Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Sanctioning body acronyms

Per the MOS, and apparently almost every single boxing article, it appears using the acronym for sanctioning bodies without a fully worded parenthesis is acceptable and the standard. I reverted this edit at Ricky Hatton with the understanding that this was the case, however, the editor has highlighted a particular sentence in MOS:ACRO that seems to state otherwise. If the editor is correct, maybe it should be added to the MOS? I’ve started a discussion on the article’s talk page and was wondering if any more experienced editors would care to comment. – ².O.^Boxing 01:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Sometimes it's better to spell them out where first used in an article, particularly where the abbreviation is ambiguous (e.g. WBF, IBU), but I think an abbreviation is ok if it's linked, particularly for those sanctioning bodies that are generally well enough known that the average reader will understand the abbreviation. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

What is the advantage you see in not expanding the terms? According to MOS:ACRO, they should always be spelled out on first use. There are a small number of exceptions listed there, and these are not among them. The average boxing fan probably knows what the abbreviations mean; the average reader in general definitely does not. 145.128.174.74 (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not the average reader will understand them is the judgment we need to make - MOS:ACRO can't reasonably be expected to list everything that doesn't need to be spelled out. The advantage of using abbreviations only, where they will be understood, is that the articles become less clunky and more readable. --Michig (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Having given it further thought, if the audience was boxing fans we probably wouldn't need to spell out WBC, WBA, etc., but it's probably better to assume that readers generally will need them spelling out the first time they are used, so I would suggest that the boxing MOS is changed to be consistent with MOS:ACRO. In record tables I would go with initialisms only - they should have been spelled out in the prose somewhere in the article above the record. --Michig (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It probably doesn’t matter, but just a thought; the titles are never actually referred to in the media as (as far as I’m aware) 'World Boxing Council heavyweight title', always 'WBC heavyweight title'. When speaking on the organisations themselves they’re usually fully worded, but titles are always acronym. Does that have any bearing? Also, would tooltips be an acceptable compromise? Having the organisations fully worded on the Ricky Hatton article doesn’t cause much clutter but on the likes of Canelo, Wladimir Klitschko or any other lead section where multiple titles are listed, it would get a bit messy. Especially with the WBA (Super)/(Regular) titles. The last sentence of Usyk's lead would be;

World Boxing Association (WBA) (Super), World Boxing Council (WBC), International Boxing Federation (IBF) and World Boxing Organisation (WBO) titles.

Seems very unnecessary seeing as the sanctioning bodies are linked anyway. – ².O.^Boxing 17:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with following MOS:ACRO in this case. In mainstream media, the myriad sanctioning body abbreviations are as commonplace as BBC or CNN; neither of which require adherence to MOS:ACRO. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Scratch my hastiness above—this is something that needs addressing further, or indeed changing within MOS:BOXING. We could either try to get the WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO added to the list of exceptions at MOS:ACRO, or simply take heed of the above and start spelling them out by name on first instance. How we handle "WBA (Super)" is something that would need ironing out, as Squared has pointed out. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I think trying to get them on the exceptions list would be the best option, not sure how likely that is though. Yes, not everybody will know what the acronyms stand for, but the same goes for the BBC. – ².O.^Boxing 20:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

If we could convince them that mainstream media unanimously uses the abbreviations—via heaploads of general news articles—we might be in with a shot. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Sky News: [1] [2] [3] [4]
Bloomberg: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
CNN: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
Fox News: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]
BBC: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
Telegraph: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]
There’s hundreds more examples. There will obviously be articles out there that have the sanctioning bodies fully worded but the overwhelming majority are as acronyms, likewise with the BBC. – ².O.^Boxing 00:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Title links in the record table

It seems common practice is to link the sanctioning body on first instance and then also a detailed link to lists of champions, where applicable, on first instance. If the first instance of a title is a link to a list of champions, should the next instance be a link to the sanctioning body? The MOS implies so. If not, then shouldn’t the link of a sanctioning body be removed if it precedes that of a link to a list of champions? I believe having the organisation linked as well as any following lists of champions is better. Firstly, it’s helpful for any reader who isn’t a hardcore boxing fan looking at the table; secondly, surely this isn’t a case of duplicate links as they direct to separate articles, and if it is, MOS:REPEATLINK permits it anyway. – ².O.^Boxing 14:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The MOS doesn't imply that, you shouldn't make edits based on assumptions. In fact the MOS is clear with the example record table that you should not do that. The main architect of the MOS, that we all agreed on here, Mac Dreamstate even reverted your edit showing this is not the correct format. Users that aren't "hardcore boxing fans" will still get the relevant information from the list of champions page for example in the lead of List of WBO world champions it tells you what WBO stands for and that it is "one of the four major governing bodies in professional boxing". Naue7 (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Claressa Shields

@GodCipherDivine: All reliable sources recognise Shields as becoming a three division world champion in the fewest professional fights; ESPN, The Ring, BBC Sport, Sky Sports, CBS Sport, BusinessInsider, Forbes. Seeing as Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and based on sources, Wikipedia should reflect this unarguable fact. – ².O.^Boxing 16:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Until they start competing in the ring against each other, male and female world records should be regarded as separate. That media outlets are hung up on it shows a similar level of propaganda as Fury and his "lineal" claim. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: And? We're on Wikipedia, and on this site female boxing and male boxing records are kept separate. Like I said before, on all the boxing records and statistics pages only male boxers are listed. If you want to create separate ones for female boxing then you're welcome to do so.

To say that "all" sources recognise Shields as the fastest three weight champion is complete hyperbole, and as Mac Dreamstate correctly pointed out, these same sources that you claim are "reliable" are the same ones who somehow continue to regard Fury as the lineal champ despite him retiring AND failing a drugs test. Plus, since when are Business Insider and Forbes "reliable" sources for boxing? GodCipherDivine (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

After Reading User:GodCipherDivine's latest edit summary, I’ve changed my stance. They do indeed compete in the same sport (although not against each other), but duration and amount of rounds are different. I think the distinction should be noted though. "Lomachenko holds the men's record for becoming a three-weight world champion in the fewest professional fights"...or some such. – ².O.^Boxing 17:07, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought the distinction has been made this whole time in lead sections? Or I might be confusing it with the recent spate of undisputed champions in both male and female boxing, since that's an achievement which doesn't currently need as much clarification (thank goodness for Leon Spinks!) Nonetheless, we already do this in other sports: Sara Takanashi has the most female wins in ski jumping (56), whilst Gregor Schlierenzauer has the most male wins (53). Two all-time records, different sport, but the same level of distinction is absolutely necessary. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:24, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Rudolph Bent

Would anyone be able to help me with this subject? Was a national Champion in Honduras and Jamaica. FloridaArmy (talk) 03:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments on adding guidance on lineal champions to the boxing MOS

Although there was low participation in this RfC, there is a unanimous consensus for the proposal.

Cunard (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

Should we add the following section to the WikiProject Boxing Manual of Style?

Lineal champions
There is no single canonical list of lineal champions. Don't include the lineal championship in lists of champions, record tables or succession boxes.

