Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Mac Dreamstate (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
Not everyone who reads an article about a boxer knows all the abbreviations. For example, in the article on [[Dmitry Bivol]], there is a box column with his fights. A lot of them have "UD" in a column called "type"(a general word that is used with some sort of specific meaning). The article nowhere explains what "UD" means. It should be explained in some way, e.g., in a footnote or maybe a mouse-over. [[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]] ([[User talk:Kdammers|talk]]) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
Not everyone who reads an article about a boxer knows all the abbreviations. For example, in the article on [[Dmitry Bivol]], there is a box column with his fights. A lot of them have "UD" in a column called "type"(a general word that is used with some sort of specific meaning). The article nowhere explains what "UD" means. It should be explained in some way, e.g., in a footnote or maybe a mouse-over. [[User:Kdammers|Kdammers]] ([[User talk:Kdammers|talk]]) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
:[[MOS:ACRO1STUSE]] gives two options; link [[Unanimous decision|UD]] on the first occurrence in the record table or spell it out with the acronym in parenthesis in the prose. The latter is something I've done in a bunch of articles (see [[Jack Catterall]]), and I think fewer links is better when it comes to tables, so I prefer that option. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red">''<sup>2</sup>''</span>]].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: blue">'''''O'''''</span>]].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red"><sup>''Boxing''</sup></span>]] 01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC) |
:[[MOS:ACRO1STUSE]] gives two options; link [[Unanimous decision|UD]] on the first occurrence in the record table or spell it out with the acronym in parenthesis in the prose. The latter is something I've done in a bunch of articles (see [[Jack Catterall]]), and I think fewer links is better when it comes to tables, so I prefer that option. – [[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red">''<sup>2</sup>''</span>]].[[User:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: blue">'''''O'''''</span>]].[[User talk:Squared.Circle.Boxing|<span style="color: red"><sup>''Boxing''</sup></span>]] 01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC) |
||
::Aren't the tooltips sufficient? They begin from the bottom of the table. [[User:Mac Dreamstate|Mac Dreamstate]] ([[User talk:Mac Dreamstate|talk]]) 10:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:19, 15 August 2023
Boxing Project‑class | ||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
The article Omar Albanil has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Non notable boxer or businessman
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
Thanks and God bless!
Antonio Locococoloco Martin (He he he he) 11:12, August 23, 2021 (UTC)
Boxing fight article parameters
Hi! I'd like to establish some parameters as far as notability for boxing fights. As there have been tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of boxing fights, including world championship ones, parameters should be established as to which boxing fights should have an independent article apart from being mentioned in the respective boxers' articles and which should not. The article criteria should be:
- Main or co-main events on Pay Per View
- HBO
- Showtime
- Or another country's equivalent to those American channels
- Fights with a proven historical context or impact (therefore Wilfredo Gomez versus Carlos Zarate, Gomez vs. Salvador Sanchez, The no Mas Fight and Jack Dempsey vs. Georges Carpentier, for example, would qualify)
- Fights where a country or a continent crowned its first world boxing champion
- Major organization's (IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO) unification bouts
- Ring Magazine fight of the year award winning fights
- Knockout of the year
- Upset of the year
- Fight of the decade
- Fights that led to major changes in boxing rules or where a major scandal took place
should qualify as notable enough or as notability establishing standards for boxing fights as events notable enough to have their articles on wikipedia. What do you all think? Thanks and God bless! Antonio Beaten by a knockout Martin (loser talk) 14:46, July 25, 2022 (UTC)
RfC on omitting upcoming fights in professional boxing record tables
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Should we omit upcoming fights—even if confirmed with a date, press conferences or other publicity—from professional boxing record tables? Choices are to Support or Oppose omitting upcoming fights. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support omitting upcoming fights. "Confirmed" dates or not, boxing is in stark contrast to other major sports such as football (soccer and American), snooker, tennis, motorsports, or wintersports, to name but a few. These sports operate under governing bodies, and stage annual events scheduled years in advance—only something Earth-shattering like COVID could ever postpone or cancel those. This is completely unlike boxing, a notoriously decentralised and shambolic sport at the professional level, which never holds annual events. Due to mishaps such as missing weight and other shenanigans, every single scheduled fight on a boxing card is subject to change on the same day—even hours before a fight (see Alexander Dimitrenko in 2010). No other major sports have this problem.
