Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Weight class formatting and consistency

An IP with a rather hostile attitude (1, 2) recently went around edit-warring (and hurling insults aplenty) in the firm belief that weight classes are to be hyphenated. Examples of such edits can be seen at the articles for James DeGale, Zsolt Erdei, Julian Jackson, Gerald McClellan and Carl Froch. The sole source the IP claims as authoritative beyond any doubt is that of Boxing News, a British magazine for which the WP article currently lists no references besides itself. As we know, the UK forms an important part of boxing history, but the sport does not revolve around just one location. The notion that one magazine, however long it has been in publication, should be regarded as the definitive source for terminology which varies internationally smacks of WP:POV, and maybe even WP:COI and WP:PROMO.

However, said variation of terminology in the case of weight classes – particularly the inconsistencies – is a very valid point and needs to be addressed on WP. Right now it is all over the place. I present the formatting for three example weight classes as follows:

As can be seen, the use of all-caps on many of those websites creates much ambiguity regarding case. Obviously on WP we cannot use all-caps, so that can be ruled out, but what about the WBC and The Ring using title case, e.g. "Lt. Heavyweight"? On the flip side, BoxRec uses all lower case, as does WP currently. And just to throw it out there, the UFC uses title case for its own weight classes, e.g. Light Heavyweight.

Now onto hyphens. From the above, only the WBO uses them, as do a multitude of UK publications. And of course, let us not forget the amazing/wonderful/brilliant/oldest-and-most-all-powerful magazine Boxing News, which must be respected because a certain ranting child will otherwise chuck their toys out of the pram if their way is not heeded. Make no doubt about it—we have been TOLD, so there! Either way, hyphenation looks to be more of a UK-centric format. Not common in the US, if at all.

Finally, the variety in the actual names of weight classes is also up in the air. As an example of the most inconsistent one, WP currently uses light middleweight whereas the four main sanctioning bodies (IBF, WBA, WBC and WBO) are split on "super welterweight" and "junior/jr. middleweight". TBRB and The Ring both use "junior/jr. middleweight", making it 4–2 for that name. All the while, BoxRec and Boxing News use "light middleweight", a name which I have an inkling might be outdated, but cannot be sure; in the US it seems to be rare, if not nonexistent.

With all that said, let's discuss—like adults, natch. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If we're referring to titles from particular sanctioning bodies then I would suggest we use the terminology that the sanctioning body uses. For general description of weight classes it would be better to standardize, but taking into account usage in the country that the boxer comes from. Re. the example above, light middleweight is the common usage in the UK I believe and is used by the BBBofC - it would look a bit odd for an article about a British light middleweight to describe them as a junior middleweight or super welterweight, despite what the (generally US-centric) 'world' sanctioning bodies and US publications/websites use. --Michig (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking of too. Regional- and sanctioning body-specific terminology sounds like a good compromise, seeing as standardisation based on all the above variation/inconsistency looks a bit tricky to enforce on WP. In which case, "super-middleweight" (with the hyphen) could be acceptable practice if the titleholder – and therefore article subject – is British. It's a start, right? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
However, what if a boxer holds "junior welterweight", "light welterweight" and/or "super lightweight" titles with different sanctioning bodies? Which one is to be used on WP? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
If we are referring to a specific title I would say we should aim to use the exact wording used by the sanctioning body. --Michig (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
What about consistency? Wikipedia has its own style guide and it should be followed wherever possible. It would be ridiculous to punctuate titles differently based on the sanctioning body if they all differed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
It would be 'ridiculous' to use the exact same title that the sanctioning body for that title uses? Really? --Michig (talk) 19:00, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Let us have a look at the naming minutiae for what WP currently has labelled as light welterweight:

  • IBF – "JR. WELTERWEIGHT"
  • WBA – "SUPER LIGHTWEIGHT"
  • WBC – "Superlightweight"
  • WBO – "JR-WELTERWEIGHT"
  • The Ring – "Jr. Welterweight"
  • TBRB – "JUNIOR WELTERWEIGHT"

All the above are 100% accurate with regard to case and punctuation. Of the six, "junior/jr/jr. welterweight" outnumbers "super lightweight/superlightweight" by 4–2. The use of "light-welterweight", with a hyphen, can be observed as being relegated solely to UK publications. As of 2015, "light welterweight" without the hyphen appears to be used on the WP title only. Even BoxRec recently switched to "super lightweight". Therefore I propose that any variation of "light welterweight" (particularly if touted by an aggressive IP) be dismissed as an outdated niche spelling only.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mac Dreamstate (talk • contribs)