Lineal championships are a point of view and should follow the neutral point of view policy:

• Avoid stating it as a fact. A lineal championship is an opinion and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
• Undue weight - Don't include it in the lead unless it is a widely held viewpoint (ex. You need more sources than just the Cyber Boxing Zone list.)--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Support adding the above section, in addition to a third point:

• Do not include the lineal championship in lists of champions, record tables or succession boxes. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Support: There is no single, universally recognised, official body that awards a lineal title. – ².O.^Boxing 01:44, 3 March 2020 (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.

Wikipedia:Good articles/all

Hi guys, I recently promoted Johnny Owen to GA, but wasn't sure where to put it, so I put in sports miscellany. However, there's quite a few GAs on the WP:BOXING list that don't appear at all. Is this on purpose, or an oversight? Should these live anywhere else in particular? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should add a boxing section to WP:GA/SR.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Undisputed champions

Per these edits at Zab Judah, we might need another source-gathering spree. I always thought it was 2006–2007 when the WBO finally counted as undisputed, but DAZN says 2004. Better sources are definitely needed. Furthermore, at the undisputed championship article, we have a line that says "Until around 2007, many considered it sufficient to hold the WBA, WBC, and IBF titles", with three sources. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The DAZN article doesn’t say the four belt undisputed era began in 2004. It says the WBC began recognising the WBO in that year (which is already stated in the Undisputed championship article). The four belt undisputed era began when all sanctioning bodies mutually recognised each other's champions...not when the WBC recognised the IBF. I think IvanchukW misinterpreted the DAZN article. In addition, the overwhelming majority of sources refer to Judah as the undisputed champion, so even if the DAZN article did claim the four belt undisputed era began in 2004, the overwhelming majority wins. – ².O.^Boxing 19:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"However, it wasn't fully recognized as a major world title until 2004, when it got the final blessing from the WBC." I understand it as WBC was the last organisation whose recognition WBO needed to be fully accepted all other major organisations, which means that WBO had already been recognized by WBA and IBF. DAZN is the only reliable source I found that covers this issue. Yes, many sources regocnized Judah as undisputed champion, but there just as many that recognized Kovalev as undisputed too, even though he held three belts. If you have more reliable sources that recognize one common timeline, that would be great. We need a clear answer to this issue that would be accepted. IvanchukW (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC+2)

There is no official definition of what makes an undisputed champion, so there isn't going to be a clear answer. Fortunately, the only significant dissent about the concept is the timing of when it became necessary to also hold the WBO title. It was a gradual process as more and more people started to believe the WBO titles had the same significance as the others.

There have been a few discussions over the years, here and a couple other places about when to consider the WBO a "major" title, but there was no consensus. I assume the WBO article is correct when it says: "The IBF did not recognize the WBO in May 2006, but was doing so by February 2007."--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

African Boxing Union

Should we refer to African Boxing Union titles as African titles in the boxing record tables, or in the lead section? Or just ABU? I've seen both ways done for European Boxing Union titles. I think European looks better personally but what is the consensus regarding these continental organization titles, if any? JTtheOG (talk) 09:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

If there are no other notable boxing organisations in Africa, then I'd be fine with linking it as [[African Boxing Union|African [weight class] title]]. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove all mention of lineal titles in articles on boxers

I know it has been discussed before, but every time a 'lineal title' is mentioned in a Wikipedia article, the credibility of Wikipedia diminishes. Quite simply there is no lineal title or championship. Lineal 'status' is something that people have differing opinions on, and there is no recognized sanctioning body that administers a 'lineal' title, so for an article to state that a boxer is the lineal champion, or that a fight is for the lineal title, is totally unencyclopedic. Having an article on the concept of a lineal title is as far as we should go. --Michig (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Good. Good! I'm glad to see this brought up again. My last topic on it went nowhere despite the extensive discussion, but I knew there was something in it for another go-around. I'm still of the same opinion as I had back then, in that any attempts to introduce the ridiculously varying interpretations of lineal titles by boxing journalists, websites by every man and their dog, and fans for cryin' out loud, should automatically be flagged for violation of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:V, and WP:GNG.

The "lineal championship" is not, never was, nor ever will be, a tangible title that can be put in a display cabinet. It's a status—one that has no consensus in the form of WP:RS. That, therefore, fails every WP core policy. At the most, as I suggested in the previous discussion, we could mention that "[Boxer] is considered the lineal champion by [source 1], but this status is contested by [source 2]", whilst keeping it far away from lead sections and tables. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I do like the concept of a lineal champion, but it is just that, a concept. There is no official source/ranking system/criteria to reference. I’m definitely in favour of it being removed from record tables, however, I like Mac Dreamstate's idea of mentioning it like world rankings; but why not a sentence at the end of the lead? "[As of December 2019]...he is also ranked as the lineal welterweight champion by the TBRB, and second by the CBZ."– ².O.^Boxing 17:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

We have now had the whole 'lineal' heavyweight list that was in the article deleted at AfD dumped into List of world heavyweight boxing champions, which also has a nonsense 'legitimate claim' column in the main table. Apparently someone believes that only the 'lineal title' and The Ring's corrupt belt are legitimate ways of becoming a world champion. Laughable. --Michig (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It's agenda-tastic, and calls into question WP's own credibility when such material is allowed to stay. These editors who come around promoting their interpretations of lineal titles think they're helping coverage of the sport, but they're only continuing to add to the confusion amidst the alphabet organisations' crookery (the WBA promised to eliminate Super/Regular titles by 2019—like hell they did). These edits being some of the most flagrant violation of WP:PROMO I've seen in a while.

No other sport on WP has this kind of problem. An individual athlete or team either won something or they didn't; their place on statistical lists is either verifiable or isn't. In boxing, it's like wading through cloudy waters to find something (i.e., a "legitimate claim" to a title) that simply isn't there. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

As I’ve said, I’m not opposed to the mention of a fighter being considered a lineal champion by the likes of TBRB, and just barely, CBZ, but a list purporting to be the list of lineal champions is misleading, not at all encyclopaedic and I presume goes against multiple Wikipedia policies. I’ve just reverted the one in the heavyweight champions article. The "source" was a BoxRec page copied from the CBZ, with a direct link to their website at the bottom of the page, so nope. – ².O.^Boxing 21:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we should ban mention of them entirely, but it seems obvious we need something in the MOS to explain how to write about them. I propose this:

There is no single canonical list of lineal champions. Lineal champions are a point of view and should follow the neutral point of view policy.

1. Avoid stating it as a fact. A lineal championship is an opinion and should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice.
2. Undue weight - Don't include it in the lead unless it is a widely held viewpoint (ex. You need more sources than just the CBZ list.)
3. Don't include the lineal championship in lists of champions, record tables or succession boxes.

--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Should we get an RfC started on this? If the initiative is taken now with regards to removing all mentions of lineal titles from leads and tables, some of the more determined agenda-driven editors will simply say that consensus wasn't strong enough here based on this discussion alone. Perhaps the same range of editors as the recently AfD'ed list could weigh in. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's best to deal with opposition to this before we start removing things from articles. 

