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)
Indefinite articles in Notes
Apologies for spamming this here talk with yet more nitpicky shit, but there's something in Notes which has started to bug me—or rather, has me doubting myself with one of my old formats when the MOS got started.
For TD/NC/DQ explanations, we currently have these formats (indefinite articles underlined):
Split TD: Boxer cut from an accidental head clash
Originally a TKO win for Opponent, later ruled an NC after they failed a drug test
Originally a DQ win for Boxer, later ruled a KO win for Opponent after an incorrect referee call
Just a tiny bit clunky, but nothing outrageously brevity-killing. And should that be "an NC" or "a NC"? Anyway, if we drop the indefinite articles ("a", "an"):
Split TD: Boxer cut from accidental head clash
Originally TKO win for Opponent, later ruled NC after they failed drug test
Originally DQ win for Boxer, later ruled KO win for Opponent after incorrect referee call
Things start to look really clunky. Conversely, we never use definite articles ("the") for titles:
For WBC welterweight title
Add the definite article:
For the WBC welterweight title
Now that just looks flat-out weird. Any thoughts? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm opening a RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles --Tbf69 15:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: currently, MOS:MISCSHORT allows for all variations listed. I've never liked the dot in "vs.", but maybe it's strongly an American preference that cannot reasonably be expected to make way for "vs" for U.S.-based fights. I would absolutely loathe to see "v" used. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm hoping that there's going to be consensus on this issue that allows for an exception to MOS:MISCSHORT, for boxing match titles.
- --Tbf69 userpage • talkpage 19:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we would be able to apply one or the other across all articles. As much as I love consistency, MOS:TIES should apply. Fights in the UK (and Europe?) should be without a fullstop and those in America (Canada too?) should be with. I'm not quite sure on "vs" vs "v" for British-English; I'd personally prefer "vs", but as Mac has pointed out, "v" seems to be common in English sports. However, looking at a bunch of official fight posters, I'm seeing both being used with no particular preference either way. So we may have an argument to go with "vs" over "v". – 2.O.Boxing 12:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- My argument against MOS:TIES is that many US based sources use "vs", hence it could become the new standard, if consensus is reached via this RfC. --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 12:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we would be able to apply one or the other across all articles. As much as I love consistency, MOS:TIES should apply. Fights in the UK (and Europe?) should be without a fullstop and those in America (Canada too?) should be with. I'm not quite sure on "vs" vs "v" for British-English; I'd personally prefer "vs", but as Mac has pointed out, "v" seems to be common in English sports. However, looking at a bunch of official fight posters, I'm seeing both being used with no particular preference either way. So we may have an argument to go with "vs" over "v". – 2.O.Boxing 12:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Just "v" is primarily a legal, not sporting, usage. "Vs." is usual in the US. Yes, some US sources use "vs", but they're just being lazy. "Vs" is more usual in Commonwealth English. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with "v" having mainly legal usage, but the aim is to standardize and create a consistency with specifically boxing match articles, as this is one area where there is major overlap and inconsistency between American, and British/Commonwealth English.
- Many boxing matches occur outside of these two regions, hence which version is to be used?
- For an example issue, many boxing matches such as Anthony Joshua vs. Andy Ruiz Jr. and Jake Paul vs Tommy Fury are being held in Saudi Arabia, so which version should we use.
- My proposition is using "vs" as an international standard, as it is widely used in US media (I don't believe that's due to "laziness"), and is the most common form of title in many places.
- Thanks, --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 14:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support. The period/full stop is superfluous. -The Gnome (talk) 18:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support/Prefer vs as standard. The Chicago Manual of Style actually prefers "vs." They don't even mention just "vs". However, Merriam-Webster, like WP:MOS, approves of all three. I agree with previous comments that "v." is largely legalistic, so that should simply be discarded as an option. My preference would be "vs" for the sake of practicality and simplicity; it also seems to be more universal than "vs." Scapulustakk 19:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, my main thought is that because "vs" is so standard outside of the USA, and within the USA all three are used, that "vs" should adopted as standard for all articles about boxing matches. --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 19:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster dictionary or manual of style?
- How is "vs" more practical?
- Why is it more universal than "vs."?-- Jahalive (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support using "vs" with no dot, across WP regardless of MOS:TIES. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: disclosing that WP:ILIKEIT. No other reason. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:53, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose replacing "vs." per WP:TITLEVAR. Policy states,
If a topic has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation, the title of its article should use that nation's variety of English
. American-English typically uses full stops for abbreviations while British-English doesn't. Ringtv[1] and ESPN[2] (both American) include the full stop. Support replacing any instances of "v" (I haven't seen any) with "vs". – 2.O.Boxing 13:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)- Unclear what your postion is on fights outside of the US and UK, such as Jake Paul vs Tommy Fury.
- This proposal is about adopting "vs" as standard, as the use of "vs." and "vs" from US sources is mixed (for example: [3]). --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 09:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'd argue Paul vs Fury should be American-English. Without Fury the event goes on with a different opponent; without Paul there is no event. That should be a strong enough tie.
- I don't see the inconsistent usage in some US sources as an issue. The Chicago Manual of Style and Associated Press Stylebook both say to use the period. – 2.O.Boxing 12:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Many others in this RfC see inconsistent usage of "vs" and "vs." in the US, but consistent usage of "vs" outside the US as a reason to standardize on "vs".
