Talk:Ricky Hatton

Title box

Can someone please fix the championship title box for the ring magazine fighter of the year? I tried but it wouldnt work. Scapone

Hatton vs Tszyu

If this fight had taken place in Vegas vs Manchester, where holding (ie wrestling) was perfected to a science during the 'boxing' match, the outcome would have been VERY different...NO DOUBT...sorry, just keeping things VERY real...

ricky hatton

according to the wikipedia, ricky hatton regularly attends hyde united home games, this is not fact as he doesn't attend and has no time whatsoever for the club even though he is from hyde and the club have just been wound up by the high courts!

Sanctioning bodies

@145.128.174.74: WBC, IBF and WBU are not "boxing jargon", they are the acronyms the sanctioning bodies are most commonly known by. As per the MOS you quoted in your edit summary;

"Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) if it is used later in the article. Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym (i.e., its article here is at the acronym title), in which case the expansion can come in the parenthetical or be omitted, except in the lead of its own article: according to the CIA (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency)."

The boxing manual of style also references MOS:ABBR in relation to the naming of sanctioning bodies;

"Most sanctioning bodies should be abbreviated instead of fully worded: WBA instead of World Boxing Association. This is acceptable per MOS:ABBR."

Both MOS's support the use of the acronyms without being fully worded. – ².O.^Boxing 23:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The boxing manual of style is wrong. The main manual of style prevails. You seem to have misunderstood the specifications at MOS:ACRO: exceptions are listed, and boxing organisations are not among them. The articles on these boxing organisations are not at the acronym but at the full name, so the clause "(i.e., its article here is at the acronym title)" is not fulfilled. 145.128.174.74 (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It does indeed appear that I may have misunderstood. I’ve started a discussion at MOS:BOXING, asking if any more experienced editors care to comment. – ².O.^Boxing 01:15, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This definitely needs revisiting, and MOS:BOXING likely needs to fall in line with other articles in which the abbreviation is spelled out first. The various boxing sanctioning bodies are indeed not titled under their abbreviations unlike WWE, BBC, CIA, etc. Suggest new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing, where I did actually bring up this subject earlier in the year. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Forgot about both discussions lol just to note, Central Intelligence Agency is actually spelled out. Anyway, I believe MOS:ACRO1STUSE allows for the titles to be abbreviated without parentheses. Contrary to what the current IP claims, it has nothing to do with "public perception" (we can't ask the public to vote and tell us what they think), it's down to reliable sources. I've rarely seen champions referred to as the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, and International Boxing Federation welterweight champion, and if examples are found, there will be a substantial amount more that use the acronym to demonstrate which is more common. Anecdotal I know, but I have family members and friends that are barely-casual boxing fans who know the acronyms and not the names. For somebody who isn't a boxing fan, is reading a boxing related BLP and doesn't know what a WBA welterweight championship is, spelling it out won't give any additional insight. – ².O.^Boxing 10:54, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah true actually. What helps in supporting the current format is the part about "Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym, in which case the expansion can be omitted". WP:COMMONNAME should apply in this instance—indeed mainstream media (whether broadsheet or tabloid) hardly ever refers to the sanctioning bodies by their full names. To cross-reference other sports on WP, what do the NBA, NFL and NHL use in bio articles? Or footballers with achievements in FIFA, UEFA, etc. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

For somebody who isn't a boxing fan, is reading a boxing related BLP and doesn't know what a WBA welterweight championship is, spelling it out won't give any additional insight - what an incredibly dumb thing to say. Someone who doesn't know what that is will know exactly what it is if you spell out the acronym. What possible compelling reason is there to deny the reader the information they need? You clearly just think that you own the article. 86.139.216.234 (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Explicit statement of bad faith editing by User:Squared.Circle.Boxing is at the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing/Archive_10#Sanctioning_bodies. 86.139.216.234 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

"You clearly just think that you own the article." Now who's acting in bad faith? The article was stable for a long while until you made your edits, which were reverted. But instead of following WP:BRD and coming here to discuss, you carried on. And now you're being petulant, which isn't a good look when trying to convince others of your point. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You have not made even the vaguest attempt to justify defying both common sense and the manual of style. 86.139.216.234 (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Sure I have. "Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym, in which case the expansion can be omitted" – that's all the sanctioning bodies in mainstream media. Why so hostile, by the way? "It's Christmas", as they say. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