Are there any suggestions to improve the wording? I'd like to move 3. to either the 2nd sentence or the end of 1. It seems to flow from one of those.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The RfC didn't get us any more input, but I don't see any reason not to move ahead. The only issue is the order of the sentences. I changed it in the RfC from what I wrote in this section, moving point 3 to the second sentence.  Mac Dreamstate commented on it, but I'm not sure if that was because you preferred it where it was originally, or just didn't notice that it was still there. --SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeating point 3 was indeed an oversight. I've placed it in a new section below regionals and interims. Now that the mess involving Fury and Álvarez has kinda blown over following their recent big wins, we can only hope this lineal matter stays dormant until the next time we need to point to the MOS. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that we should make a list and include all people who have widely accepted claims to the lineal title. The lineal title is historically important and we shouldn't completely erase it from Wikipedia due to some former disputes. We can even include an interpretations section. --Thespearthrower (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Debut at a new weight

Can this be added to the RECORDNOT section? The majority of fighters tend to go through multiple divisions back and forth throughout their career, especially in the early days, so having "Debut at [weight]" for a third of their first ten fights would look unnecessarily messy. Even if a fighter competed solely at one weight and makes an official debut in another (such as Usyk), I still believe it's better served in the article body, as is with catchweight fights. As the MOS explains, the notes should be left for titles at stake, exceptional fight ending circumstances and notable tournaments. – ².O.^Boxing 20:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll expand the line which begins with "Miscellaneous trivia..." to include weight debuts. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No contest

If a boxer retains a title via technical knockout, but the result is later overturned due to a failed drug test, is the title still listed as retained with the additional note to explain the failed test? Or is it retained with the additional note explaining the offender was stripped (as well as the failed test)? Or is it listed as lost (with the additional note of the drug test)? – ².O.^Boxing 19:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting and unusual combination of events there. The closest I've tackled is the NC situations with Toney and Botha, when both won titles but were stripped; Khan–Peterson was also rather unique. Are there any examples of record tables where your described scenario has occurred? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m in the process of creating an article for Liam Cameron. He defended his Commonwealth title against Nicky Jenman via TKO but failed a post-fight drug test and was subsequently stripped of the title four months later. Here’s his BoxRec link. – ².O.^Boxing 21:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

That makes it clearer. In cases where they got to keep a title despite an NC, I would list the reason(s) for the NC as normal, but simply omit any presence of a title from the field altogether; in a literal sense per NC, the defence "didn't happen at all". However, if they definitely got stripped afterwards, we could create a new string which reads:

Notes
Originally a TKO win for Cameron, later ruled an NC after he failed a drug test; Cameron stripped of title

This does mean that I may need to tweak some records such as James Toney, Chad Dawson, etc.; they currently have "for [title]" "retained [title]" after an NC result, which goes against what I just suggested above. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I’m good with that. I suppose there’s no need to include “Retained title”, as “Originally a TKO win” and “stripped of title” clearly implies the title was initially retained. Thanks for the input. – ².O.^Boxing 12:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've been experimenting with the records for John Ruiz (thereby James Toney) and Chad Dawson (thereby Bernard Hopkins), and I can't settle on what looks right. In both cases, a boxer failed a drug test and the fight became an NC, although in this case it doesn't really matter how the NC came about. Ruiz (who originally lost his title) and Dawson (who retained it) got to keep their titles, but they did not "retain" them—the fights are null and void, and cannot be classed as defences. Likewise Toney did "win" the title in the ring, but his reign is nonexistent.

As I mentioned above, the format with which I was most tempted to go is to omit any mention of there being a title at stake for either boxer in an NC-nullified fight. However, in contrast to detailed trivia which is discouraged, the omission of titles may be verging on too little detail for the sake of historical value, since any title on the line (especially world level) should be of significance regardless of what happened to it.

What we could do is create a third outcome just for the purposes of NCs, to go with the "retained" and "lost" outcomes for normally occurring fights. Maybe something like "WBA heavyweight title was at stake". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Notes
Originally a TKO win for Dawson, later ruled an NC after an incorrect referee call; WBC and The Ring light heavyweight titles were at stake

I think that’s a perfect solution. As an update on the Liam Cameron article, as it turns out, the CBC withdrew their sanction prior to the fight anyway, so the there’s no need for it there lol good work on the compromise though, makes a lot more sense than what’s currently used. Is it worth adding it to the MOS too? – ².O.^Boxing 19:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That's been added to MOS:BOXING/RECORD, under Notes. The way to display it is "[Title] at stake;" followed by the NC reason below it. I've edited quite a few articles to reflect the change, but only those on my watchlist—others are still in need of it, so a good way to search for the needed string via Google is to use either..

site:en.wikipedia.org "professional boxer" "nc after"

or

site:en.wikipedia.org "professional boxer" "ruled an nc"

Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I googled both strings and went through all the results they gave, changed the few that you hadn’t already, so if the searches picked up every instance then all should be sorted. – ².O.^Boxing 21:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Another tricky no contest

The two recent events held in Mexico City were not sanctioned by the Mexico City Boxing Commission, causing BoxRec (and rightly so) to officially list all bouts at these events as NC (first event, second event). I’ve added the latest bout and result to Miguel Berchelt's record and wanted some feedback on the explanation in the notes column. – ².O.^Boxing 12:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Mindaugas Gedminas

Should this article draft be accepted? Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Calliojen1 he satisfies the amateur criteria set in WP:NBOX (Norway is AIBA affiliated and a World Championship medal winning country; has won Norwegian and Nordic national titles and competed at the European Games) so if the references are good I don’t see why not. Some parts read a bit promotional but nothing a quick trim wouldn’t fix. – ².O.^Boxing 10:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, accepted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone find more details about the career of Tadeusz Pietrzykowski, the boxer of Auschwitz?

I expanded his bio at Tadeusz Pietrzykowski, but most sources focus on his wartime unofficial matches and are very sparse about his pre-war and post-war official matches. Can anyone help? He qualified to the finals of the 1937 Polish Boxing Championships (missing article, on pl the list is at pl:Mistrzostwa Polski w boksie). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential notability of Jonathan Kumuteo

Hi all! I was contacted off-wiki asking if an article could be made for Jonathan Kumuteo, and boxing is really not my sphere of knowledge. As such, I am not certain whether they are notable, and ask the input of people more experienced in this field. If they are, I'd probably add it to the list of requested articles for boxing, as I am by no means confident in writing a boxing related article as I understand none of the terminology. I've gathered a few sources after some initial googling, and it seems they may meet criterion 4 of the boxing SNG, but I'm not entirely sure: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. Thanks for your help, Vermont (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Gopal Devang

Does he satisfy the criteria at WP:NBOXING? Among other things he is a two-time Asian Games bronze medalist. Thanks! Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

CfD

Dropping this link here as I expect minimal participation as is with all boxing related deletion discussions. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 3#Category:International light-heavyweight boxing champions. – ².O.^Boxing 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a category that we should be keeping not deleting. --HuntGroup (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

