Talk:List of current world boxing champions

Vacant belts

June 22: WBC Super Middleweight: Sakio Bika (AUS) - Marco Antonio Peribán (MEX)

July 27: WBC interim Lightweight: Omar Figueroa (USA) - Nihito Arakawa (JPN)

WBA Super Bantamweight: Scott Quigg (GBR) - Yoandris Salinas (CUB)

WBA Super Featherweight: TBA

claudevsq (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Erdei has officially vacated today, just like expected! See here: http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=24848 claudevsq (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Zsolt Erdei will give back his WBC title next Friday, January 22, 2010, because that's the date where the WBC would have held a purse bid for the Erdei-Wlodarczyk mandatory defence. Erdei said that he would relinquish his title that day. The WBC will then probably decide who will fight for the vacant title against Wlodarczyk, Fragomeni or International Champ Hide. claudevsq (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Some notes about the WBO super bantamweight championship were published yesterday. First, López won't vacate the title until he decides which will be his division, since he is on his voluntary stage. The article also states that he will briefly hold two belts if he defeats Luevano, being forced to subsequently vacate one of them, but the WBO won't strip him immediately (I wonder why?).[1] Once the super bantamweight belt is vacated, the new champion will be determined in a contest between Wilfredo Vázquez, Jr. and Marvin Sonsona, with a target date of March 2010. [2] - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's good news. The WBO has a rule that states a fighter has got 10 days to chose which belt he wants to keep; the IBO 60 days, in case of Pacman; others may have similar rules... ;-) claudevsq (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Sonsona has been stripped off his title, see: http://www.fightnews.com/?p=30192 claudevsq (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

JuanMa López has vacated his title because he'll move up and fight Luevano on January 23rd for Luevano's WBO featherweight title. Gamboa fights Mtagwa the same day, and the two winners could meet later next year... See: http://www.boxingscene.com/?m=show&id=23654 claudevsq (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

JuanMa has not vacated the title. He himself said that in the Vocero article above. Just because the Vester (boxingscene) artile was linked in the WBO site does not mean that WBO confirmed tha accuracy of the report. WBO links a lot of news in its site if the WBO is mentioned. Vester is normally reliable but he and you, Claude, jumped the gun in removing JuanMa from his title. WBO even has JuanMa in their champions list. Claude, why don't you check with the WBO first before you rely on a boxingscene report (which actually contradicts a PR report that quoted JuanMa). Why are you believing a Vester report instead of a report directly from PR and from the horse's mouth himself? Besides, JuanMa is still in his voluntary stage. JuanMa might vacate or might not but for the meantime keep the list at its accurate state at the present time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.130.174 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of reports that he vacated the title, search Google. claudevsq (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't done so yet, I keep track of the local media and neither Juanma nor Valcárcel have said anything. None of the newspapers, BoxeoMundial.com or prboxea.com have said anything either. We must not jump the gun yet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to phone the WBO yesterday, but I couldn't reach them. I'll try maybe again today... claudevsq (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Boxeo Mundial also say he's vacated his title: http://www.boxeomundial.net/boxeo.php?category=english&id=14850 claudevsq (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I just called the WBO, believe it or not, their offices were robbed; that's probably why I couldn't reach them yesterday. They told me to try again on monday... For those who don't wanna believe: Tel. +1 787 765-4444. claudevsq (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like Martinó just mimicked BoxingScene, since today BoxeoMundial published a news article titled "OMB invita a Inauguración de Gimnasio José "Chegui" Torres en Patillas este lunes, 30 de noviembre" which still promotes Juanma as champion. Interestingly, Vázquez's promoter, Tutico Zabala, will be present on that activity as well. Since we have conflicting versions, let's see what the WBO says on the matter. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, Carib, I mailed already to Paco, but as it is weekend, I'll try to reach them by phone on Monday. Greetings, claudevsq (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I just got an answer from Mario, he hasn't vacated yet. I've put him back. claudevsq (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an e-mail from the WBO:

"Hi Claude:

He is going to go into the ring with holding his champion title. However, once in the ring, he loses his title and is dependent on winning the new title.