- Including upcoming fights on a table is unencyclopaedic. An encyclopaedia is a publication of factual information which has taken place or been otherwise proven. An upcoming boxing match has not taken place, has not been proven to exist until the bell rings, and could be cancelled within hours of said bell ringing. We should only be adding fights to record tables after they have taken place. This ensures adherence to WP:V (a completed fight is a 100% verifiable event), WP:CRYSTAL, and we do away with many pointless edits which end up being reverted due to fight negotiations falling apart or the event being cancelled. The article body—prose—is where such content belongs.
- The use of hidden notes as a placeholder for "almost certainly confirmed fights" by some users is egregious and makes a mockery of WP. A record table should be a factual record of whom a boxer has fought. Not who they might fight, or who they're scheduled to fight, but an indisputable set-in-stone record of who they have fought. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- The one thing I would say I think spring events are cancelled or significantly postponed more often then one might initially think. Yes, it is rare, but so are fights called of the day of and we can adjust for those. Consider the following non-COVID examples
- College football's 2018 First Responder Bowl was started, stopped, and never finished due to rain.
- The World Marathon Major 2012 New York Marathon was cancelled due to Superstorm Sandy and the main page talks about it.
- NASCAR 1998 Pepsi 400 was postponed July to October due to wildfires.
- Major League Baseball's 1904 World Series and 1994 World Series both have articles and never happened.
- The World Chess Championship 1975 is an extremely famous event to never have happened.
- Again, it is often tough to compare one sport to another, but I don't think boxing is unique in the idea planned events don't always happen. RonSigPi (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think boxing needs to be considered an outlier next to those examples, per WP:WEIGHT. In boxing, events are cancelled constantly, even if categorically confirmed by promoters and networks alike. This has been the case for Fury fights in particular since 2013. To include any upcoming fight on his record table is ludicrous—I really want to emphasise that. He's had more fights cancelled/postponed than any other fighter that comes to mind. No other major sport has this problem. OK, so a wildfire might cancel a NASCAR race; a storm might cancel a marathon; but in boxing, the biggest fights are cancelled all the time. It absolutely needs to be treated differently than other sports. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Mac Dreamstate I think I need to clarify. I 100% agree with you that fights are rumored and even announced and then cancelled with relatively high frequency in boxing. What I was addressing was your statement "...every single scheduled fight on a boxing card is subject to change on the same day—even hours before a fight...No other major sports have this problem." Other major sports do have this problem time-to-time per my examples. While it may be a bit more frequent in boxing, I don't know if we have the evidence to confirm that outside of anecdotal evidence. That is why below I proposed a standard of state/national commissions or as Cassiopeia stated, what is in Boxrec. I think these situations put a fight in the same standing as the above examples - while they may be cancelled there is strong enough support to justify encyclopaedic inclusion. RonSigPi (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think boxing needs to be considered an outlier next to those examples, per WP:WEIGHT. In boxing, events are cancelled constantly, even if categorically confirmed by promoters and networks alike. This has been the case for Fury fights in particular since 2013. To include any upcoming fight on his record table is ludicrous—I really want to emphasise that. He's had more fights cancelled/postponed than any other fighter that comes to mind. No other major sport has this problem. OK, so a wildfire might cancel a NASCAR race; a storm might cancel a marathon; but in boxing, the biggest fights are cancelled all the time. It absolutely needs to be treated differently than other sports. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- The one thing I would say I think spring events are cancelled or significantly postponed more often then one might initially think. Yes, it is rare, but so are fights called of the day of and we can adjust for those. Consider the following non-COVID examples
- Support per the above (that includes the hidden comments). WP:CRYSTAL sums it up nicely:
Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place
(original emphasis). As we see at least half a dozen times per year, confirmed ≠ going to happen. – 2.O.Boxing 22:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- For what is worth, I always think WP:CRYSTAL is misapplied/misinterpreted. I think it is to avoid statements like "Keyshawn Davis is gonna be a world champion!" That is unverifiable. In contrast, the proposed fight between Errol Spence Jr. and Terence Crawford - even if it never occurs - has significant coverage in verifiable sources and therefore is valid for inclusion. So my take on WP:CRYSTAL is not that future events should not be discussed - in contrast they should be discussed as the 2032 Olympics are since there are appropriate sources for it. Similarly, upcoming fights should be included if reliable sources are found. RonSigPi (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Valid for inclusion in the prose, sure. At this point, entire articles could be written on Crawford–Spence or Fury–Joshua. But until they've met in the ring, none of it belongs on a record table. A fight record—bearing in mind we're building an encyclopaedia—should include only factual, verifiable events. In boxing, nothing is factual or verifiable until the bell has rung. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- I accept your point about CRYSTAL. Anything that is reliably sourced and WP:DUE can be detailed in the prose. A fight record is a record of fights that have happened, not what might. – 2.O.Boxing 20:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- For what is worth, I always think WP:CRYSTAL is misapplied/misinterpreted. I think it is to avoid statements like "Keyshawn Davis is gonna be a world champion!" That is unverifiable. In contrast, the proposed fight between Errol Spence Jr. and Terence Crawford - even if it never occurs - has significant coverage in verifiable sources and therefore is valid for inclusion. So my take on WP:CRYSTAL is not that future events should not be discussed - in contrast they should be discussed as the 2032 Olympics are since there are appropriate sources for it. Similarly, upcoming fights should be included if reliable sources are found. RonSigPi (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: edits like this are pathetic—just saying. What is that, the third time in the past year he's had a "confirmed" fight? OMG FURY–JOSHUA IS ON U GUYS!!!!!!!!, WAIT A MINUTE GUYS, NOW IT'S FURY–USYK!!!!!!!! Gimme a goddamn break. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support Only If we also exclude new sections of paragraphs that have upcoming fights in them as seen in MMA. If a reason for doing this is that posting upcoming fights is unencyclopedic, then the same extends to the rest of the article, not just the record tables. We already have so many messy and incomplete records of active and inactive fighters from the last 150 years, the last thing we need is to be wasting time fixing and updating upcoming events.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose & Suggestion I don't think this is an all-or-nothing situation. I think upcoming fights should be added as there is encyclopedic value for a reader to quickly see what fight is next for a fighter. However, there should be some established standard as to what is needed for it to be added and that standard should be somewhat high. For example, maybe something like the fight appears on the schedule of the national/state boxing commission. That way the latest hot take/rumor isnt added, but still likely fights to occur are shown. RonSigPi (talk) 16:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless of what we decide, I think we should all be able to agree that something needs to be done about this. I would reluctantly agree to this suggestion if we only allow fights to show up if, for example, they appear on boxrec. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, something needs done. I think aligning with what Boxrec has is a good solution too. RonSigPi (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- BoxRec does the same thing we do; add it when there's confirmation in the media. They had Fury vs Joshua up for about two weeks. I don't mean to bludgeon with the same point, but fight records are a record of fights that have happened, not what might. And a commission or network listing it on their schedule only happens when signed contracts are provided, which doesn't guarantee a fight will happen, as history shows. – 2.O.Boxing 20:26, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, something needs done. I think aligning with what Boxrec has is a good solution too. RonSigPi (talk) 14:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless of what we decide, I think we should all be able to agree that something needs to be done about this. I would reluctantly agree to this suggestion if we only allow fights to show up if, for example, they appear on boxrec. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose
& SuggestionTo add fights that yet have taken in the fight table is encyclopedic and not adhere to WP:V guidelines. Suggest, like in MMA fighters pages, that upcoming fights with that supported by independent, reliable source to be added in the body text, but no fight record should be appear in the fight record section until the fight has been fought. Hidden text can be used to pre record some info in the fight record and after the fight all info in the fight record can be filled for ease of editing. Cassiopeia talk 10:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)- Your submission is sort of oppose/support, the way I'm reading it. I have no objection to upcoming fights being described in the prose with RS, but I am absolutely opposed to any form of preliminary hidden text in the record table, as outlined above. WP:MMA does the right thing by allowing them in the prose, and only in the record table after the fight has taken place. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- Well the suggestion is just for ease of editing. I oppose to this RfC for adding a fight not yet fought in the fight record as it violet the WP:V guidelines and we dont put it there just for viewing that is not how unencyclopedic and that is no how Wikipedia works. Cassiopeia talk 02:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, there may be a slight language barrier here. Can you clarify one more time: do you support or oppose not including upcoming fights in the record table only? For example, edits like this I do not agree with—the fight has not taken place, therefore it should not be on his record table until after it has taken place. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- As you can see, I had already cross out the "suggestion" so it should be clear that I "OPPOSE" fight that has not actually happened to be record in the fight record section in the article. Cassiopeia talk 01:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, there may be a slight language barrier here. Can you clarify one more time: do you support or oppose not including upcoming fights in the record table only? For example, edits like this I do not agree with—the fight has not taken place, therefore it should not be on his record table until after it has taken place. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
- Proposal based on the above comments, what do we think about this as a compromise:
- Fights that have not to taken place should never be entered into a fighter's record.