WBC renamed minimumweight

WBC have renamed the division strawweight at their latest convention. Here's an article from World Boxing News detailing it. I've made the changes on the relevant WBC articles, just needs changing in the MOS. Also, are instances of past "WBC minimumweight champion" in individual articles to be kept as such or changed to strawweight? I'm ever so slightly leaning towards changing but not so sure. – ².O.^Boxing 15:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Changed at the MOS. Go ahead and change all instances retroactively wherever needed—it'll all point to the same article anyway. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

WBC female

Just a heads up. Despite this, I don't think we need to change any terminology.. unless they start putting men against women. Nor do we (hopefully) need to specify "WBC male". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.--HuntGroup (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Lack of coverage of early bareknuckle boxers

I've noticed Wikipedia doesn't have much on many of the important early English boxers, such as Jack Slack. I'm curious if there's much consideration of the reason for this. Is it a issue of lacking reliable sources or notability, or is it just that no one has made the articles? If the latter I'm happy to assist, though I'll probably need people to clean up my efforts. For what it's worth I submitted an article on William Stevens for review to test the waters on this, as I don't want to start on any others if it's clear none of them will be accepted, but any input would be greatly appeciatedd. Bitplayervesti (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

AfD

Are there any editors experienced with GNG willing to take a look at this afd? The article doesn't have a large number of lengthy references to examine so it wouldn't be very time consuming. – ².O.^Boxing 18:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Medal table

I think the medal table should be organised by the level/prestige of the tournament (regardless of medals won). For example, for English boxers (or Europeans):

Medal record
Men's amateur boxing
Representing Great Britain
Olympic Games
	2016 Rio	Heavyweight
Representing England
World Championships
	2019 Yekaterinburg	Heavyweight
European Championships
	2015 Samokov	Heavyweight
EU Championships
	2018 Valladolid	Heavyweight
Strandzha Cup
	2015 Sofia	Heavyweight
ABA Championships
	2012 London	Heavyweight

The vast majority of medal tables I've seen are organised like this which made me think this was the standard, but the example in the MOS shows different. My main reasoning is, an Olympic bronze is considered a higher achievement than a World, European, or Strandzha Cup gold. Thoughts? – ².O.^Boxing 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a big MOS guy, but I do know that only major championships are should be listed. The Strandzha Cup and ABA Championships shouldn't be listed. Its only world level, major region, or other major games (e.g. Pan Arab Games). I know it doesn't answer your question, but thought it worth pointing out. RonSigPi (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Disregarding MOS:BOXING for a moment, I've never understood the rationale of "most prestigious first". If a boxer wins a bronze medal at some tournament in 2000, a silver at a different tournament in 2004, and Olympic gold in 2008, it doesn't make sense to me to list the 2008 one first just because of prestige. I think it should be chronological from top to bottom, like how we list boxing titles won (sanctioning body establishment order and/or weight class order) in the various sections.#

However, I've yet to see a general MOS on the medals table—if there is one I'd been interested to see it, and possibly amend our MOS accordingly (if they prestige first, I won't object). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I understand it with the order of titles, as there isn't a hierarchy to them. But with the competitions there is, with the Olympics being the creme de la creme.– ².O.^Boxing 21:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC about Sherdog.com at RSN

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Responses (Sherdog.com) regarding the reliability of Sherdog.com which is going to affect considerable amount of boxing articles. I would like to hear your opinion on that. Thanks in advance. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

WBC Franchise

This will undoubtedly be a headache for us after the Lomachenko–Lopez fight. I refer to this discussion I started a year ago, which outlines—with sources aplenty—the lack of consensus on whether this non-transferable status should be considered a legit world title. Before the edit warring begins (I won't be around to clean up any mess until Sunday, so best of luck to all of you!), what I will say is this: until consensus is reached here first, you should revert any addition of WBC Franchise to either boxers' record tables on sight. Also keep a watch on the undisputed championship and related articles, as editors will no doubt try to add bogus claims. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

López and "undisputed"

As a boxing fan, I obviously don't regard López as undisputed. Whether Sulaimoney accepted the request to make the Franchise title transferable or not, it's still—per the WBC's initial statement—an honorary and non-transferable title. However, due to the WBC allowing the title to be on the line, all media sources are naming López as the undisputed champion (I could only find an article from BadLeftHook that shared my opinion). As I said, I don't agree with it and will laugh at the WBC Frencfries title til the day it's scrapped (wishful thinking), but my opinion is irrelevant and completely outgunned by the reliable sources. There hasn't been many additions of undisputed as of yet, but I'm fairly sure there will be some edit wars in the not too distant future. How will we handle this debacle? – ².O.^Boxing 11:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It may well be that we end up capitulating to "reliable sources"—and I use that term mockingly, because any media outlet should lose all credibility for granting legitimacy to a literal made-up status. However, it's been less than a week. We should wait to see how mainstream boxing-focused media (and not just general news outlets) handles the situation, then collate a load of sources to be displayed here. We might even up with another Fury/lineal debacle, in which there is no consensus amongst them. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Nowrap

For the MOS, I'm considering adding a {{nowrap}} syntax to the Record, Date and Round, time columns to prevent the values from breaking off onto a new line, as they only are numerical. This appears to be acceptable per Help:Table#Nowrap and MOS:ACCESS (which doesn't mention it all), and would negate the use of   for all the spaces. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I always edit on a mobile device so the record and round/times always break up for me. Looks a bit shabby at times. – ².O.^Boxing 00:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Notability of National titles

This issue has come up in a AFD discussion so I thought I would bring it here. I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment is quite limited and needs to be expanded, especially to including the national title for some of the major boxing nations as only the British and Irish national titles are included at the moment. I have an idea about what national titles should be included but I what I would like to hear from other editors is what national titles they think should be included?--HuntGroup (talk) 11:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree. For Europe, national titles from France, Germany, Italy, and Spain should be included, and probably many more. --Michig (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Other obvious ones that spring to mind outside Europe are, Mexico, Argentina and Japan. --HuntGroup (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

When I redrew the Notability Criteria for boxers back in 2016 this is something that I had suggested. The Notability Criteria for professional boxing is far more restrictive than any other genuinely global sport. --Donniediamond (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

One issue I remember about this was the likelihood of notability for all 17 weight classes (or those contested). For example, in Japan, does the cruiserweight champion get as much coverage as the flyweight champion? Clearly the flyweight is notable, but there was doubt on the upper weights. That is why only British, Irish, and US (USBA) champions are included; because they are English language nations, so it was relatively easy to establish those as presumptively notable for all weights. I thought we tried adding Australia, but it was hard to establish for the lower weights despite being in English. Do enough editors speak German to establish the last 10 German flyweight champions were notable to overcome the deletion crew/those that require a Papal edict to make a change? I am all for expanding/adding national titles, but I worry it is an exercise in futility. RonSigPi (talk) 17:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you RonSigPi, but there is no criteria that will be perfect. There will always be the opportunity to pick plenty of holes in any criteria. However, I would say on balance its is an improvement to include national titles of major nations rather than exclude them. --Donniediamond (talk) 13:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are Roy Jones Jr. and Antonio Tarver not undisputed champions in the undisputed champion list?

