights being listed, MMA should adhere to this in the entirety of every article of a fighter with an upcoming fight. Johnny Walker (fighter) for example, currently shows

“As the first bout of his new six-fight contract, Walker is scheduled to face Jamahal Hill on February 19, 2022 at UFC Fight Night 201.[28]“ CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My profession is data entry, so tables and such are my area of expertise. What goes in the prose isn't of much interest to me nowadays, as I stopped contributing to those long ago when other editors with more patience in writing text showed up. When I was caretaking Michael Katsidis' article, I regularly added fights to the prose that were either scheduled, cancelled, or in discussion (sourced, of course). No issue there—athletes and entertainment personalities always have the prose of their careers updated with new events.
However, the keyword in record table is just that—it's meant to be a factual record of whom a boxer has fought. Not who they might fight, or who they're scheduled to fight, but an indisputable set-in-stone record of who they have fought. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Edits like this are even worse. It makes a mockery of what WP is meant to be—an encyclopaedia of verified factual information, plus my abovementioned rationale of what a record table should be. Eddie Hearn's rumours are nothing but trash until the opening bell has rung. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I focus on records too, but the argument is that this website is an encyclopedia and should not have upcoming events listed in the records. That extends to the entirety of the article and therefore if upcoming fights are gone from records they need to be gone from all sections. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC on flagicons in boxing record tablesEdit

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The RfC opens by suggesting the removal of all flags from boxing-related record tables. Although there appeared to be no disagreement among participants, there is a consensus that flags should be removed from tables related to professional and exhibition boxing. The very brief discussion was focused on pro boxers, with explanations on how these boxers do not represent a specific country, and so MOS:SPORTFLAG applies, but with no clear agreement on whether this should be applied to amateur boxers. (non-admin closure) Isabelle 🔔 19:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Should flagicons (for Opponent and Location) be removed from all boxing record tables, including professional and exhibition? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  • For pro boxing, certainly. --Michig (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove all flags. Professional boxers do not represent any nation in an official capacity, so those indicating nationality should be removed per MOS:SPORTFLAG. For location, the name of the country is all that is needed to convey where the fight took place, so those flags should be removed per MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE. – 2.O.Boxing 19:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove from all pro boxing items, since they are, by definition, unrelated to national representation. -The Gnome (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove flagicons from all professional and exhibition boxing records. Unlike amateur boxing, professionals do not represent nationalities in the same way, and often compete under different licences than their country of birth; e.g., David Haye in 2012, Tyson Fury since 2020. Likewise Mahmoud Charr has variously "represented" (informally, not in an international sense) Germany, Syria and Lebanon over the course of his career. MOS:SPORTFLAG and MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE should apply. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Remove from all professional boxing records. I am in complete agreement with all the points made by previous editors here that professional boxers do not represent their nationalities, do not always fight under licensing of their birth nation, MOS:SPORTFLAG, and MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE. The addition of flags also cause many other issues not previously stated here.

1. Not all boxers listed on boxrec have known nationalities.

EX. Teo Dominguez as he appears on the record of Rocky Mattioli

2. People can have dual citizenships.

3. Trevor Berbick considered himself "A citizen of the world." and said "I have no problem living anywhere in the world; anywhere where God wants me to live."[1] He therefore did not represent his birth nation in his own eyes.


4. We do not know which country every fight fought by boxers with Wikipedia articles. See and view the first 10 fights for the locations.

5. Not all historical fighters are showing the flag that existed at the time present.

EX. Ezzard Charles: every American flag showing is the current 50 star flag, which never existed at any point in Charles' career. The two fights he fought in the country of Italy show the Italian flag which was implemented in 1948 after the dissolution of the Kingdom of Italy, four years after the fights took place. I had deleted all the flags from this article, but they were restored by somebody who did not and does not have any care for historical accuracy as they couldn't be bothered to research the history of flags. (I reached out to them and they didn't reply)

6. Civil Wars, Proxy Nations, and regime changes

EX. Baltasar Sangchili as he appears on Panama Al Brown's record. Sangchili was born in 1911 in Spain. The flag which represented Spain at the time of his birth not only was different from the flag which he was used during his professional career, but from 1936-1939, The Spanish Civil War makes it so that the official flag was not the consensus. See Nationalist faction (Spanish Civil War) and Second Spanish Republic.

