Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Boxing (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Proposal[edit]

As discussed above, there is a desire to change criterion #2 of WP:NBOX to the following:

"Has won a regular/full (non-interim) non-world title listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment."

Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment will read:

This page is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject on Boxing and provides a list of men's non-world titles that qualify for the purposes of meeting criterion #2 of WP:NBOX. The list exclusively includes:

Those titles not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability for any fighters. Note that female title winners, interim title winners, and title challengers will be given no presumptive notability without winning one of the above titles or meeting another criterion of WP:NBOX. Any change to this list must be discussed and approved by way of consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing.

END TEXT

We already have Bennyaha, PRehse, and me on board for this change (see above - unless they want a wording change somewhere). I agree with PRehse that we need a bit more consensus to make this effective. Reaching out to Mac Dreamstate, Dwanyewest, Caribbean~H.Q., talk - you are active on this talk page and I have seen you opine on various topics. Care to chime in with your yes/no and comments? I would like at least four editors agreeing, but all six would be great (or even more, just reaching out to those that seem active). RonSigPi (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: if a boxer has fought for a Commonwealth Boxing Council title, do they gain automatic notability for a new article on those grounds alone? I once had an article AfD-nominated for that. Also, barring the typo in "Has won fought for...", it all looks good to me. No complaints, and it gets my support. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
That was no typo. Winning these secondary non-world titles would confer the presumption of notability. For the big four world titles - fighting for would be enough.PRehse (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Mac Dreamstate, that was no typo. It was a compromise - it seemed better to include more titles, but limit it to winners. It accomplished more goals with WP:BIAS in that Asia gained more representation. Also, I did some informal test cases on some of the titles (e.g., WBO Asia Pacific) and found a lot of good sources on the champions, but not so many on the challengers. To be frank, a lot of the challengers were never heard from again. For the winners, most won the initial fight and had a defense - these usually created two bodies of sources to achieve the multiple source requirement GNG requirement. Those that didn't defend often fought for another secondary title (e.g., BBBofC and then Commonwealth) or had a world title shot (since many organizations favorably rank their own regional title holders). RonSigPi (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, but grammatically "Has won for a..." is a typo; that's what I meant. ;-) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks, missed that one. RonSigPi (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like we have a green light. Four editors on board and no one has said no. If after 48 hours I don't hear anything to the contrary, then I will make the update. RonSigPi (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Update to WP:NBOX made (small change for clarification - instead of "Those titles not otherwise listed are considered to..." it reads "Those non-world titles not otherwise listed are considered to..." since it could be read to conflict with criterion #1.RonSigPi (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I was on a wikibreak so I missed this discussion, but I'd like to thank the involved editors for creating a solid list that removes so much of the guesswork and assumptions about what boxing titles confer notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
What about the Universal Boxing Organization? JMichael22 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Manual of style: See also[edit]

I'd like some clarification over what should be included under the See also section of any given boxer's article. Fpwlada (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I never used to bother with these until I noticed other editors including them. For world champions, the myriad list articles (whichever apply) seem appropriate:
However, I vehemently disagree with the use of these lists, as they are guaranteed to become outdated:
Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
All of those lists will already be linked to in the record section and the succession boxes. There is no need for them to be repeated in a "See also" section.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That's what I've always thought, but they're in a heapload of articles now—I'm not about to go around deleting them, but I'm no hurry to add a guideline for them to the MOS either. To me many of them are completely redundant when such information is, as you've said, already linked to in the record tables, succession boxes, and categories. However, I do think the ones for List of undefeated boxing world champions and "List of boxing [triple, quadruple, quintuple, sextuple, septuple, or octuple] champions" are useful, and even essential. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, those lists won't necessarily be there in the record or succession boxes but I expect they'd already be linked to in the body of the article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Big ugly yellow row[edit]

I'm seeing this horrible.. row thing.. creeping into record tables whenever a boxer had an extended period of inactivity:

No. Result Record Opponent Type Round, time Date Location Notes
2 Win 2–0 test test test test test
Example text
1 Win 1–0 test test test test test test

So far it's in the tables for Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Mike Tyson, and most recently Tommy Morrison. They were briefly in place for Dillian Whyte, Kid Galahad and David Haye, but I'm having none of it without consensus. I absolutely hate the damn thing for several reasons:

  • 1. It looks ugly and intrusive—at least if the colour was grey or something instead of bright yellow.
  • 2. There's already a heapload of trivia not to include in record tables to keep things minimalistic, so I don't see why more trivia such as retirements, imprisonments, inactivities or suspensions need mentioning in a cramped table, when they can be expanded upon in the article body. If a reader is left wondering why there is a substantial gap between fights, they can scroll up to read the prose.
  • 3. Where does it end? Are we going to stick in an explanatory row for a four-year inactivity period? Maybe they got suspended for two years? I dread someone adding it if Ike Ibeabuchi ever returns.
  • 4. MMA records don't use them, nor does kickboxing, or Formula One. I maintain that boxing records shouldn't either. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
And if no feedback in a week, I'll zap 'em all. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, please zap/eliminate/murder/destroy/etc. for all the reasons you gave. RonSigPi (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The yellow is definitely unnecessary, but I think it's useful for the reader to be able to see in a quick scan of the record when a boxer has been prevented from competing (Ali, Tyson). I don't like it for temporary retirements.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

They're gone now. A note will be made at MOS:BOXING/RECORD to not insert them in future. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Boxing Record (Type vs. Method)[edit]