I noticed they weren't included in the list and was wondering why, seeing as they held the WBC, WBA super and IBF titles before 2007, which means they didn't need the WBO belt to be undisputed according to your criteria.

I can't speak for Jones (he obviously should be on the list; it was this IP who removed him), but Tarver only won the WBA (Super) and WBC titles off Jones; he vacated the IBF before their fight. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Milo Savage deserving of an article?

Does anyone think Milo Savage deserves a Wikipedia article. He was a professional boxer and he did fight Gene LeBell in a MMA fight. What are other people's opinions? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I tend to use the criteria in WP:NBOX as guidance of whether a boxer is worthy of an article. There's been occasions when a subject would satisfy WP:GNG but not NBOX, so I wouldn't bother creating an article on them. But that's just me. If somebody satisfies GNG then by Wikipedia standards they are technically worthy. If Savage has significant coverage in reliable sources and you think he's interesting enough for an article, go for it. – ².O.^Boxing 12:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This boxing article needs help?

Boxing in the United States needs a major overhaul, I would appreciate any assistance in improving the article. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I think boxing records should be mandatory?

Does anybody think that professional boxers should have boxing records, boxers like Randolph Turpin, Dick Turpin (boxer) and especially women boxers are lacking in boxing records. What are other people's opinion? Dwanyewest (talk) 05:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I think every boxer should have a record table, but it shouldn't be mandatory. It can be a very time consuming and tedious process, especially in cases like Dick Turpin who has 104 fights. An editor gave me a list a few months ago of articles that were missing record tables, which I agreed I'd do what I can to add the tables. I quickly became bored after spending many hours, and only completing maybe half of the list (if that) lol – ².O.^Boxing 12:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This is what I spend the majority of my time doing. I just finished Ted Kid Lewis and once I'm done with Jack Britton, Randolph Turpin was actually on my list of the next fighter to do. Please stop imputing blank boxing records, because when I get to some, I'm just going to delete them and start from the beginning. If you feel the inclination to do any, when you get bored, just slap a (incomplete) next to ==Professional Boxing Record (incomplete)== and it's all good. We need to collectively stop dating fights in all numbers because of how British and Americans flip the date and month. Just type Jul for July and Dec for December etc.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Titles in boxing section

This has come up before (somewhere), albeit without any resolution, but I'm seeing these being bulk-added to a lot of articles now. I question whether this section is needed, because the titles succession boxes in External links handles this just the same, and in much better detail. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree. There's no point if there's a succession box. – ².O.^Boxing 19:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It's also never been part of the MOS—only the succession box. The article body and record table eat up a lot of scrolling as it is, so a section which merely abbreviates the succession box looks redundant to me.. unless such repetition is encouraged in sports articles? I'm seeing similar sections for Lewis Hamilton, Roger Federer, and Cristiano Ronaldo. It's not a huge deal, but I wanted to bring it up. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

It seems completely unnecessary in my opinion. I left a message on the user's talk page in case they weren't aware of the succession box (I suppose it is kind of hidden after all), pointing out that the section they're adding is kind of redundant. I've just looked and they removed the message with no reply, so they clearly disagree that it's pointless lol would it be worth replacing the content that's in the "Titles in boxing" section with the succession box? I personally never used to look in "External links" when I was a casual reader. I only found the (very handy and informative, might I add) succession box after I began editing and read the MOS. – ².O.^Boxing 00:46, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I actually made a mistake many years ago by putting succession boxes in their own section somewhere below the record table, rather than right at the bottom of the article per MOS:SECTIONORDER (see "Succession boxes and geography boxes"). That's the guideline which stipulates their placement, although I don't really agree with it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Titles in boxing is not yet an MOS-consensus section, so I wholeheartedly suggest that User:Bigboy 691 and User:KylaH (who also bulk-added it to many articles) participate in this discussion because their edits could potentially affect many hundreds if not thousands of articles. This is no longer a WP:BOLD issue, because there is a dispute ongoing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we should have titles in boxing because it gives more information and also it helps people who don't read the top links. I also believe it will be a better way of showing the titles in boxing in a more complete way and interesting way. Bigboy 691 (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree we should have titles in boxing sections added because it doesn't affect the page if we do add it also I believe it's better to add it because not everyone knows the links of there titles are on top.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboy 691 (talk • contribs)

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "people who don't read the top links", the succession boxes are at the bottom of an article. The Titles in boxing section is less informative than the succession boxes, and the vast majority of boxing biographies list the titles held in the lead section anyway. So Titles in boxing repeats the same information, in less detail, than the lead section as well as the succession boxes. The only positive I can see from having the section is that it's more visible if a reader is quickly scanning the article, which in my opinion isn't a compelling reason to have it. I would personally rather see the succession boxes in a section of their own, or even in a subsection within the record section, but as Mac pointed out above, there's a guideline that stipulates where the succession boxes go. So unless we have a strong consensus to move the succession boxes to be more visible, I'm not sure if there's much we can do about it. But I am sure that a Titles in boxing section isn't a good workaround. – ².O.^Boxing 12:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I do have to repeat what I mentioned in my first post, regarding the sportspeople I linked—they all have a similar summary of their career achievements, likewise others such as Tiger Woods, Phil Taylor, and Usain Bolt as random examples. Therefore I can see why some editors would think boxers need the same. It's not something with which I agree, nor disagree vehemently, but I see where they're coming from. Also, some articles did have them long before MOS:BOXING was created; e.g., Nonito Donaire.

"I also believe it will be a better way of showing the titles in boxing in a more complete way and interesting way." – this doesn't make much sense, as succession boxes are the most complete way of showing position/award/championship progression for any topic. They may be a smidge too detailed for casual readers, especially in a collapsed state (which is obviously necessary for large boxes), but calling them "boring" or "square" smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This is an encyclopaedia, after all. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Titles in boxing sections are redundant and less informative than succession boxes. They only show which titles and how many times they held them. The succession box shows the dates awarded/won as well as dates vacated/stripped.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

List of NYSAC champions needs a Wikipedia article

After digging around I discovered these boxrec articles: https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NYSAC_World_Heavyweight_Champion https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NYSAC_World_Heavyweight_Title_Fights A complete list of NYSAC heavyweight champions and then a complete list of NYSAC heavyweight title bouts. I have added this title to every champion that held their belt and which fights they fought for it in with this link as evidence, but I realize we now need a Wikipedia article to show this list as the other weight classes have similar links (albeit not as extensive). CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