EX. Benny Bass was born December 15, 1904 in Kyiv, Russian Empire. How would he be shown on other fighter's records from 1924-1929?   How about from 1929-1937?  ...something doesn't seem right...Let's try 1937-1940 (end of his career) now  

Okay, so the first and the third flags are correct for that time, but the second is not correct and the actual flag used to represent the nation is not a flagicon we can use. Here are the Wikipedia articles showing them: Flag of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and List of Ukrainian flags. These may seem like small grievances, but accuracy is the point. And when it comes to accuracy, this is something we cannot do for the early years of the Ukrainian annexation of the then new Soviet Union. On List of Ukrainian flags the current Ukrainian flag which was reinstated in 1992 after being liberated from the Soviet's shown as having been their flag from 1918–1920. Flag of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic clearly shows that there was no consensus of a flag or government as there are three opposing flags from 1918-1920 from that of The Ukrainian People's Republic's flag. Over 100 years later, this same situation could perhaps be on the horizon...

7. I added another one because I just remembered that Roy Jones Jr. has been a Russian citizen since 2015. All his opponents' records since then are falsely showing the American flag next to his name. To be accurate, there should be both American and Russian flags side by side, no?CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment: I've made a closure request at Wikipedia:Closure requests. I would have closed it myself per WP:RFCCLOSE, but I wasn't all that confident of doing so due to the previous RfC. – 2.O.Boxing 22:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So that's it, then? They can go...? Well hey, it only took seven years! Let's start zapping. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I've already started lol – 2.O.Boxing 20:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
leave the flags!!! it makes the record look so much better, flagless makes it look cheap and rushed 2603:8001:C83D:E0C7:4955:A042:1671:E71B (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Did you not read anything here? If that’s not enough, consider the fact that some people have sight issues that make focusing on the actual information of the fights difficult with a bunch of colors. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Pfff.. right. Read WP:CCC, second sentence. Anyone who wants the little flaggies back had their chance. Come back in another seven years. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Mac Dreamstate, I am very happy with this; I've been on this for years now. If MMA could do the right thing, then surely boxing could. Next up: the Tour de France, and club football. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Rudolf Andreassen AfDEdit

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

per WP:APPNOTE - "The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion"

Infobox tweaks: wins/losses/draws/NCsEdit

Since the start of the MOS, I've been a proponent for including a redundant "0" even if a boxer has no losses, whilst omitting draws and NCs. Not really sure what my rationale was, but it's pointless either way. What's say we simply let the fields for Total fights and Wins balance themselves out and omit "0" from all fields until they become "1" or more? The infobox (truncated for example purposes) for Oleksandr Usyk would therefore look like this:

Oleksandr Usyk
Boxing record
Total fights19
Wins by KO13

As can be seen, there is no reason to list "0" losses since the total and wins tally up anyway. Listing "0" for losses, draws and NCs would look even dumber. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. It is clear by looking at 19 fights, 19 wins, that there are 0 losses in this context.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
The rationale I always figured was behind it was that undefeated records are always emphasised, whereas 0 draws and NCs aren't. Although I like it, I'm not fussed either way. – 2.O.Boxing 20:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Bouts billed as championship fightsEdit

@Cassiopeia: @Mac Dreamstate: @Squared.Circle.Boxing:

Throughout boxing history, there have been hundreds of champions. The first disputes go back to the 1890s from the heavyweight title with the recognized world championship lineage of John L. Sullivan through James J. Jeffries. During the reign of James J. Corbett, Peter Maher claimed the heavyweight title and fought for that championship claim against Bob Fitzsimmons in a rematch on Feb 21, 1896. The fight was billed as the world's heavyweight championship, yet most fans and writers at the time recognized Corbett as the true champion. We include this to the record of Fitzsimmons obviously and also for the fight after in which he was "defeated" by Tom Sharkey.

When looking at the landscape of the times before alphabet championships, it is not too far removed from what we have nowadays. How is the middleweight championship landscape of 1911-1913 different from how the first 168lbs undisputed championship took place or any other division's lead up to an undisputed fight in the last ten years? The only differences I see are that nowadays, no decisions (newspaper decisions) are obsolete, and the titleholders do not fight multiple fights between title fights. Look at the careers of Leo Houck, Mike Gibbons, Harry Lewis, Jack Dillon, Georges Carpentier, Cyclone Johnny Thompson, Billy Papke, and Frank Klaus. The undisputed champion was eventually crowned through multiple fights billed as championship fights (aka unifications). The inauguration of the NYSAC title only shows the future trends since Papke was still promoted as a title claimant before his bout with Klaus. The latter had held that alphabet middleweight title. All one has to do is choose their favorite combination of letters and imagine each title claim as a sanctioning body. This shows the importance of a fight being promoted/billed as a championship bout regardless of the era.

