|WikiProject Boxing||(Rated Start-class)|
Please fix the grammer.
Battle Royal (boxing)
The content on the Battle Royal page for boxing, Battle_royal#Boxing, is the same as the content on the separate page, Battle Royal (boxing). The separate page for boxing has a Bare-knuckle boxing reference, a "see also," and an "external link," but other than that it is the same information as given on the main Battle Royal page. Either the Battle Royal (boxing) page needs more information and stuff in it or the two links attached to it should be pinned to the boxing section of the main Battle Royal page and the Battle Royal (boxing) page should be deleted. For the boxing section to have a "Main article," one would think there would be more information to provide. There isn't, so I don't see a need for a separate article.
Monkeyfett 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I did that, and its all set. I deleted the one external link, as it was a single-sentence page with no references itself. --Jackson 15:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we live in a world where, if enough people are wrong, it becomes right. And Wikipedia itself if responible for the prevalence of this, this whole "true by concensus" thing. The term is "Battle Royale" -- always has been, always will be. Anyone who says "battle royal" out loud just sounds like an uneducated boob. --Buddy13 19:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
The Romans presumably did not use the term "Battle Royal", but a Latin term that translates as "battle royal". Furthermore, since the Romans disliked the notion of "kings", why would they use a descriptor like "royal" in the first place? Somebody needs to specify exactly what the Romans did call it, or delete that section altogether. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)