World (lineal) titles in notes of boxing records

As we all know, we can't list lineal anymore to boxers titles in the notes section. In the times before sanctioning bodies, they were consensus champions and their fights on boxrec are listed as being fought for "world weight-class title". Normally this is not a big deal for fighters such as Joe Gans, but when looking at Georges Carpentier, it becomes more confusing. Once the sanctioning bodies started coming into existence, we should stop listing "world light heavyweight title". At the time, the EBU title was not a title needed to be a consensus (undisputed) champion. Carpentier won that title before challenging Battling Levinsky for his world light heavyweight title and then retained the EBU alongside the world title, versus Ted Kid Lewis. This fight should be listed in the notes as Retained EBU and world light heavyweight title because of the validity of the world title recognized world wide. In a different case with a major world title, Jack Dempsey fought for the inaugural NBA heavyweight title (Proof --- https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/NBA_World_Heavyweight_Title_Fights) versus Georges Carpentier. He was the reigning world heavyweight champions and that fight is counted as a title defense. The way it is now is how it should stay because once he began defending the NBA and NYSAC, saying world heavyweight title is not needed anymore. One last issue is recognizing consensus lineal champions once they have lost all of their title from being stripped or vacating them. George Foreman and Shannon Briggs were fighting for the consensus lineal heavyweight title, a title we no longer list. There needs to be some way we can show their recognized championship so that it doesn't appear as a fight simply between contenders on Briggs' boxing record. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Jack Britton Title Defenses

On the page Welterweight, there is a list of the top ten longest reigning welterweight champions and their cumulative title defenses from their longest individual reign. The links provided for Jack Britton's title defenses lead to Boxing record for WikiProject Boxing/Archive 8 from BoxRec (registration required) and https://archive.org/details/TheBoxingRegisterInternationalBoxingHallOfFameOfficialRecordBook, with the latter now being a dead link that leads to a page that is no longer available. Boxrec shows that during his third reign as welterweight champion (3 years), he made 5 title defenses omitting Newspaper decisions and 12 with these decisions. How we view Newspaper decisions means everything. Newspaper decisions are fights that have “resulted in neither boxer winning or losing, and would therefore not count as part of their official fight record." It is essentially the same as a no contest in regards to how it affects a fighter's official record. 10 title defenses is not accurate as listed on that page either way we look at these newspaper decisions. What we need to decide is if we will count or omit newspaper decisions under opponents beaten should we list all 12 defenses in the first place.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

File:All Boxing Lineal Champs.png

There are major issues with this image being added to various boxing articles by User:Andreyheavy2311. I realise it has been created in good faith and in painstaking detail, but it falls foul of several WP guidelines and should be removed from the articles.

• Cosmetically it's all over the place, particularly in its wacky use of flags. Those who were around in December 2015 for the flagicon debates will remember how contentious an issue it was, with the resulting NOCONSENSUS remaining in place today. Flagicons are categorically not allowed in boxers' infoboxes, so displaying them this way is inappropriate. Observe that Tyson Fury is inexplicably represented with two flags, whilst Lennox Lewis is represented with three flags! WP:NPOV and WP:OR should apply here.
• It doesn't adhere to WP:SPS and WP:RS. It is the self-published work of a single WP editor, yet gives the appearance of being an authoritative list of champions—which we know is highly contentious (Fury/Álvarez lineal, etc.)
• Speaking of lineal champions, it again asserts those in an authoritative way, when we know there is no official authority who determines lineal champions. We only recently had a consensus on here to omit lineals from list-based articles—and this image is essentially an illustrated list.
• Being a static image, it will need constant updates by the editor who created it. That's not good. At all. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Hello. I am the author of this list, and I will try to give a thesis in favor of this graph. For a start, about the flags: If in such a saturated graph there is only a list of names, they will merge against the general background, and will be poorly readable. I used two or even three flags in cases where not only citizenship is important, but also nationality. It's easier to understand who is who. Tyson Fury identifies himself as a gypsy, so I added in addition to the British flag and the gypsy. Lennox Lewis is of Jamaican origin but represents Canada and the United Kingdom. Therefore, in his case, even three flags. Regarding the linear status of the world champion. What does it mean that there is no specific data? If we do not take into account the importance of the linear championship, then we should exclude all champions before the formation of the WBA and WBC organizations. Even the NBA was essentially a national boxing association. There are a sufficient number of sources that determined the status of the line world champion. The TBRB organization is currently involved in this. -- AndreyAtanasov (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but your argument is factually incorrect. Prior to the WBA and WBC awarding world titles, they were awarded by other sanctioning bodies (e.g. NYSAC, NBA, IBU/EBU, BBBofC, etc., with varying levels of acceptance). The idea that there was only one world champion prior to these organizations existing is plain wrong. There is simply no recognized body that determines who is/was the 'lineal' champion (whatever the various fansites and Ring magazine might claim). --Michig (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Then I have questions for this list, and similar ones. Who sanctioned the first 9 champions? The volume is not specified by the organization. List_of_world_heavyweight_boxing_champions. Recognition = Universal? You can check all the weight categories, and you will see that I have referenced sources and categorized champions from Wikipedia articles. -- AndreyAtanasov (talk) 09:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I question one simple thing: why do we need a fancy image which only you can update, when we already have several easily updateable list articles? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

The reason is that one sheet shows the overall picture of all world champions. You can see who and when was the champion. The graphical presentation brings more clarity to the overall temporal context. And not only I can change it. This is available to all users. -- AndreyAtanasov (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Updating a broken BoxingRef link

Stephan Rose BoxRex link is broken, and I found a live one- but is it really the same guy? It's missing his 1991 Pan Am Bronze medal and this name brings up a lot of unrelated people in Google. I'm not confident in assessing sports-related sources outside of ESPN or mainstream news. Second look much appreciated! Cheers, Estheim (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Listing Newspaper decisions in short descriptions

Currently, fighters with newspaper decisions will have their newspaper decisions counted into their win/loss/draw columns in their short descriptions. This does not accurately reflect their official boxing record as these decisions are regarded as no contest bouts. We could just throw them under no contests, but that isn’t entirely genuine to their record either. We need some way to either have something that will combine all of their newspaper wins/losses/draws into one number at the very least. In an ideal world, we would have a separate list of win/loss/draws dedicated for newspaper decisions that would still add on to their total number of fights. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help with this? There must be a way to fix this issue along side the others I listed in different sections CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Trivia in the notes

Is trivia such as this worth mentioning in the notes? I agree it's a one off incident, but pure trivia all the same. We don't mention that John Ruiz' trainer was ejected from the arena for hurling abuse at the referee, or that Roger Mayweather stormed the ring, or that McCall had a mental breakdown against Lewis, or that Ali's trainer sabotaged his gloves to give him more time against Cooper. And the last two examples directly affected the result of the fights, with the McCall debacle being equally as rare as the Holyfield vs. Bowe situation (I can't think of another instance where a boxer refused to fight and began to cry in the middle of a round). Trivia is trivia, no matter how unique or memorable it is. – ².O.[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|^Boxing]] 14:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Completely disagree with its inclusion. That isn't a fight-related note, it's an event-related note which is already described in prose detail. The fight outcome wasn't affected in any way and plenty of other fights have been paused for ruckuses (Tyson–Holyfield II, Mayweather–Judah), so this doesn't warrant a note any more than they do. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The framing of this discussion is slanted and non-neutral. Introducing someone's edits as "trivia" when asking for comment poisons the well and is an unfair dismissal of another person's good faith edits. Learn to assume good faith and treat people non-condescendingly.