After looking at the boxing records table I have something I'd like to suggest for change instead of the using Type as the box for how the fight was won how about Method because it is in fact the "method" in which they won rather then the "type" of way they won JMichael22 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Result Record Opponent Method Round, time Date Location Notes
Win 1–0 Canada TBD TKO 7 (12), 2:10 Aug 19, 2017 Canada Powerade Centre, Brampton, Ontario
Whilst MMA wins occur via a method (punches, strikes, submission, GNP, etc.), the term makes little sense in boxing, where there is only one method of winning—by punching. These punches then result in a type of win: KO, TKO, UD, etc. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
true but if you really think about it User:Mac Dreamstate in boxing winning by (KO, TKO, UD, TD and MD) are the methods of victory they are the same as MMA there really is no difference it's the method of victory and "Method" would be best for a box rec instead of type which really doesn't fit I feel JMichael22 (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not on board with it. Let's see if others are or aren't. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Also not on board. It seems fine the way it is and falls under "if it isn't broke..." Besides, "type" can be considered type of decision such as unanimous, majority, split, majority draw, split draw, or technical decision. The only thing preventing the decision is a knockout (TKO or KO). Maybe look at it as a slot for decision type unless preempted by a TKO/KO such that the type of decision was not reached. Since you only have a type of decision or a KO/TKO, method isn't appropriate. RonSigPi (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Im on Board I think it's the better route JMichael22 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Money Belt[edit]

The Money Belt for the Mayweather vs. McGregor fight is being promoted by the sanctioned World Boxing Council and being promoted as a legitimate Title where does it say that this Belt isn't a real Title as stated by Mac Dreamstate and in which iv heard enough from him and would like to hear from others regarding this matters instead of just him, Wikipedia is a sight where if you have legitimate resources to back up your information it can be placed the President of the WBC has stated this is indeed a legit Title fight but for some reason a Wikipedia editor has taken it upon himself to deem this not a legitimate Title or Title fight. so I'd like to know why is it in the realm of Wikipedia not a Title or Title fight JMichael22 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Mac, it's not a real title. It's a commemorative belt created just for this fight. Will never be defended. Boxrec lists legit titles, whether it be world or regional.Mahussain06 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
User:JMichael22 has "heard enough" from me, yet first posted on my talk page demanding answers and posting nonsensical replies—and now arrives here doing the same, making it appear as though I've made up the definition of what a legit world title fight is. Safe to be said, he's the only one making himself look like a "clewn", as McGregor would put it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
It's already in the article about the fight. Where else do you want it?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
He wants it in the record tables. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Mentioning it in the fight article is fair, but nothing more needs added. Nothing in records table, nothing in sporting positions, etc. A one line mention in the fight article is enough. I don't even think the winner of the fight needs it mentioned in their respective article let alone anywhere more definitive. RonSigPi (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Leonard–Hagler, Gatti–Ward[edit]

For those Project members who are adept at creating fight articles, we sorely need one for this all-time massive event. There's enough content at both the Leonard and Hagler articles to form quite a substantial article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Likewise the Gatti–Ward trilogy. Maybe such requests for new articles could go on the Project main page, but I'm not sure if anyone actually reads that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Wayne McCullough Flag[edit]

Just noticed that Wayne McCullough is listed with a UK flag on the Naseem Hamed record.

While not wanting to get into the political issue of the flags — being from and having fought for Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games, and then fighting for Ireland at the Olympic Games, should his flag not appear as the NI flag as more appropriate for his nationality?

I should add that many other boxers records list it with the Irish flag, which I don't know about either.

Just trying to clarify what it should appear as.

The last time record table flagicons were discussed extensively was via this RfC in December 2015. The WP:NOCONSENSUS outcome essentially meant that flagicons (whether the issue being their inclusion at all, or the use of sovereign/national flags) should stay as they are in articles where they are present, but not to introduce them to articles created without them.
At present, the UK flag appears to take precedence over national flags because professionals box under a British licence.. buuuuut if the UK/ENG/SCO/WAL/NI thing is still a point of contention for some folk, then might as well hash it out now. We have quite a few different editors around than last time, so opinions may vary a lot. Welcome to the Project either way! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I really didn't want to open a can of worms! That's a fair point on the British Licence, the best thing from it would be consistency, but that may be difficult to get considering what was said in the previous discussion. Thrilho (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah don't worry about letting worms out—I've been biding my time in restarting the topic myself. I probably still won't get my way completely (no flagicons at all), but to have it set in stone as to which flags should be used would go some way to making MOS:BOXING/RECORD a little bit clearer. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS[edit]

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Jake LaMotta Boxing record[edit]

Jake LaMotta I think should have a more convential boxing record template on his page what does everyone else think?Dwanyewest (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definately. I wouldn't mind, but I have a rather lengthy to do list for some boxers profiles. Mahussain06 (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thai names[edit]

I think there needs to be a consensus on what name we use for Thai boxers, the most prominent Thai boxers are listed under their pseudonym but you see some boxers like Wittawas Basapean with their real name and champions at the lowest weights who haven't really fought in the West listed under their birth names as well. Most media publications (especially ones that focus on the region like Rappler or Asian Boxing) refer to Thai boxers by their fighting name and not their birth name, BoxRec is the only source that prefers using their birth names.

I think it's for the best that most of them are moved to their pseudonym. I propose that the only time when we should default to the birth name is when a fighter has fought with 2 or more different names, other than their birth name. Category: Thai male boxers is relatively small so I could do this on my own but I wanted everyone's input.Fpwlada (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with using Thai pseudonyms where WP:COMMONNAME applies. BoxRec has always been a bit weird with their naming formats, such as insisting on using full names for prominent Argentine boxers like Sergio Gabriel Martínez, Lucas Martin Matthysse, or even Paul Malignaggi. I think the current format for Srisaket Sor Rungvisai works best—real name to open the lead (per MOS:LEGALNAME; same as it's done for someone like Dimebag Darrell), followed by his fighting name and all the rest. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)