Best,

Doris Companys" claudevsq (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yup, he mentioned it again on TV today, let's see how it goes. Its a shame that he ducked Caballero, but a fight with Gamboa should be interesting. Regards, - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even know that he ducked a fight with Caballero... but if he beats Luevano, and Gamboa beats Mtagwa the same day, they will meet in June, and that will indeed be a good match. Just that the winner would then be the unified WBA/WBO champion, although Chris John is already the "WBA Super Champion" at featherweight, although with only one belt... Let's wait and see! Greetings, claudevsq (talk) 21:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"At risk" of demotion

Hello. During a review of lists promoted to featured status, this list has been identified as "at risk" of demotion. This means that there are some issues that could be fixed to ensure the list meets current featured list standards. If those issues are not fixed reasonably promptly (i.e. the next ten days), the list will be taken to WP:FLRC to be considered for demotion. Issues that need to be fixed, as a minimum, are as follows:

1. Lead is way to short and starts with "This is a list..." which has been deprecated for quite some time.
2. No images available?
3. It's unclear what reference is verifying what champion.
4. Consider merging the tables into one big one, with an additional column to take into account the class instead of 17 sub-headings.
5. "wins-losses-draws-no contests (knockout wins)." not true, some have no draws and some have no "no contests" so this isn't clear.
6. En-dashes should be used (per WP:DASH) to separate the numbers in each record.
7. WP:MOSFLAG means we need to include the name of each country with the flag.
8. Is it "Super Champion" or "Super champion"?
9. There's no explanation anywhere as to what an "interim champion" is.
10. Ref 1 is a footnote rather than a reference and should then use a {{citation}} template (or two) rather than the in-line links.
11. Don't mix date formats in the references (per MOS).
12. Some references don't have publisher/accessdate information.
13. Format differences in the references (e.g. The Ring or The Ring?)
14. Bottom six references are more like "General" references (so could go in their own section) or "External links".
15. Some link problems per this.

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue with the footnotes has already been fixed. Let's see for the rest... claudevsq (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the "Ref 1 is a footnote..."? If so, it hasn't been fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, got you wrong then... Anyway, I don't fully understand why, after those years, the list isn't good enough anymore, I mean, after all, it's a LIST and not an article. There are separate articles about the 4 sanctioning bodies, plus, an article for each boxer in the list, partly with photos... claudevsq (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, this is about making the list meet current standards for a featured list. It's intended to be helpful to contributors rather than going straight to WP:FLRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. Yes. See Lead below.
2. I can't think of any images that would contribute anything useful to this list. If it is a requirement, I guess we could scatter around some photos of champions, belts and sanctioning bodies logos.

   If the list is re-organised into a single big table, then portrait images down the right-hand side would be good. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

3. Yes. These are primarily the organization's ratings (found at the bottom of page). Any suggestions on how to make this more clear?

   Perhaps a key for the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

4. I think it's better the way it is. There a several problems with adding another column.

   Could you explain the "several problems"? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   The biggest one is that the Table of Contents couldn't be used for navigation without the subsections.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   There are other ways to allow navigation, see List of Fab 40 number-one singles for example. TOC is just one way, and in fact, this list's TOC is nasty, too long. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   You could have a separate ToC for a single table (like that list), but it's going to be almost as long as the current ToC.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   You can limit the TOC to level 1 only, thus reducing the length considerably, then use an alternative navigation box, e.g. a horizontal one, which would be much more appealing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   Can you point to an example of this style? It's not clear to me what you have in mind.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   Well, if you merge the tables, you won't need to limit the TOC (looks like {{TOC limit}} doesn't limit to level one headings anyway), but if you look at List of Fab 40 number-one singles, there's an example of a horizontal navigation box which lets a reader step into a single table at the correct entry. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   The weight categories are much longer than the 4-digit years in the Fab 40 list, so I don't see how you could use a horizontal nav box here.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, well that's another good reason to incorporate the weight category (the name) into the table. Then you can have the weights in the horizontal nav box. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   I think it's more useful to navigate by the name of the weight category.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   Even so, that would only be two or three lines of a full width nav box. Much preferable to the current situation. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   I've had a quick experiment with the first three classes merged in my sandbox along with a nav box... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   It looks okay, but I still prefer the current format. It might be just because I'm used to it. Adding a column makes it more likely that a name won't fit on one line, particularly for readers without wide screens.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

5. This is the standard way of showing a boxers record. Maybe we can find a more complete description of the format somewhere.

   No, I'm not complaining about the "standard way" but the explanation is simply false, several boxers don't have that record styling. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

6. I don't think the guideline requires en dashes in this situation. I like the look of the em dash better, but it's no big deal either way.