When we look at the situation between George Foreman and Shannon Briggs, we are looking at a fight that was promoted and billed as being for the "linear heavyweight championship." I understand the debate which culminated in the removal of lineal titles. I am not attempting to revive a dead argument despite having brought up a word that may indicate that I am trying to do so. I will show an example of what I mean after making my main points.

We already do not follow boxrec blindly, which is abundantly clear when you look at the champions of the Ring Magazine world champions. Boxrec includes no mention of any ring magazine championships, yet we have them, which shows that we do not base our information purely on what is shown on boxrec. Let's do the same in the cases of Tyson Fury, Shannon Briggs, and George Foreman. Watch the ring introductions of Foreman vs. Briggs, Spinks vs. Cooney, and Fury vs. any of his comeback opponents not named Deontay Wilder. Each introduction of the billing of the bout has two unifying similarities. No presence of a physical world championship belt, yet a statement of a fighter being some form of "the heavyweight champion." Boxrec lists no ring titles, as we know, but it lists Spinks vs. Cooney as having been promoted as the world's heavyweight championship. Foreman vs. Briggs and Fury's bouts in between his alphabet fights have no indication of being billed/promoted for any form of the world's heavyweight title by boxrec. We have proven not to care about what boxrec says as set in stone, so this should be completely irrelevant as each fight could, and honestly should have that note by boxrec as having been promoted as heavyweight championship bouts.

Now, I said that I am not reviving a debate on lineal titles. The examples have focused on heavyweight champions who have been called lineal champions at different points of their careers. Still, this change does not affect all other fighters referred to as lineal champions at some point or another. For example, Guillermo Rigondeaux gained recognition as the lineal super bantamweight champion and never lost that status in the ring or abdicated it verbally. Rigondeaux vs. Ceja would not be affected by this change as the contest was billed as a WBC super bantamweight title Eliminator. This is a fight that was NOT promoted/billed as a world championship fight, and it must remain as such, whereas the fights aforementioned were promoted & billed as world title fights.