- Fights scheduled, with sources consistent with WP:GNG and not promotional/tabloid sources and the like, are allowed to have an entry in the text of an article; but again, nothing should be in the fighter's record.
- Rumored fights may only be discussed in an article, even at times have their own stand alone article, when there is extensive coverage from a multitude of sources consistent with WP:GNG. The sources must establish the fight as being a major proposed event on par with an upcoming Super Bowl or Olympics. The coverage of this should be enough that the fight is notable for its absence even if the fight never takes place. Examples of this include the Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao fight covered in the media before their 2015 meeting (as a stand alone article) or the professional fight between Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe that is discussed in both articles as a rematch of their Olympic gold medal fight that never occurred.
This keeps some happy in that records stay 100% accurate, keeps others happy allowing upcoming sourced fights to be discussed, and gives a path for well sourced rumored fights to be included when they are notable. To me, this meets almost all the major points raised. Thoughts User:Mac Dreamstate, User:Cassiopeia, User:Squared.Circle.Boxing, and User talk:CaPslOcksBroKEn? (please add anyone I missed. RonSigPi (talk)
- I would be very happy with this solution, especially point #1. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support #1 and #2. For #3 -Ramous fights should NOT be recorded let a lone have a stand alone article. If a actual fight which had happened and it is extremely important and well-source we can also create a stand a lone page after the fight had happened. Cassiopeia talk 01:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Prose is the place to detail upcoming fights, not the record table. – 2.O.Boxing 18:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
- Support but I would like to propose that an upcoming fight would be listed once the weigh-in has taken place. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Weight in is not an actual fight and should not have the fight info stated in the fight record section but only after the fight since it violate WP:V. Cassiopeia talk 10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Fights are often cancelled in the 24 hour period between the weigh-in and fight. I'd be OK with using the hidden comments only when an event has started, then fill in the blanks and unhide when the result is announced. If a fight hasn't happened then we don't have anything to make a record of. – 2.O.Boxing 12:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Support [[User::Squared.Circle.Boxing]] proposal as that was my original suggestion. Cassiopeia talk 03:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
For the most part that's a wrap, then? The RfC seemed to expire without much activity, but nonetheless that's five supports overall for User:RonSigPi's proposal, therefore a healthy Project-wise consensus. Can MOS:BOXING/RECORD now be amended to deprecate adding upcoming fights to record tables, and to zap all existing ones? And that we'll never have to see edits this or this ever again? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- No objections from me. – 2.O.Boxing 05:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Get those itchy revert fingers clicking, people! Crawford–Spence is exactly the reason this RfC got going. Watch them cancel it with a week to go, and then won't the users I called out above feel a bit silly? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- My finger was indeed very itchy when I saw the Crawford–Spence edits! Is there any need to request a closure? The consensus is clear and in such cases involved editors can close. – 2.O.Boxing 19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure what happens when an RfC sort of goes out on a whimper like that, actually. If editors themselves get to close, that's great. If it still needs outside involvement to 'stick' as a local consensus, well.. where were them lot for over a month? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- My finger was indeed very itchy when I saw the Crawford–Spence edits! Is there any need to request a closure? The consensus is clear and in such cases involved editors can close. – 2.O.Boxing 19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
- Get those itchy revert fingers clicking, people! Crawford–Spence is exactly the reason this RfC got going. Watch them cancel it with a week to go, and then won't the users I called out above feel a bit silly? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
ACRO1STUSE
MOS:ACRO1STUSE: 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. maximum transmission unit (MTU) 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, in which case the expansion can be omitted (except in the lead of its own article) or be in parentheses—e.g. according to the CIA (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency).[a]
I think it's about time we bring boxing BLPs in line with the rest of Wikipedia. The acronyms for sanctioning bodies should be spelled out per the above; they're not listed in the exceptions list and them being most commonly known by their acronym is debatable (for every source that doesn't spell them out, there's one that does). BLPs for UFC, NBA, NFL and NHL spell them out and I'd argue they're significantly more commonly known by their acronyms than the list of alphabet titles. Additionally, non-boxing fans won't have an inkling what these acronyms mean. We shouldn't force readers to click links when we have a perfectly applicable guideline that prevents it.