   Fine but not hyphens, which was my original issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   Ooops. I meant I prefer the figure dash (‒), not the em dash.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   Preference is okay, the criteria request the list meets WP:MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

   Rambling Man, it looks like you've changed them to en dashes. Is there a reason you don't want to use the the figure dash?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   I'm using the guidance of the WP:MOS, in particular WP:DASH where this kind of thing falls under the "To stand for to or versus (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border)." example. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

   But it's not standing for to or versus.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

   Yes, it is. Wins vs defeats vs No decisions etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

7. See Flags below.

   Current featured lists meet WP:MOS and that includes WP:MOSFLAG. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

8. The sources seem to capitalize "Super Champion."
9. Yes. I'll try to write something on interim championships.
10. Yes. See Lead below.
11. Yes. Use a consistent date format.
12. I don't see any missing publishers. Accessdate isn't required, but should be added if the publication date is unknown and it can be useful when dealing with link rot.

    E.g. Ref 13 has no title, no accessdate, no publisher, no work, nothing. All references (including dead ones) should be revisited and citations updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks. I missed it because it had no cite template at all. I fixed it. I think that was the only one.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

13. Yes. Is there anything other than italics on The Ring?
14. See #3 above.
15. The broken links should be fixed or tagged.

    I don't need to tag the broken links, to keep it featured, use the link I gave to actually fix the broken/dead links. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead

It should be expanded. The footnote "The official rules and regulations of the WBA, IBF, and WBO all mention by name ..." can be incorporated into the lead. Any other ideas on what should be in there?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say you could incorporate some history of the various federations, the first champions, the current champions, champions that are notable for other reasons (e.g. Manny Pacquiao). The Rambling Man (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to these comments I rewrote the lead. There have been assessments from two editors since then and they still don't think it meets featured standards. There are some referencing issues (as there are throughout the list).

Suggestions from the review:

1. Synopsise the concept of world champion
2. Merge the subsections on the 5 organisations into the lead
3. Discuss some of the more notable champions.

Any other ideas or thoughts on these before I give it another try?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In relation to suggestion number 3, since this is not an historical list, I think the discussion should be restricted to current champions.

No reason not to discuss current champions then. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone has removed the photos from the lead and the rest of the article. It should have, at least, a photo of a championship belt.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Flags

Many featured articles ignore this MoS guideline (ex. all football club articles that use the Template:Football squad player).--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant I'm afraid, and this why it's part of the review. The list must meet WP:MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The guideline says it will have occasional exceptions. We have to decide if we want to try to make this an exception.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This should not be an exception. How does a non-expert know what a Ukraine flag looks like? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A web browser will display "Ukraine" (and link to Ukraine) from the flag icon image, and a screen reader will say "Ukraine" when it renders the image. That part of the MoS was written before these accessibility improvements were implemented (or even possible) in the flag template system, so should we perhaps reconsider that? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

"accompany flags with country names" if you don't like the MOS then change the MOS. Right now, featured lists should comply with the MOS including flags. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Um, yeah. "perhaps we should reconsider that" means "shall we discuss changing the MoS". Thanks for your thoughtful response to my invitation for discussion. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

My apologies but the featured list criteria now include compliance with MOS. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support that change to MOS:FLAG.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well please take that argument to the WP:MOS. Right now, the current use of flags contravenes the MOS which means it contravenes the criteria for what makes a featured list. It's very simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. claudevsq (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, the country's names are visible. claudevsq (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A definite improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sanctioning bodies subsections

At Wikipedia:Featured_list_removal_candidates/List_of_current_world_boxing_champions/archive1 there was a suggestion to expand these sections with more about the formation of the organisations. It was also suggested that the sections could be eliminated and some of the material moved to the lead.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Does the IBF use the title Unified champion?

The table is listing Wladimir Klitschko as IBF Unified champion. I've never seen the IBF use this. What is the source?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That's right, but he's a "Unified champion" in the therms of the word simply because he unified the IBF and WBO championships (as well as IBO and Ring Magazine belts). As all other champions in the list who have got 2 titles are called "Unified", we should not spar Klitschko. Greetings, claudevsq (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can find another way to indicate champions who have unified some of the championships, but doing it that way is misleading. Unless the IBF calls him their unified champion (as the WBO calls him their Super Champion, for example) it shouldn't be in the IBF box.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like there is the same issue with the WBC for Bradley and Donaire. The WBC doesn't use the the term "Unified champion" either.