Trivia is information of little importance. By no means does the word trivia apply here as if we're talking about what they ate for breakfast that morning. The prolonged interruption by a fan in this fight, the statement under focus, was a major element of that fight, and, Dreamstate, it is one that possibly changed the outcome of the fight. Bowe himself is believes he would have won the fight if it hadn't occurred because his muscles cooled down too much. It's a perfectly fair discussion whether it should be included or not as a matter of reasonable editorial judgement. But as of now, the bottom line is that User:Squared.Circle.Boxing has triply reverted my edits based on a overly-stringent personal misunderstanding of the MOS:BOXING/RECORD essay (not even a guideline, let alone policy). Squared.Circle.Boxing mentions a couple other examples of bout interrruptions, for example, the Roger Mayweather interruption. I see no reason why it shouldn't be mentioned too. This column is for "Notes" about the fight. It's not a column for "Titles won or lost (or things Squared.Circle.Boxing permits)". Jason Quinn (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The title of the discussion is irrelevant. People can make their own mind up whether it's trivia or not. If it's inclusion is a "perfectly fair discussion" then why didn't you follow BRD (you could have chose the title yourself then, without being "triply reverted")?

The fight did not end with the interruption, it did not affect the result of the fight. We use the Notes column for details of the fight and Fanman was not a part of the fight. We include the kind of things that the MOS lists for inclusion, not the kind of things it lists for exclusion. If I have such a terrible misunderstanding of the MOS, would you be so kind as to direct me to the part which, as you said, "allows and encourages" trivia in the Notes? Or is it all irrelevant anyway because none of it is policy?

Lastly, I fail to see how my opinion of the content that you doubly reverted back in, is somehow in bad faith. Assuming one isn't assuming good faith is...yea. – ².O.^Boxing 11:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Greetings Jason, good to have you here. Granted, it's an essay. We've informally called it an MOS at this WikiProject for six years, but if essay is what you'd prefer to emphasise, I can't say much to that. I would, however, prefer you lower the condescending tone just a bit in dismissing it as "not even a guideline", because that essay actually took a long-ass time to write up, and it involved many members of this WikiProject engaging in a whole lot of heated discussion to get it finalised (see archives from 2015–2016).

It's not something we just cooked up to try and make it look as though we're pretending to be admins with a desire to overrule WP's own MOSes. All we wanted was standardisation and an end to some of the pettiest of edit wars. Boxing, like any sport covered on WP, is highly specialised and needs its own set of guidelines. That MOS:BOXING was never upgraded beyond essay status is not anyone's fault. It's been in place for six years and has worked pretty well, prior to a time when there was no standardisation whatsoever and boxing articles were a free-for-all. Plus we're flexible around here, and numerous changes have been made to it over time.

I'll respond further to the Notes issue we're discussing here at a later time, but beforehand I just wanted to 'defend' our work here. It's all in GF, and essay or not, it's still one of the best things to happen to boxing articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Continuing with this, I'll put forth the rationale I had in mind when originally dealing with the Notes column. The key word is brevity. Record tables are already filled to the brim with information. Seeing something like this made me figuratively puke. Scorecards? Knockdowns? Post-fight awards? Specific punches?! Live gate??!! Weigh-in details???!!! For a cramped wikitable, all of that is junk. Trivia like that—and I will unashamedly call it trivia—is better off written in the prose if it/they were that important.

Besides titles on the line, the column should only deal with circumstances regarding the final outcome of the fight—not extracurricular circumstances which may or may not have affected it (paragliders, rioters, nervous breakdowns, toilet paper thrown in the ring, someone from one boxer's team heckling the other and causing them to cry, etc.) Just the cold, hard, fight-ending circumstances if they were unusual. Technical decision? We definitely need to know what caused that (head clash, injury, etc.) and if the scores were unanimous, split, or majority. No need for the actual scorecards themselves because, again, brevity is key. And that's a BoxRec thing anyway.

If "Notes" sounds too all-encompassing and tempting for editors to include "tidbits and things of interest", why don't we call it something different? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh god. If we change the name of “Notes” that’s going to make such a huge inconsistency in the lay outs of different fighters’ records. In all seriousness, do you realize how there are that we will need to change? Despite me saying this in opposition, the “Notes” section would make more sense to be listed as “Titles”, but even then there is the issue of No contest and DQ explanations as they would not fit under it as “Titles” CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion to change it was almost tongue-in-cheek for that reason. As you say, calling it Titles makes little sense due to the other circumstances which get included. However, bulk-changing it would be more so a scripting matter than for anyone to go around making individual edits. I've always wanted to implement a few scripts to get rid of font-size:95% and "Professional debut", but never got around to making any requests at WP:SCRIPTREQ. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

What is your issue with the font sizes? CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:FONTSIZE, third paragraph. The text in Notes already uses {{small}}, therefore having the entire table at a reduced font size doesn't conform to WP:ACCESS. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Horst Stump

I want to create a page for boxer Horst Stump who won a Bronze medal at the 1971 European Amateur Boxing Championships, he is also known as being used by the Romanian Communist authorities to to harass and beat up anti-communist writer Paul Goma but I don't know if that is enough to meet Wikipedia's notability rules. I asked at the Teahouse and I was told to come here with my references. These are my references for the article:

• gsp
• prosport
• bzi
• boxrec
• Euro 1971
• 1970 Romanian National Championships

I want to know if they are good enough to meet Wikipedia's notability rules for a boxer, because I don't want to create an article that could be deleted. Sebi1990TheSecond (talk): — Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Being a bronze medal winner of a tournament that has a wikipedia article should be enough. Alongside his boxrec, if you can find plenty of newspaper articles and other sources it will certainly help. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not a member of this WikiProject, but I don't believe that the last two references given are from a reliable source. I don't otherwise have any comment on this but other editors should take that into account. Perokema (talk) 11:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue with this is that amateur boxing is very poorly documented and those links are as good as it’s going to get unless there is some newspaper article where the lists came from/physical record book it came from.

If those links from that website are no longer allowed to be used, these articles will suffer and be deleted. Is Wikipedia just supposed to stop keeping records of Romanian amateur boxing now?

What makes this website unreliable? Is it the fact that it is unsecure? Boxrec only recently became secure last year, but it has been the main source of information on Wikipedia since boxing records started being stored here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1971_European_Amateur_Boxing_Championships

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Amateur_Boxing_Championships CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Is amateur-boxing.strefa.pl a reliable source?