And I see you abused a noticeboard to make a maliciously false accusation of vandalism against me as well. Why exactly are you so desperate to conceal the meaning of an acronym? 86.139.216.234 (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that the acronyms are boxing organisations. Spelling them out doesn't give any additional information beyond what the acronyms stand for. So no, there's not really any additional insight gained. Using the acronyms without expansion is permitted by the MOS as the championships are most commonly known by their acronyms; watch a world championship fight and listen to how titles are announced. And as an added benefit it keeps clutter to a minimum in leads, as would be the case with Oleksandr Usyk, having held the unified World Boxing Association (WBA) (Super), International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Organization (WBO) and International Boxing Organization (IBO) heavyweight titles. – ².O.^Boxing 02:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

What I don't get with IP (who sounds a bit familiar.. [1], [2], [3]) is this vitriolic disdain towards the use of boxing acronyms in particular, whilst baselessly accusing editors of "concealing" information—the organisations' full names—when that's simply how mainstream media refers to them, hence WP:COMMONNAME. Plus it is indeed useful for brevity in often wordy lead sections like Usyk's.

Yet again to quote MOS:ACRO1STUSE, this is exactly such a case where "when something is most commonly known by its acronym [...] the expansion can be omitted" can be invoked. "World Boxing Council" et al. is not generally used by mainstream media, but "WBC" is. What on Earth is the big issue to be so uncivil over it? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

However! To be diplomatic, what still concerns me as to whether we're following the right path is how—to use examples of North American sportspeople—the lead sections of LeBron James, Wayne Gretzky, and Tim Tebow are formatted. For all three, their respective organisations (NBA, NHL, NFL) are fully-worded with a bracketed acronym. To cross over to Europe, the same goes for Phil Taylor (BDO), Mika Häkkinen (DTM), and Novak Djokovic (ATP). Mainstream media predominantly uses the acronyms, but all those articles spell 'em out on first instance. How do we reconcile all that with the boxing sanctioning bodies, and thereby justify deviating from other sports? Careful thought is needed, but not childish outbursts. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

NBA and NFL are good points that are kind of difficult to argue against lol per the MOS, one could easily argue in favour of only using the acronyms in those articles as well. I'd say NBA and NFL are just as commonly known as CIA and FBI. The only difference I can really think of is the clutter aspect; expanding on one acronym isn't as messy as expanding on several.

Both ways are acceptable, per the MOS. If consensus establishes that they should be spelled out, then that's fine. I'd prefer them not to be but it's MOS-compliant. What isn't going to happen is a trigger happy IP edit warring their preference in to the article while throwing around bad-faith accusations from the beginning. That's a good way to find yourself blocked and make others lose interest in your crusade. – ².O.^Boxing 09:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Any organisation that has an acronym is almost always known by that acronym. That does not mean that everyone in the world knows what the acronym stands for; it does not mean that readers do not need to know what it stands for; it means you need to define it once, when the term is first used. 86.177.202.42 (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyone in the world hasn't heard of the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, World Boxing Organization, etc., nor the championships they award, so whether it's an acronym or spelled out makes no difference to them. The reason I'm arguing against your changes is because the MOS explicitly allows what I'm arguing for. You said it's against MOS, we've demonstrated otherwise. The way to proceed would be for you to demonstrate that our reasoning is wrong--being that the championships are most commonly known by their acronyms. – ².O.^Boxing 16:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You have explicitly stated that you know the MOS requires these acronyms to be expanded, but that you just don't like that (for no reason that you have ever been able to describe) and so you returned to the article some time after the change was previously made to undo it. Such a self-confessed act of moronic bad faith is truly a rarity. 86.177.202.42 (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