Márquez is the WBA Super champion, yet he's listed here as the Unified champion. Claude wrote about Márquez:

“

No, he's unified champion, like all others who have got 2 titles. I know the WBA rankings... He'd be WBA Super champion if he had got only the WBA title...

”

in this edit summary. Regardless of what we decide about identifying boxers who have unified some of the championships, it should be in addition to, not instead of the titles the sanctioning bodies award.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The WBA's March Ratings have been released [3] and Juan Manuel Marquez is still their Lightweight Super Champion.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your request for a Third Opinion in regard to this dispute has been removed as stale, having been on the request list for more than six days. Please feel free to re-list your dispute if you still would like to obtain an opinion, but if no Third Opinion Wikipedian has chosen to issue an opinion by now, you would probably be better off moving on to a listing at the content noticeboard, making a request for comments, or adopting some other form of dispute resolution. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

From this discussion (Super champion and Unified champion) at WikiProject Boxing there is consensus that the term Undisputed Champion should only be used if the boxer holds all the major belts. Since Wladimir Klitschko, Timothy Bradley, Juan Manuel Márquez and Nonito Donaire do not hold all the major belts I am removing this term from their entries in the table.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nonito Donaire

It is clearly stated in the given references that the Nationality of Donaire is Filipino. This page follow the format of BoxRec.com where it shows the boxer's nationality by their place of birth. In fact Donaire is of Filipino descent. Donaire and his family only acquired US citizenship because they moved to US and became resident of CA, USA. Like other boxers Jean Pascal, Antonio Margarito, Giovanni Segura and Vic Darchinyan, this page put the flag of their place of birth under their names instead of their residence. Doughn (talk • contribs) 08:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Lots of boxers ... use the flag of their place of birth instead of their residence."?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The flag under Nonito Donaire in this page should be changed to Philippine flag not just for the fact that he was born in Bohol, Philppines but also because he has a Filipino blood. He only acquired permanent residency in the United States. The Ring has already updated its pound for pound list where Donaire's country was changed to Philippines instead of his residence in California, USA. The BoxRec.com, the reference that was used in this page, also use Philippine flag/Filipino for Donaire's nationality. Doughn (talk • contribs) 10:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

When you write ""Lots of boxers ... use the flag of their place of birth instead of their residence." what do you mean by use?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Ríos

Brandon has both nationalities: US American and Mexican. However even when born in USA he enters the ring with the Mexican flag and is oficially listed as Mexican by the WBO as you can see here, so that is why his fag should be Mexican. http://wbanews.com/artman/publish/ratingRankings/WBA_Official_Ratings_as_of_August_2011.shtml Daalo194 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.225.184.116 (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Brandon Rios was stripped of his WBA title

Rios failed to make the 135lb weight limit therefore was stripped from his WBA "regular" title. The fight will still go on, the title will remain vacant of Rios wins. If John Murray wins he claims it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.76.54.218 (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

IBO

Why not expand the list of federations, adding the Champions version IBO? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.222.219.167 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

-Because the IBO is a Minor title this for all 4 Major title plus Ring Magazine (WorldSeriesOfPoker500 (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC))

You appear to be getting information from the media. The same media who sends out writers to cover boxing once in a blue moon. Many of the writers do not even know the difference between the mandatory 8 count that every downed boxer gets and a standing 8 count. Then standing 8 count is almost never used anywhere anymore. The IBO should be counted. The don't have multiple champions like the WBA who, when one of their champs wins another belt, calls them a SUPER CHAMPION and has another title bout in the same weight class for that same title. Thus having two champions of the same weight class only for the extra cash of the sanctioning fees. The IBO uses PC rankings and is run out of the USA vs. the W groups that are in Mexico, South America and Puerto Rico. All who are allowed to do as they please. The IBO has been around since the mid 90's and has some good champions. None of the groups may be considered great or ideal for boxing, but, The IBO and the IBF are clearly better this past 5 years becasue they have the U.S. state officials looking over them and the ABC. So, bottom line the IBO is a main title. Just because the WBA and WBC were started earlier does not make them more important. The WBO willing to deal with promoters snuck into the action but are very similar to the BC and BA. Again the IBO and IBF are actually the better of the five. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.36.176.138 (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your criticism of the WBA, but that doesn't really help your case for the IBO. Can you provide some reliable sources that consider the IBO to be of the same status as these sanctioning bodies?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Danny García