I used this site's information to edit some Romanian boxers. The user Perokema deleted the information that I put saying that he thinks it is not a reliable source. From the discussions I had with him, he is not 100% sure that the site is not a good source. This site was used on wikipedia very often. There are many boxers and most boxing amateur competitions have this site as their source. I assumed it was a reliable source since other users have used it for so many times. It is a need for the more experienced users to answer the following question: Is this site reliable or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebi1990TheSecond (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to researching boxing :| I’m running into a similar issue with the NBA and NYSAC belts. Sometimes there is one list on the entire internet and people here won’t accept it. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to give my 2 cents. Thanks Sebi1990TheSecond for raising this question here. I often browse the recent changes to wikipedia and one of your edits caught my eye since the website seems to be a personally run site rather than an official publisher which would usually fall short of the requirements stated in WP:RS. However, I'm happy to leave the decision up to those with more specialist knowledge of the subject area. Perokema (talk) 09:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Are these considered reliable sources?

This list shows fights that were fought for the NBA and NYSAC titles in all divisions, but occasionally will list it as “world” with simply undisputed fights. https://www.hugmansworldchampionshipboxing.com/light-heavy

This website is extremely well documented and gets all of it’s information from old newspaper clippings. I am trying to get a hold of as many newspapers that verify the info, but I’m reaching a road block with a lack of a subscription to newspapers.com https://titlehistories.com/boxing/na/usa/ny/

(click on regular title in historic divisions) https://titlehistories.com/boxing/wba/ CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I would say so. Hugman looks to have authored many boxing publications, including Boxing News. However, just a side note, anyone looking to use his list of lineal champions as a way to promote them (again) should reconsider such a move. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

His list lineal deeply flawed in my opinion and I am not going to be fighting the move Wikipedia is making from listing lineal titles. It is pure to help trace the NBA and NYSAC titles. What do you think of titlehistories.com? That website would be much more useful when it comes to accurately listing the NBA and NYSAC belts in championship fights. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Featherweight or super bantamweight?

I was fixing some vandalism in List of United States national amateur boxing featherweight champions (from 2013 on), using the primary source. In the main list (the first reference), JaRico O'Quinn and Chris Colbert are shown winning at 56 kg, but in BoxRec, the events list them as "super bantam". Not sure about 2013 or Duke Ragan either. Are they essentially the same weight class? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Exhibition boxing records

Should we start including these if everything is verifiable? It was decided a while back that Mayweather–Nasukawa was not to be included on the former's article, but I don't see a glaring reason for their omission if the result and circumstances are clearcut. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say yes, worth a mention in the prose, but certainly shouldn't be included in the professional records. --Michig (talk) 20:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

No, not in professional records of course. But I have no objection to how it's been done for Mike Tyson, in a section below. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

How do we handle the Tyson vs. Sanders bout in 2006? I've added it to Tyson's record but there's no result to add so the record summary stays at one draw. Is it worth putting a brief explanation in the notes column as to the reason? – ².O.^Boxing 15:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe "Non-scored bout" in the Notes section. It obviously differs from the recent one in that the latter was scored by someone (the WBC), even though the CSAC refuse to acknowledge a result. Therefore, for extra clarification, we could put "Scored by the WBC" (re-linked because of a new section) as a note for Tyson–Jones. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, a tiny stumbling block with Template:Boxing record summary. If we're going all the way with including exhibition records, we need yet another parameter which displays non-scored bouts like Tyson–Sanders. As currently displayed, Tyson only has one exhibition fight (the draw) when it's actually two. The field can simply be called "Non-scored bouts", but which colour should it be? We already have grey for no-contests, orange for newspaper decisions, and light blue for draws. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, your previous comment must have got lost in my watchlist. That was my original concern, only one bout showing in the record summary. It would be advantageous (considering exhibition bouts with retired boxers seem to be gaining some traction) if there was some kind of parameter for them. If such a parameter was created, the only colour that I can think of is purple, maybe? I dunno lol stupid boxing. – ².O.^Boxing 22:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to say non-scored bouts are now a parameter available for exhibitions, as can be seen at Mike Tyson#Exhibition boxing record. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Record table dates

Not really sure why, but, Talk:Leon Spinks#Record table. – ².O.^Boxing 00:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

WBA titles

I've gone back and forth over this for some years, and I think I might've now arrived at a conclusion with which I'm satisfied. User:Dabo2000 hasn't posted since first bringing this up, but I believe he was onto the right thing all along.

In succession boxes, the WBA presents some rather irritating permutations as it relates to their 'Super', 'Regular', 'Unified', 'Undisputed', and pre-'Super' era titles. I used to be of the belief that any newly created WBA 'Super' title simply got usurped from its original no-prefix title. The best example of this is the Haye–Klitschko–Povetkin situation in 2011. Haye was the last holder of the WBA heavyweight title which carried neither a 'Super' nor 'Regular' prefix. He then lost that title to Klitschko, who immediately was listed as 'Super' champion.

The WBA then created the 'Regular' title (a term which, as far as we know, was actually created by the mainstream media rather than the WBA themselves), won by Povetkin. However, I don't think this should be considered the same title that Haye lost. If we interpret it literally, the WBA heavyweight title—before we had 'Super' (Klitschko) or 'Regular' (Povetkin) champions—is still vacant. That's how I think we should list it at Haye's succession box. Klitschko, therefore, did not win the 'Super' title from Haye; it was instead created from scratch as a result of that fight.

When it comes to 'Unified' and 'Undisputed' titles, from what I've gathered those are (and this will sound utterly ludicrous, but this is the WBA we're trying to figure out) 'Super' versions of the 'Super' title. Unless someone can find examples otherwise, I've never seen separate 'Super'/'Unified'/'Undisputed' champions. The latter two are just puffed up terminology for the 'Super' title, so they're one and the same. What I have seen is the WBA label a champion as 'Super' one week, 'Unified' the next, and 'Super' again the week after that.

As for what goes in the left box, I've been using {{s-non|reason=Inaugural champion}} strictly for new world (not regional) champions of an organisation. See Larry Holmes and the IBF heavyweight title, or Joe Calzaghe and the Ring super middleweight title. For 'Super', 'Regular', regional and sub-world titles, use {{s-new}} instead.

Make any sense? Thought not. ;-) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If a champion is awarded a title outside of the ring their first fight for that title win or draw will be “retained” and “lost” if they lose. Listing “vacant” or “inaugural” is only used if the organization has not decided a champion prior to the fight CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Ouch, looks like I was very wrong about Super/Unified/Undisputed titles being one and the same. According to the WBA's rankings from August 2013, Mayweather held the Super title (which he won from Cotto) whilst Álvarez held the Unified title (which he won by defeating Regular champion Trout) going into their September fight. Then it gets bizarre when Mayweather is still listed as Super champion in October 2013, with no explanation as to why the Unified title vanished—despite Mayweather holding the WBA and WBC simultaneously.

What I mean by bringing this up is that my above rationale of adhering to the strictest definition of Super/Regular/Unified/Undisputed/neither lineages kinda falls apart due to the WBA's inexplicable promotions/demotions from one title status to another. Tyson Fury was listed as Super champion for the first few weeks of his 2015 reign, then promoted to Unified champion. Likewise Sergey Kovalev in 2014–15, Super to Undisputed. I'm not going to give up on this because it's the minutiae of historical accuracy which I'm a stickler for, but it's certainly thrown a spanner in the works. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)