Finally, I would like to say that the conclusion that lineal titles are not to be included in boxing info tables has been a positive effect which has made working on records without alphabet letters much more accurate to the times. The lineal concept did not exist before the 1960s, and it is and always has been disingenuous to call champions prior "lineal" champions. Removing this concept from our records has forced me to read more about how champions were referred to before alphabet titles to retain the historical championships. For example, did you know that while many fans today call Marvin Hart the former "lineal" heavyweight champion, the newspapers reporting on him at the time did not even fully recognize his championship and referred to it as a title "claim"? Furthermore, Tommy Burns won the Police Gazette's vacant heavyweight championship after defeating Bill Squires. Without removing lineal titles, that information would be lost in archives and ultimately in time. I hope that these fights billed as championship fights aren't forgotten in time by the boxing fans who may be passing through an older record.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The reality is that there was never a 'pre-alphabet' era where there was one recognized world champion. Multiple US state commissions recognized their own champions. The BBBofC (and the IBU) declared world champions who were often different to the most-recognized (and usually mob-controlled) US champion. All we should do is report the titles as they were declared at the time, without making judgments about who was the 'real' champion. --Michig (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
And by 'declared at the time' I mean by governing bodies, NOT by promoters, ring announcers, and TV presenters. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
@Michig: I never claimed that there was ever a time when there was one recognized world champion. I am acknowledging that and attempting to come up with a solution for listing the multiple champions in a way that retains historical information.
If we simply report titles as declared by commissions, many championship bouts will be lost in time on Wikipedia. There are zero reports of any commissions or governing bodies declaring Tommy Ryan as the welterweight champion, but you cannot refute his welterweight championship. He was also involved in fights that were billed as the world & American middleweight championship, however, we don't have any records of an American governing body substantiating this claim, we just have the records of the fights being billed as such. By saying that we should now require governing bodies to have backed up all championships for them to be listed, we are making unfair judgments on who was and was not involved in title bouts and therefore not being impartial to the historical facts.
By restricting this information based on the fact that the IBU, BBBofC, and multiple US state commissions did not recognize Ryan as a champion IS making judgments about who the 'real' champion at the time was and disregarding the reports of the time. European governing bodies and some American commissions recognized champions prior to the 1920s before the long staple of the NYSAC and NBA titles. The problem is that those commissions and governing bodies were not consistent enough and or their champion records are partially missing. Prior to the 1930s/1920s, the way in which champions were recognized was not consistent enough to be held to the same standard. The 1910s and prior was filled with claimants as recognized and acknowledged by the newspaper writers.
Furthermore, the many-colored champions of the 1890s and 1900s would have to have their titles deleted based on the fact that there were no governing bodies declaring their colored championships. By leaving notes in the notes section that certain bouts were billed as championship fights, we are giving factual information without our judgments on who does and doesn't deserve to have historical championship records kept.
At the end of the day, the notes section is there for important notes about a fight, such as the way in which a DQ or NC occurred, or any titles fought for or included in the billing of the fight, regardless of any opinion on their validity, is an important historical fact.
If we are to go based on what you say we should, we must also delete all Ring magazine championships as a magazine is not a governing body. Think for a moment about how deleting these Ring title fights is going to do championship record keeping any good whatsoever.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
There are problems with counting fights that are simply 'billed' as championship fights as genuine title fights, because it's too easy for promoters to do this. When Tyson Fury didn't have a world championship belt, for example, and when even the various bodies that claim to determine the 'lineal' champions had removed him from that position, he was still billed as the lineal heavyweight champion in his comeback fights. I think we need to be careful about which claims to world title fights we include and also be very clear how we present them. --Michig (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
I completely agree and that is why my proposal would not affect the List of world heavyweight boxing champions. All it would do is denote that a particular bout was billed as a title fight, rather than proclaim it to be a genuine title fight. I am leaving three different snippet examples of the careers of Foreman, Briggs, and Fury. NOTE: In these examples, only fights with the billing of this claim have this change. Fights such as Fury vs. Seferi, which was billed as a "heavyweight bout" do not have inclusion because the billing does not include the championship claim, despite Fury and the ring announcer claiming that he was the "lineal" heavyweight champion. The same is true for his fight versus Pianeta. Due to these fights not being genuine title bouts, there is no inclusion of having "won" "lost" or "retained" the championship claim.

P.S. This would not promote the change of adding all fights with what they are billed as I.E. Ali vs Foster being billed as "The Sound and the Fury" as this is irrelevant to the point of keeping records of bouts that were historically listed as for a championship yet only substantiated by a claim after the consistent establishment of the governing bodies which when unified, denote and undisputed champion: The NYSAC and NBA which later developed into the WBA WBC and later IBF and later WBO and hopefully not the IBO down the line.

P.P.S. This does not affect bouts that have any of the sanctioning bodies' titles needed for undisputed at that time.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Last five fights of George Foreman's boxing careerEdit

Professional record summary
81 fights 76 wins 5 losses
By knockout 68 1
By decision 8 4
No. Result Record Opponent Type Round, time Date Age Location Notes
81 Loss 76–5 Shannon Briggs MD 12 Nov 22, 1997 48 years, 316 days Etess Arena, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. Billed for the "world" heavyweight title
80 Win 76–4 Lou Savarese SD 12 Apr 26, 1997 48 years, 106 days Convention Hall, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. Retained WBU heavyweight title
Billed for the "world" heavyweight title
79 Win 75–4 Crawford Grimsley UD 12 Nov 3, 1996 47 years, 298 days NK Hall, Urayasu, Japan Retained WBU heavyweight title;
Won vacant IBA heavyweight title
Billed for the "world" heavyweight title
78 Win 74–4 Axel Schulz MD 12 Apr 22, 1995 46 years, 102 days MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, U.S. Retained IBF heavyweight title;
Won vacant WBU heavyweight title
77 Win 73–4 Michael Moorer KO 10 (12), 2:03 Nov 5, 1994 45 years, 299 days MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, U.S. Won WBA and IBF heavyweight titles

Shannon Brigg's two fights versus Foreman and LewisEdit

Professional record summary
68 fights 60 wins 6 losses
By knockout 53 2
By decision 7 4
Draws 1
No contests 1
No. Result Record Opponent Type Round, time Date Location Notes
32 Loss 30–2 Lennox Lewis TKO 5 (12), 1:45 Mar 28, 1998 Convention Center, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. For WBC heavyweight title
31 Win 30–1 George Foreman MD 12 Nov 22, 1997 Etess Arena, Atlantic City, New Jersey, U.S. Billed for the "world" heavyweight title