I'm going to add the Puerto Rican flag next to the US'. García, son of two native Puerto Ricans, has publicly identified as Puerto Rican. Before his fight with Erik Morales he stated that he would be representing both Puerto Rico and his native Philladelphia. Even before that, he said that he would be the "next great Puerto Rican boxer", which is sourced in his biography. I have no interest in removing the US' flag, just avoid removing the Puerto Rican flag as some IP users have been doing in his article and Morales'. El Alternativo (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to create confusion, we should stick with BoxRec's nationalities... Danny García was born and lives in Philadelphia, PA. What if he identified himself as Jamaican, just for example? No, this has to be based, and as he was born in USA AND lives there, you could put both flags in the list of current WBC boxing world champions, but not this one, please... Bute will be awarded the Canadian citizenship tomorrow, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should change the flag... Greetings, claudevsq (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

But BoxRec doesnt have a 'nationality' field.--Wonkey Donkey (talk) 20:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In that case, is there a real reason to actually have falgs? Besides patriotsim and WP:FLAGCRUFT it seems better to try another approach since from the looks of it, Mexican-Americans have the same issue. El Alternativo (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

WBA	WBC	IBF	WBO	The Ring
Lamont Peterson Super champion American 30–1–1–0 (15) December 10, 2011	Danny García Puerto Rican-American 23–0–0–0 (14) March 24, 2012	Lamont Peterson American 30–1–1–0 (15) December 10, 2011	Timothy Bradley American 28–0–0–1 (12) April 4, 2009	vacant
Marcos René Maidana Argentinian 31–3–0–0 (28) July 23, 2011	José Cuervo Mexican-American 8–0–0 (0) July 26, 2011
Johan Pérez Interim champion Venezuelan 15–0–1–1 (12) December 10, 2011

Maybe the table above can serve as a model? It is not as pretty, but listing them this way avoids confusion, conflict and is more practical. "Puerto Rico", "Mexico" or "United States" are countries, not nationalities. Then there is the fact that Boxrec is also user edited, which in Wikipedia are generally regardded as bad sources, such as the IMDB being allowed al a link, but not a reference. El Alternativo (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem? I will do the change if there isn't. El Alternativo (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would not change it. As you can see on this side, we had a long discussion over the fact that the list is not a "Featured list" anymore... If you ever want it to become a candidate again in the future, instead of replacing flags, I would rather try to upload a photo or two... How about a photo of the WBC's Diamond belt, which will be at stake on May 5th between Mayweather Jr and Cotto? What do you and others think? claudevsq (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of Belts

Will anybody be able to find fair use pictures of the following:

• WBA Champion
• WBA Super Champion
• WBC Champion
• WBC Diamond Champion
• IBF Champion
• WBO Champion
• WBO Super Champion (WorldSeriesOfPoker500 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC))

I inserted a picture of the WBC Diamond belt into the article (WBC section), but somebody found it useful to delete it... claudevsq (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

WBC Diamond Champions

The list doesn't include the Diamond Champions. Should we start listing them?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

We already list the five male and two female diamond champions, the male ones in the article under "World Boxing Council". But I don't think we should include them into the list as it is more of a honorary title... Aren't there already enough champions in the list, quite frankly?!? claudevsq (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. If we're not listing them here, we should remove the material about Diamond Champions from the WBC section.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the same situation with their emeritus champions. They are not part of this list, so there is no reason to mention them here. It is relevant to the WBC article so I'll move it there.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

WBC Silver Champions

How exactly are these judged? I expected the silver champions to be considered similar to interim champions, given that they are often promoted to first contender after winning it, but I do not see them listed here at all. The belt also reads "world champion", which also seems to support some sort of interim status. 24.139.224.111 (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no, because, as you can see, the WBC has got two interim champions at the moment, and as for the Silver world champions, which have more or less the same status as International champions (male and female), meanwhile, there are also International Silver, Baltic Silver, Youth Silver, USNBC Silver titles... claudevsq (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions

As per an ongoing, unproductive and one-sided discussion about how boxers with international names should be presented in this article, I'd like some others' opinions on how we should go about it, before I seek a third opinion (however that's supposed to work..)