Pinging involved: @LRQ 98: @Chezza123: @Mac Dreamstate: – 2.O.Boxing 11:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- WBC, WBA (Super), WBA (Regular), IBF, WBO, IBO I think is fair to say are known to boxing fans, and are acceptable abbreviations as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines. It is not a question of "forcing" readers to click links. As the links are provided as sources of information. This is the established way of writing lead sections and the manner in which the vast majority are written. Changing them is not required.
- World Boxing Council (WBC), World Boxing Association (WBA) (Regular version), World Boxing Association (WBA) (Super version), International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Organisation (WBO), International Boxing Organisation (IBO) are unnecessary and I think should not be spelled out in this way. LRQ 98 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I think is fair to say are known to boxing fans
is the point I'm making; only boxing fans know what the acronyms stand for, the rest of the world doesn't. If people don't know what the acronyms stand for then they're forced to click the link to find out. MOS:NOFORCELINK is relevant. MOS:BOXING is based on established policy and guidelines. WP:CONLEVEL applies,participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope
. 2.O.Boxing 13:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)- Let it be known that I've never liked WP's policy on fully-worded acronyms, but I also accept that boxing articles aren't going to get special treatment on WP. All it would take is an admin with a keen eye to notice that WikiProject Boxing is trying to do its own thing compared to the myriad other more mainstream sports mentioned above, and we'd be promptly slapped down on the grounds of WP:CONLEVEL. In December, a pointy IP already got on our cases about this (see Talk:Ricky Hatton), so better to start doing it now.
- And for sure, "World Boxing Association (WBA) title (Regular version)" and "World Boxing Association (WBA) title (Super version)" do look horribly clunky, but it's all I've come up with. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Would this apply also for titles which are sanctioned by other bodies, such as titles sanctioned by the European Boxing Union, Commonwealth Boxing Council and British Boxing Board of Control? Chezza123 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- The only other alternative I can think of for Super and Regular would be to use a note. And no, Chezza, it wouldn't apply to British, Commonwealth or European because we don't use the acronyms. – 2.O.Boxing 15:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- A note—now that I like! I've seen them being used at such a variety of articles—often with far more complicated details than our Super/Regular dealy—that we could easily adopt it. Sometimes I see {{efn|}} being used (e.g., Crawford's article), and other times I see {{refn|group=nb|}}. Not sure if there's a difference. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know the difference either. Will have to look into it. The note idea could also help reduce clutter for undisputed champions. It would be an eyesore for the big four plus the IBO. – 2.O.Boxing 17:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Is there anything that can be done to distinguish the IBO since they are not apart of the main four? Chezza123 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe just continue to list it separately from any sentence containing the word "undisputed". "He has also held the International Boxing Organization (IBO) title since..." or something. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- Is there anything that can be done to distinguish the IBO since they are not apart of the main four? Chezza123 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know the difference either. Will have to look into it. The note idea could also help reduce clutter for undisputed champions. It would be an eyesore for the big four plus the IBO. – 2.O.Boxing 17:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
- A note—now that I like! I've seen them being used at such a variety of articles—often with far more complicated details than our Super/Regular dealy—that we could easily adopt it. Sometimes I see {{efn|}} being used (e.g., Crawford's article), and other times I see {{refn|group=nb|}}. Not sure if there's a difference. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Are we any closer to switching to notes for Super/Regular, etc.? The only sticking point was whether to use {{efn|}} or {{refn|group=nb|}}, but I'm really eager to see how it'll look. Got a good feeling about it. If either Crawford or Spence collect all the marbles, it would also be a good opportunity to experiment prominently (meaning, high visibility so that everyone sees a new format) with undisputed titles as mentioned above. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- After reading Help:Footnotes, I think {{efn}} may be the best option. {{refn}} seems to be used for adding notes within citations, or citations within notes, or something. – 2.O.Boxing 09:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I've tried the note at Savannah Marshall. Wasn't too sure on the exact wording so I kept it simple. – 2.O.Boxing 20:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Looks great. Neat and tidy. I'd only suggest a colon after "... two weight classes", since it's effectively forming a list. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § Suggestion: Changing "Achievements and titles" order in Template:Infobox sportsperson