Tyson Fury's comeback plus KlitschkoEdit

Professional record summary
32 fights 31 wins 0 losses
By knockout 22 0
By decision 9 0
Draws 1
No. Result Record Opponent Type Round, time Date Location Notes
33 N/A N/A Dillian Whyte N/A – (12) 23 Apr 2022 Wembley Stadium, London, England Defending WBC and The Ring heavyweight titles
32 Win 31–0–1 Deontay Wilder KO 11 (12), 1:10 9 Oct 2021 T-Mobile Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US Retained WBC and The Ring heavyweight titles
31 Win 30–0–1 Deontay Wilder TKO 7 (12), 1:39 22 Feb 2020 MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US Won WBC and vacant The Ring heavyweight titles
30 Win 29–0–1 Otto Wallin UD 12 14 Sep 2019 T-Mobile Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US Billed for the "lineal" heavyweight title
29 Win 28–0–1 Tom Schwarz TKO 2 (12), 2:54 15 Jun 2019 MGM Grand Garden Arena, Paradise, Nevada, US Won WBO Inter-Continental heavyweight title;
Billed for the "lineal" heavyweight title
28 Draw 27–0–1 Deontay Wilder SD 12 1 Dec 2018 Staples Center, Los Angeles, California, US For WBC heavyweight title
27 Win 27–0 Francesco Pianeta PTS 10 18 Aug 2018 Windsor Park, Belfast, Northern Ireland
26 Win 26–0 Sefer Seferi RTD 4 (10), 3:00 9 Jun 2018 Manchester Arena, Manchester, England
25 Win 25–0 Wladimir Klitschko UD 12 28 Nov 2015 Esprit Arena, Düsseldorf, Germany Won WBA (Super), IBF, WBO, IBO, and The Ring heavyweight titles


Can somebody incorporate the guidance from WP:INFONAT into the MOS? Cheers. – 2.O.Boxing 20:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Are we to begin ditching nationality altogether from the self-explanatory ones? As in, no more nationality=American for Mayweather, or nationality=British for Joshua? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Yea that's the idea. It should only be used for the mandem like Dillian and similar such cases. – 2.O.Boxing 21:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Good to know, I'll add it to the MOS. Just thinking, it may possibly avert some of the edit warring over English/Scottish/Welsh/NI when it comes to that field. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  Done. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Nice one. That's two of the most common types of persistent edit wars that I deal with put to bed. Happy days. – 2.O.Boxing 04:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[ Article of things]" ''''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sanctioning bodiesEdit

I'm always looking at ways to bring as much of MOS:BOXING in line with WP's overarching MOS, so that we don't encounter the ire of editors unfamiliar with our practices at WikiProject Boxing. MOS:INFONAT was a great spot—just another small detail to make MOS:BOXING look more 'legit', shall we say, and not just an "essay". Truth be told, it still kinda stings how that editor put it so dismissively.. got me right in the feelz.

Anyway, one format I've insisted on sticking to for years is abbreviating the sanctioning bodies, mainly WBA/WBA/IBF/WBO, but also IBO, EBU and whichever others are common. However, I may have been going about this wrong. At MOS:ACRO it says:

Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses ... if it is used later in the article.

Therefore, in order to be compliant with MOS:ABBR, what we should be doing in the lead and body of every boxing article (record tables and succession boxes are exempt for brevity) is replicating the format used in the lead section of Vitali Klitschko‎, namely:

He held the World Boxing Organization (WBO) title from 1999 to 2000 ... and the World Boxing Council (WBC) title twice between 2004 and 2013.

This is already regularly done with the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA) when naming awards, so it's time we start doing the same for the sanctioning bodies. Granted, it might look a bit clunky having to spell them out all the time, and in mainstream media the fully-worded names of the orgs are rarely used, but we have to accept they're not on the abovementioned list of exceptions. We wouldn't have to leg to stand on if any senior editor happened to come along and scrutinise MOS:BOXING for "doing our own thing", which is a possibility if edit wars spill out into WP:EWN, WP:AIV, WP:3O, etc.

Bases covered and all that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Funnily enough, in my first few months of editing I edit warred with somebody to remove instances of this. They won (they linked a guideline or two), but I think I snuck back and changed it anyway (naughty). I don't like it! But I don't really have much of a valid argument to make. – 2.O.Boxing 08:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)