• User:Claudevsq has stated that he is "with Ring Mag's Ratings Panel and BoxRec editor", which is a bit unclear to me due to his non-native command of English. Does that mean he works for The Ring magazine and BoxRec? Some clarification from him would be useful, but it is unlikely I'll get one, as he prefers to communicate with me solely via edit summaries, whilst happily engaging with others on this very talk page. *sniff*

• My main issue pertains as to which organisations' spelling conventions we use. Observe the commas and periods for this boxer: Floyd Mayweather, Jr. (Wikipedia); Floyd Mayweather Jr (BoxRec); Floyd Mayweather Jr. (The Ring). Note the inconsistency. Therefore, since this is a Wikipedia article unaffiliated with BoxRec and The Ring, I propose that we stick rigidly to the way in which Wikipedia makes use of the "Jr." suffix: Roy Jones, Jr.; Chris Eubank, Jr.; Julio César Chávez, Jr.; Wilfredo Vázquez, Jr.; etc. To me that's logical, but User:Claudevsq seems to disagree (and is reluctant to discuss it outside of edit summaries). I've twice attempted to make these changes to the article—1, 2—but he has simply reverted them both times without any further discussion.

• What is even more confusing is that the article stays highly consistent when it comes to special characters: Krzysztof Włodarczyk; Saúl Álvarez; Juan Manuel Márquez; Juan Manuel López; etc., but User:Claudevsq makes the claim that "dots like in "Jr." disturb the system". Therefore if "Jr." disturbs some unexplained system, what about the various special characters in which neither BoxRec nor The Ring are consistent? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • That simply means that I "work" during my freetime, just like as a Wikipedia editor. Let's hear from others concerning the names... claudevsq (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Date of Ricky Burns' WBO lightweight championship

Please stop the edit war. Discuss the issue here and try to reach a consensus.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK: We were not even sure last year if Burns' March 10 fight against Paulus Moses was going to be for the interim title or for the regular title. Only in the WBO's March rankings, which came out about March 12, he was the regular champion. That means he has been elevated, but one month before- rankings of mid-February, with results up to, let's say, February 10, he was still the interim champion, and the regular title was vacant. It's a pity that the ORIGINAL rankings are not available anymore, because Burns HAS NOT been elevated the same day Márquez was stripped. If that was the case, I would have put in the date of January 26 last year, and not March 10. claudevsq (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm trying to make this as accurate as possible and I am sure it was for the regular title; I was there. He was installed as full WBO lightweight champion on January 26 when Marquez was stripped. I'll try find a few newspaper articles from last year but in the meantime, let's leave it as the actual date that he became WBO lightweight champion. Wowsssowss (talk) 04:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm updating this list for over 5 years now, day-in and day-out, am in regular contact with the WBO... as I said before, if it would have been January 26, I wouldn't have put in March 10. Fight vs. Moses WAS for regular title, yes, but he's been elevated shortly before, not the day Márquez was stripped. claudevsq (talk) 09:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I was just reading the history, and on February 6, 2012, I spoke to Miss Diana Meléndez from the WBO (see history), and she told me that they did NOT strip Márquez, it was an error in the ratings, and the ratings were changed back. Now that I read this when looking up the history of the page, I remember... Believe me, I'm doing everything to keep this list as correct as possible. claudevsq (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

HERE'S THE OFFICIAL WBO PROOF THAT MARQUEZ WAS STILL THEIR LIGHTWEIGHT SUPER CHAMPION ON MARCH 1st, 2012:

http://www.wboboxing.com/here-is-our-february-2012-rankings-2/

As for Burns missing the words "Interim" on these corrected February rankings which came out March 1st, 2012, we all know that, just like Klitschko, Márquez and Narváez for the moment, the WBO has NEVER, EVER had a "Super" champion and a "regular" champion at the same time. If Márquez was still the champ, Burns was the interim champ, no matter if Márquez was Super or not Super. WBA yes, but WBO NEVER ONCE in their history. Lots of newspapers reported that Márquez was stripped on January 26, but that was not the case as you can finally see now officially from the WBO's original rankings... WBA stripped him, yes, but WBO did way later, a month or two later... claudevsq (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'll admit it; perhaps I had it wrong but one thing we can all agree on is that Burns' fight against Moses on March 10 was DEFINITELY not for the interim title and was DEFINITELY for the regular title. With this in mind, why have you changed Burns' date of installation as WBO lightweight champion to March 10? We know it wasn't on March 10 and, as suggested by the source you just left, it has to be between the 1st and 10th of March. Why don't you speak to Miss Diana Melendez again and ask her when Burns was installed as full WBO lightweight champion? Wowsssowss (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Are these few days THAT important? I think it was because the March 2012 ratings came out on March 10 or were including results with up to March 10. The fight was for the full title, and I could try to speak to her, but I doubt she'll remember... I'll try though when I'll have the time... N.B.: Next time, when you are wrong, don't call me stupid little bender, please... Thanks. After all, we are all civilized people, no? ;-) claudevsq (talk) 06:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, they are. This article lists information about current world champions such as name, nationality and date of winning their championship(s). I'll stress that last point; date of winning the championship (or in this case, installment as full champion), not when "claudevsq" thinks or prefers but the date of winning the championship. That's also quite convenient how you'll try to speak to her when you "have the time" and that you "doubt she'll remember". N.B.: You, by conclusion of what you have just written, are wrong so nah. I never once said I was civilised so I implore, no, directly ask, you to point out where I said I was civilised. Wowsssowss (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have PROVEN that Burns was still the interim champion on March 1st, and that's all I am going to say. I'm fed up with you. I HAVE proven you wrong with your date of January 26, and you still try to convince me about I don't know what. You say yourself you aren't civilised (see: WP:CIVIL), so why still talking to you anyway? claudevsq (talk) 06:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I have just got an answer by Miss Meléndez, telling me because of spring break, she is going to send me the information next Monday! claudevsq (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely spiffing! Also, you aren't right either pal, so less of your shite. We'll see who's wrong when this bird gets back to you. Wowsssowss (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Actually, I never said I wasn't civilised, I just said I didn't say I was civilised so you're wrong again. Wowsssowss (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Official answer from WBO: March 12, 2012. I will gladly forward the official WBO e-mail to everyone who lets his e-mail address here.

For the others, here the original answer from Miss Diana Meléndez, WBO executive:

Mr. Vesque:

Ricky Burns became full champion on April 12, 2012.

Diana Melendez

So... are you happy now? claudevsq (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I replied her if it was really sure, and yes (quote): Yes, remember Juan Manuel Marquez was the champion and he moved to the 140 lbs. claudevsq (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I don't know if that's actually a WBO official. How do I know you haven't made up some e-mail address and sent it to yourself? Nonetheless, for the sake of no longer possessing the will to amend incorrect articles, I shall leave it be. I hope you're happy with an incorrect article. Wowsssowss (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not. Why don't you go to official WBO site and contact them yourselves? I know Ms. Meléndez and Miss Companys for years... claudevsq (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No one but Claude and Ms. Meléndez know that. That's one reason why this is considered original research and is not allowed to support material in Wikipedia by the policy WP:NOR.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Listen, as it is impossible to find something written about the exact date, I consider the original e-mails from the WBO as legit. Or shall we leave the date blank?!? As I just said, I can provide the original e-mails, or everybody can himself go to www.wboboxing.com and see under "Contact". claudevsq (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, no original research, here's finally proof that Burns had been elevated for March 10, so... http://www.wboboxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/WBO-Ranking-as-of-Mar.-2012.pdf claudevsq (talk) 12:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Featured list status

Would anybody be interested in helping me to get the FL-status for this list? We had the "Featured Article" status until a few years ago, but then, it was revoked. Meanwhile, we have done about everything, except putting in a photo or two. But for FL-status, it should be enough... What do you think? claudevsq (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would help out with that. The big issue when it was revoked was references for the titles.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, right... hmm, quite honestly, I think I will revoke the idea of FL-status as well if it's too complicated... I thought it was less difficult to get FL than to get FA. claudevsq (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Remove Ring Title

There was debate a while back about if the Ring title should be included in this list and a 'wait and see' attitude seemed to be the agreed upon course of action (see this discussion). Now that the Ring has changed its criteria, that criteria and the title itself has lost substantial credibility.[4][5][6] In essence, the fears from the previous conversation seem to have come true (i.e., the title has been mismanaged and no longer has credibility). I think its time the Ring title be removed from the list and the big four recognized by the International Boxing Hall of Fame be the only titles listed. What do people think?-- RonSigPi (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have to say you have a good point here. I won't say more to this subject, simply because of the fact, when I "took over" rhis list from mod east718 5 or 6 years ago, there already were the big 4 and The Ring champs, and I didn't want a change if not absolutely necessary... claudevsq (talk) 07:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)