- Also, we cannot base the usage of "vs" or "vs." on every match outside the US on a wishy-washy metric of who's more important to the bout. --- Tbf69 userpage • usertalk 12:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Individual publications deciding to go against American-English conventions shouldn't be a reason for us to follow suit and ignore Wikipedia policy. I only see an argument to standardise one or the other for fights between non-English-speaking fighters located in non-English-speaking countries.
- And I don't see my suggestion as a "wishy-washy metric"; the A-side in a fight is the "more important" of the two in the overwhleming majority of cases. – 2.O.Boxing 13:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- We can refer to WP:CONSISTENT however. Also, from an encyclopedic perspective (WP:ENC), we shouldn't be considering the "A-side" in articles. --- Tbf69 P • T 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CONSISTENT says,
There are two main areas, however, where Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control:
...Spelling that differs between different varieties of English
. TITLEVAR is unaffected. – 2.O.Boxing 19:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)- TITLEVAR applies when Americans always spell color that way and those who don’t are seen as wrong (and vice versa for other countries). If people spell it differently by preference, and publications differ by style guide, then we don’t treat that as a national variety of English. For the same reason we are able to apply MOS:LOGICAL quotes to every article despite that style being more common in some countries than others. — HTGS (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- What American style guides recommend "vs" with no period? The only one I'm aware of is the American Medical Association's. If this was a medical topic that recommendation might be relevant, but it's not.
- Wikipedia's MOS says "In sports, it is "vs." or "vs", depending on dialect."- Jahalive (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- TITLEVAR applies when Americans always spell color that way and those who don’t are seen as wrong (and vice versa for other countries). If people spell it differently by preference, and publications differ by style guide, then we don’t treat that as a national variety of English. For the same reason we are able to apply MOS:LOGICAL quotes to every article despite that style being more common in some countries than others. — HTGS (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- WP:CONSISTENT says,
- We can refer to WP:CONSISTENT however. Also, from an encyclopedic perspective (WP:ENC), we shouldn't be considering the "A-side" in articles. --- Tbf69 P • T 17:13, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Question: What would be the benefit of changing all these article titles to a standard form of the abbreviation?--Jahalive (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Cleaner, makes making new match articles easier, makes linking easier. --- Tbf69 P • T 19:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- What do you mean by cleaner?
- How would that make it easier to make an new article?
- Copying and pasting an article title into a link is pretty easy.--Jahalive (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- It'll be cleaner because it will be shorter. And it will be simpler because the often confusing, full stop/period at the end of an abbreviated word would be eliminated. As to c&p, that's evidendly not always the case. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, cleaner, like taking out all those dirty, superfluous "u"s in words like colour and labour. Using "v" would be "cleanest"; it seems to be most popular in Australia, (ex. Australian National Boxing Federation - Upcoming Events, Kambosos v Haney LIVE updates & AS IT HAPPENED: 'Courageous' Kambosos responds to retirement rumours after rematch loss) but I'd like to hear from an Australian.
- It's hard to believe that anyone would be confused by seeing any of the four forms of the abbreviation in this context.
- I don't understand your point about copying and pasting.-- Jahalive (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- It'll be cleaner because it will be shorter. And it will be simpler because the often confusing, full stop/period at the end of an abbreviated word would be eliminated. As to c&p, that's evidendly not always the case. -The Gnome (talk) 10:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Jahalive see WP:CONSISTENT — HTGS (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- As 2.O.Boxing explained above, consistency does not overrule national varieties of English-- Jahalive (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Vs." is not an "American variety" however, hence does fall under WP:CONSISTENT --- Tbf69 P • T 22:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- By far, the most common usage in American English is "vs.", don't you agree?-- Jahalive (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- "Vs." is not an "American variety" however, hence does fall under WP:CONSISTENT --- Tbf69 P • T 22:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- As 2.O.Boxing explained above, consistency does not overrule national varieties of English-- Jahalive (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Support vs as an ideal opportunity for WP:CONSISTENTcy. Whether there is a regional difference is not something I have ever noticed, but I hardly think many Americans will be offended at a missing period on MOS:ENGVAR grounds. In fact, given that you find both forms in many countries, you might say that Americans who use the period are just being extra.
As a secondary preference – in the case that votes win out to treat it as an ENGVAR case – we should at least be consistent with the two, and avoidv
. — HTGS (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC) - Oppose replacing "vs." The most common usage in American English is "vs." It is recommended by The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, The Chicago Manual of Style and the AP Stylebook. The most common usage in British English is "vs" (with no full stop). The most common usage in Australia might be "v", but I was the only one to comment on that. MOS:ENGVAR and WP:TITLEVAR apply. There would be no significant benefit to ignoring these policies and replacing the American "vs." with "vs".--Jahalive (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Mass draftification proposal on Olympians
You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
RfC on omitting upcoming fights in professional boxing record tables
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)
Pending proposal
A proposal to modify WP:NBOXING is pending here. Cbl62 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Notability
Could somebody take a look at Yasmine Moutaqui and let me know what they think of her notability as a boxer? I assumed she would be notable as a IBA Women's World Amateur Boxing Championships and African Amateur Boxing Championships medalist, but I'm a bit confused by WP:NBOXING. Thank you! Mooonswimmer 20:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class=
parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
List of resources?
Does this section have a resource list? If it doesn't, I think having one would be very useful. Maybe someone here is sitting on a bunch of useful magazines or books and could help with some topics. KatoKungLee (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Merger discussion for Deen the Great vs. Walid Sharks
An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Deen the Great vs. Walid Sharks—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chocobiscuits (talk) 08:34, 1 May 2023 (UTC)