User talk:Lorenzo9378

Froch–Kessler II

Niiiice job! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks brother, been a while hasn't it? I haven't been editing much over the last year or so although started doing a bit more recently and plan to do at least a bit more in the near future. That was a page that had been on my mind for ages I just hadn't got round to doing it.

One thing I noticed that seems to have become standard is the way the headings on boxers pages are set out, I'm not going to take full credit for it as it was already in a couple of places which is what gave me the idea but I definitely remember adding the format to several other pages most notably Froch's which for example has 'IBF champion' as a heading then a sub heading 'Froch vs. Bute', kinda hard to explain as I'm not too regular on here but basically the idea was always in the career section always have things like weight class changes and title reigns as main headings then each notable fight have its own sub heading, with the format always being 'Fighter A vs. Fighter B', without it mattering about who was billed first in the fight as Fighter A would always be the fighter who's page it is.

Another change I would like to see, (which may already be happening already by the look of it), is the use of the same names for the weight classes everywhere including on boxer's pages and records. It makes no sense to start changing when you get there as they're not used anywhere else anymore. For example it would mean eliminating all use of the word 'junior' in the weight classes, (which I know we both hate for obvious reasons), who cares if the WBO call it that it might obvious to us what it means but it won't be to others so lets have minimal confusion.

I also wonder whether the wiki names for the weight classes should change slightly, I'm starting to think more use of 'super' instead of 'light' would be better, its more commonly used as well. In fact would only mean changing 'light welterweight' to 'super lightweight' and 'light middleweight' to 'super welterweight'. Maybe there could be one of those votes on it see what people think Lorenzo9378 (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way come back with a bang. I absolutely love adding new links to fight articles in the record tables, if they were of major importance and/or had world titles at stake. This user regularly creates heavyweight title fight articles, so it's always cool to check if anyone fought on the undercards and can be linked to them. Although recently I have taken it upon myself to zap some articles which I felt were not worthy of existing, such as Devon Alexander vs. Lucas Matthysse, Lucian Bute vs. Jean-Paul Mendy, or Kell Brook vs. Matthew Hatton. They hadn't been updated in years, had crap writing, and were never huge events.

I've also enjoyed seeing the section headings entitled "IBF [weight class if applicable] champion" as you pointed out, and how they can be applied to virtually any boxer past or present. Some users who specialise in writing a lot of career-related prose have really taken the concept and ran with it. If it means yet more consistency across boxing articles, that's great. One thing I'm not particularly keen on are 'journalistic' section headings which use buzzwords, such as "Parker–Fury showdown". To me that looks amateurish and something a college media student would write.

Speaking of consistency—the weight class names, as you brought up. Admittedly I was never completely happy with the varying names for weight classes ("WBA super lightweight"/"WBO junior welterweight"/"light welterweight" if both), but it was the quickest solution we could come up with at the time, right before MOS:BOXING started to take shape. With that said, it's been almost three years since that consensus came about, so perhaps it might be time for a change now that we have many more Project members active. However, I would prefer to stick with WP's existing, sanctioning body-neutral formats ("light welterweight", "light middleweight", "super featherweight", etc.), rather than show bias towards "super" or "junior"—especially since both are equally valid in mainstream boxing media (WBA, WBC and BoxRec use "super"; IBF, WBO, The Ring and TBRB use "junior"). If you're really up for it, I can start a new RfC at the Project and we can see what others think. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, actually my favourite part is writing a new fight page and linking other fight pages to it within the text you're already writing, makes it feel like an interlnking story then haha. I mean look how many other fights were able to be linked to the Froch vs. Kessler II page. Yeah I noticed the undercard links you did and I will do an undercard section on the page at some point. One thing I forgot to mention on that was I couldn't for the life of me find a poster for the event, I've seen one on the internet before but this was years ago now and it doesn't appear as though there is any more around. I don't blame you for getting rid of those pages I think we both have a pretty good idea of when a fight is worthy of an article or not and that mainly depends on the notablity the fight plus how much is written and how well it is written.

Yes have noticed that user and his work recently I think its good, he edited the Froch vs. Kessler II page a little as well which I don't mind, but it actually brings me onto another debatable topic. I now prefer to have the fighters names in bold but not linked in the first sentence, as you can see on that page they get linked in the next sentence anyway. Also now prefer to have the fight billing name in italics rather than bold, and top of the info box prefer to have the full names of the fighters involved rather than the billing name, minor things I know, and previously I prefered his style on all three counts. Then again I went on the Vitali K vs. Chisora page I created and noticed I used more of the old style that he uses on there yet I didn't even want to change it haha very strange.

I completely agree on the headings and the consistancy it adds and glad to see others have taken up the concept. Yeah I know lol the people that appear to think they run Parker's page seem to be against putting the standard format on there as well.

On the weight class names, yeah that's understandble and thats a valid reason for keeping it the way it is, its certainly not essential. That said though, as it was three years ago maybe it would be good to get project members opinions on it. We don't have to change it, but if enough people want it then why not. Lorenzo9378 (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An "interlinking story" is a badass way to put it. An important fight card isn't just about the headliners, but the entire 'cast' of undercard fighters. As for the poster, fixed that for you.

Regarding the lead sections and bold text, there are a lot of guidelines at MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLDAVOID, some of which I fail to understand from a logic standpoint. The main thing they seem to dislike are lead section links in bold, so something like "Carl Froch vs. Mikkel Kessler II" is a no-no according to them, but "Carl Froch vs. George Groves" without any bold text looks too barren for my liking. I'll ask them sometime, and how their MOS should apply to boxing articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know it haha, and thanks for adding the poster although I didn't make myself clear, the poster I meant was the official UK poster with 'Warrior's Call' as the billing, if you do a quick google search you'll see what I mean from pictures of the UK press conference its in the background, an image of the actual poster is nowhere to be found though. Having said that, having the HBO version is certainly better than no poster at all.

And yeah I'm a bit undecided on it now like i'm not sure if the billing name should be in bold or italics but maybe the billing name if there was one should be at the top if the infobix, but I agree the bold text at the start doesn't need to be linked but it definitely looks too barren with no bold text. Lorenzo9378 (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seen this by any chance? ;)

Simply badass, dude. It's actually starting to look like a proper encyclopaedia around here! ;-D Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lorenzo9378. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury fight card section

Feel free to answer the fight card question at Talk:Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury. Naue7 (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fury v Hammer

Don't want to start an edit war but I think this document makes it absolutely clear that Fury was stripped of his win over Hammer.

[1]

In accordance with UK ADR Article 9.1, the result of Tyson Fury’s fight on 28 February 2015 against Christian Hammer is disqualified, and any and all titles, prize money and ranking points that he secured as a result of his victory in that fight are forfeited.

I can't see how anybody could argue with that? Topcardi (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Trouble in the Tunnel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trouble in the Tunnel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trouble in the Tunnel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. – Pee Jay 08:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Trouble in the Tunnel (2nd nomination) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trouble in the Tunnel (2nd nomination) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trouble in the Tunnel (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Footballistically (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arnold Gjergjaj for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arnold Gjergjaj is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Gjergjaj (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Sandals2 (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]