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § Suggestion: Changing "Achievements and titles" order in Template:Infobox sportsperson. This invitation comes as this WikiProject's {{Infobox boxer (amateur)}} is a wrapper of {{Infobox sportsperson}}. CLalgo (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO world champions pages
Hello, I was wondering if it would be better to change the column "Date" to "Duration of reign" in the WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO list of world champions' pages, to match the List of IBO world champions page. I find by having only the date of assumption of title (in the WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO examples), instead of the entire reign? gives the mistaken appearance that many of the WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO champions' reigned for only 'one' day. GoodDay (talk) GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Highly agree. Date by itself forces the reader to have to glance up and down constantly to find out the span of the reign from the next titleholder's row. The IBO list has the right format. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- T'would make more sense. Duration of reign seems more relevant than date of win in those lengthy lists. Would it be worth trimming the dates down to just the years, except in the current year or when a reign ended the same year it was won, we can include months? The full dates have always annoyed my eyeballs. – 2.O.Boxing 19:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not a good idea as they're surely meant to be exhaustive lists. To find out the date when a boxer won a title, a reader shouldn't have to navigate to their corresponding article and scroll down to the succession box. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. Sorry eyeballs. – 2.O.Boxing 21:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- To lessen clutter, one can adopt the abbreviation style, for the months. Use (for example) "Feb 7, 2019 – Feb 7, 2021". GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- I do like abbreviated months in tables, but seeing as you've started I'm fine with them spelled out. Saves you going back over the ones you've already done. – 2.O.Boxing 23:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- To lessen clutter, one can adopt the abbreviation style, for the months. Use (for example) "Feb 7, 2019 – Feb 7, 2021". GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's a fair point. Sorry eyeballs. – 2.O.Boxing 21:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not a good idea as they're surely meant to be exhaustive lists. To find out the date when a boxer won a title, a reader shouldn't have to navigate to their corresponding article and scroll down to the succession box. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
It's going to take a few days to bring'em all in line with the IBO champions page. Indeed the WBA champions page is a nightmare of sorts, due to its history & adoption of having concurrent (i.e Super/Regular) champions in each division. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
It appears that @Blizzythesnowman: opposes my implementation, concerning the 'reign' dates. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
@Squared.Circle.Boxing: & @Mac Dreamstate:, gonna need your advice here. Shall I continue making the proposed changes or throw in the towel. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- Blizzy needs to come here and voice his opposition. The more look at it, this format looks poor. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
- I have no problems if majority agrees with the new format. It was an old format that I followed when I was editing all of those pages 2 years ago. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Completed
WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO & Ring Magazine champions lists, are completed. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Exhibition records
It wasn't mentioned in the above RFC but I think it's safe to say the exclusion of upcoming fights extends to exhibition records, per the same rationale; they're not guaranteed to happen and the record table is a record of what has happened, not what might. Pinging @GhaziTwaissi: as we've had a revert or two on the matter. – 2.O.Boxing 12:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely that should be the case. Lack of common sense if they think a different guideline applies. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Unexplained abbreviation(s)
Not everyone who reads an article about a boxer knows all the abbreviations. For example, in the article on Dmitry Bivol, there is a box column with his fights. A lot of them have "UD" in a column called "type"(a general word that is used with some sort of specific meaning). The article nowhere explains what "UD" means. It should be explained in some way, e.g., in a footnote or maybe a mouse-over. Kdammers (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
- MOS:ACRO1STUSE gives two options; link UD on the first occurrence in the record table or spell it out with the acronym in parenthesis in the prose. The latter is something I've done in a bunch of articles (see Jack Catterall), and I think fewer links is better when it comes to tables, so I prefer that option. – 2.O.Boxing 01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- Aren't the tooltips sufficient? They begin from the bottom of the table. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)