And seriously, just how dumb are you? Everyone in the world hasn't heard of the World Boxing Association, World Boxing Council, World Boxing Organization, etc., nor the championships they award, so whether it's an acronym or spelled out makes no difference to them. Nobody - nobody -should seriously need this explaining to them. Someone who does not know what the WBA is, on seeing WBA, still doesn't know what it is. Someone who does not know what the WBA is, on seeing World Boxing Association (WBA), immediately knows exactly what it is. How, seriously, are you not able to comprehend that? 86.177.202.42 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you understand just how unconstructive and uncouth your style is? Ever read WP:CIVIL or WP:BATTLEGROUND? The change you are proposing—nay, bludgeoning—will affect thousands of articles, yet you keep on reverting to a non-stable edition of the article without waiting to form a consensus. The way you are going about it gives the impression that you're not here to build an encyclopaedia—only to throw around insults whilst ignoring the variety of topics discussed above, all of which are valid. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Once the IP's block expires, and considering they can refrain from being disruptive, maybe we can get an explanation of why Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym doesn't apply to world championships that are commonly known by their acronym. – ².O.^Boxing 20:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Doubtful they'd respond without using the words "dumb", "stupid", or acting the victim. They seem fixated on following MOS:ACRO to the letter without considering the exception put forth in MOS:ACRO1STUSE (which is relevant for brevity in what are often cramped lead sections), but it's like banging one's head against a wall with individuals like that. I'm convinced it's this guy from 2015 – [4], [5], [6] – which was one of the many catalysts for MOS:BOXING. Something similar about the vitriol in their editing and communication styles.

In the meantime, I'm not averse to letting them have their way in the end. This wouldn't be to satisfy them, and shouldn't be viewed as backing down, but rather to not make it appear as though we're "doing our own thing" at WikiProject Boxing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

One could definitely be forgiven for mistaking all these IPs for the same person. I'm also not fussed if it turns out we make changes to MOS:BOXING. As long as it complies with relevant PAGs and has been discussed, I'm happy to concede. I just have yet to see any actual argument as to why that particular aspect of MOS:ACRO1STUSE doesn't apply. – ².O.^Boxing 01:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Shall we just get on with the change anyway? UFC articles also generally follow the guideline, with the organisation spelt out upon first mention. I rarely see the full name—Ultimate Fighting Championship—used anymore as the acronym has become ubiquitous in mainstream culture, but the practice is nonetheless followed at those articles, which satisfies MOS:ACRO and keeps everyone happy.

The more I think about it, the boxing orgs are nowhere near the level of popularity to warrant deviating from all the other sports I listed above—there may even be an article in the future about how casual viewers wouldn't have a clue what they are. Granted, we've established that it's acceptable per MOS:ACRO1STUSE (despite what the IP says), and mainstream media does use them exclusively, but Project Boxing may be seen as bush league or even unencyclopaedic if we keep on using the current format. I'm not in love with the look, and I'll always prefer aesthetic brevity, but professionalism is what we should be striving for.

For long strings in the lead with multiple orgs, we'd just have to grin and bear it. When it comes to something unwieldy like World Boxing Association (WBA) (Super) super middleweight title, we'll figure it out like we have before with other tweaks to MOS:BOXING. Example strings:

... [has] held the World Boxing Association (WBA) super middleweight title (Super version) since/in/from...

... became the World Boxing Association (WBA) super middleweight champion (Super title) by defeating...

... or something like that. A bit of rewording needed, that's all. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm still fine with the acronyms, but if you agree with the IP–and considering both are MOS compliant, and the suggested option is consistent with other sports organisations–I'm also fine with a 2v1 consensus. In regards to which formation to use for the WBA (Super) title, I'm leaning towards your first example, but I'm gonna have a little think on that one.

Just imagine if this discussion would have been started per WP:BRD, my balls would ache a tad bit less (because, ya know, proper ball ache). – ².O.^Boxing 00:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: sorry, I forgot about this discussion. I can't think of any alternatives and I assume the IP is in agreement with your suggestion (I've notified them of this comment). Would it be worth dropping a note at the project to make others aware? I doubt an RfC or further discussion is needed. – ².O.^Boxing 19:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

There's been no rush. I think it was better to let the insult-laden dust settle first before committing to a very wide-ranging (albeit relatively minor) format change. I will indeed let the Project know and see if there's any further input or ideas before making it part of the MOS. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring

It’s possible for everyone here to be right. Both the IP and other editors are citing relevant MoS pages, which is great. The thing that isn’t great is the edit warring. That leads to blocks and that’s no fun. Please come to consensus here on the talk page and if that’s not possible, please agree to disagree. I am hopeful cooler heads will prevail, otherwise WP:3RR prevails. Zsinj^Talk 01:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I was on board with either interpretation of MOS:ABBR until IP came in like an angry bairn straight out of nursery. Not really much discussion to be had if that's the tone he's going to take. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)