You seem to be looking at this from a very US-centric point of view. From the other side of the Atlantic, the BBBofC uses "Light Welterweight" ([1]), the two major British boxing magazines Boxing Monthly and Boxing News use "Light-Welterweight" ([2], [3]). The European Boxing Union uses "Super-Lightweight" ([4]). You can't dismiss anything outside America as "niche", and if we're describing specific titles we should use the actual name of the title, not an Americanization of that title. --Michig (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Granted, and rescinded on the niche aspect—that was unyielding of me. Not sure where I suggested Americanisation of titles, though? The ones at world championship level are right there, and none of them are labelled as "light(-)welterweight". It's just a case of how faithfully are we to reproduce their naming format. Say if someone held all titles at 140 lbs, would the lead section of their WP article have to state separately that they are the "WBC superlightweight champion", "WBO jr-welterweight champion", "The Ring jr. welterweight champion", etc.? I'm all for accuracy in general, but WP has its own guidelines for standardisation—and there's something in need of it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"dismissed as an outdated niche spelling only"...lol what a spastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.234.117 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well hi there! Nice to see you again, too. Still not going to contribute anything to the topic except for insults? Doesn't seem like Wikipedia suits you. Try your local nursery instead. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on, Mac. It's not clear to me if the hyphens are the dominant usage in Britain. I think we should give more weight to the usage of reliable sources than the sanctioning bodies. When referring to a specific sanctioning body's title, I think we should use the name the sanctioning body uses regardless of the variety of English used in the article, but follow Wikipedia standards for caps and punctuation. When referring to the titles of multiple sanctioning bodies, I prefer to be concise and just use one name for the weight class.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the UK media heavily favours hyphenation, as does the EBU. So, we might as well start inserting the hyphen for British and European boxers—I'm done scrapping with the above IP on that. However, for US- or anywhere else-based boxers, it ain't happening. They can stick the hyphen in as much as they want, and I'll just hit rollback every time. I'm not the one constantly getting blocked for WP:NPA and WP:NOTHERE. With that said, the WBO does use hyphens, but in the case of multiple titles being listed in a lead, it would look silly to have "[Boxer's name] is a former WBO junior-welterweight and WBA super lightweight champion". Instead of separately listing out both, with their inconsistencies, it's better to just default to WP's own light welterweight. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:30, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

MoS:Boxing

I'll keep bringing this up. Unless there already is one and I can't find it, what we need is a manual of style for boxing. This would cover weight classes (correct case, hyphenation [or lack thereof] and sanctioning body differences), use of terminology ("title", "champion", "lineal", etc.), what to avoid ("&", etc.), a standardised lead, and other formatting ("WBA (Super)", "WBC Silver", etc.) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Usage of flags in the articles of Professional boxers.

A discussion at Joe Calzaghe is taking place, concerning the usage of flags in the W/L/D boxes. Further input there, would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Record tables

In record tables (e.g., Manny Pacquiao's), the type column shows the type of result as KO, UD, MD, SD, RTD, or TKO. However, the values are wiki-linked to the page about the particular fight (if there is one), instead of an explanation of the meaning of the abbreviations. I believe the average non-boxing-fan, who might recognize KO, is unlikely to know what RTD means (I didn't). Also, it's not apparent which abbreviations are used for the various types of draw outcomes, "D" already being used for the "decision" values.

I suggest that the link to the fight should instead be from the date or the result (win/loss) column, and the type values should be linked to the explanatory page or section (e.g. UD). Alternatively, have a footnote with a table of the possible values with short descriptions linked to the explanatory pages. I'd suggest a template be used for the rows to ensure consistent formatting and make it easier to change things if needed (like add mouse-over alt-text with the descriptions). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've long been in favour of using the fight date as the link to a main article. However, when I once tried using such a format, it was reverted by a user who hardly ever made any useful contributions to boxing articles. Thankfully he no longer edits, and he never based that assertion on any consensus, so screw him. Regarding the abbreviations, we could use the tooltip function on the first instance of a term, starting from the bottom of the table: {{Abbr|UD|Unanimous decision}} .. which results in: UD, SD, TKO, RTD, etc. Either that or provide a key above and below the table, like how it's done with motor racing drivers. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Having taken this suggestion on board, here is what it looks like in practice with Lennox Lewis' professional record. I think it looks much better, and less ambiguous than linking the articles via UD, TKO, etc. Let's get a consensus from everyone else on that as well.

Support or Oppose linking to individual fight articles via date instead of result type? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: format of boxing weight classes

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.
There is consensus for the changes, in fact it is WP:SNOW support, with clear consensus. AlbinoFerret 17:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

How should weight classes be formatted on WP, and how should how professional fight record tables be presented? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Following on from the above section, I propose that it is now absolutely necessary for a manual of style to be established for boxing articles, or at least BLPs. There has been much edit-warring going on, especially regarding whether or not weight classes should be hyphenated ("light welterweight" vs "light-welterweight"), capitalised ("super featherweight" vs "Super Featherweight"), presented in accordance with sanctioning body titles ("WBC super welterweight" vs "IBF junior middleweight" vs "light middleweight" if a boxer holds both), or simply follow BoxRec.
Furthermore, the format for professional fight records should be set in stone. I'm seeing something like this a lot: "30 Wins (15 KOs), 2 Losses, 0 Draws"—the capitalisation baffles me. I have tried on a few articles to change it to something like: "32 fights, 30 wins (15 knockouts), 2 losses"—without the redundant "draws" field. All this and more awaits discussion for the RfC. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

While we are at it - and I agree the above should be standardised although I have no opinion which way - I don't think upcoming fights should be part of the record. No issue with those within a few weeks but there are some months ahead with no more information than a date. The MMA project has a MOS for records which we could take as a model and insert into this project.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree we should standardize on hyphenation - we currently have weight class categories that don't match the titles of articles on those weight classes. I'm not really fussed whether we go for hyphenated or non-hyphenated. I think I covered the title naming above - if we are describing a specific title then we should go with the actual name of that title. I definitely wouldn't follow Boxrec too closely - it's riddled with errors for one thing. As for future fights, I agree they shouldn't appear on a boxer's record - even a confirmed fight can be called off at the last minute due to injury. Also no need to capitalize 'fights', 'wins', etc. as mentioned above. Some standard for presenting records would be useful as there's little consistency at present - maybe look at what formats are currently used in boxer articles and standardize on the best one. --Michig (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I want to see how this conversation goes but we could copy the MMA records MOS into a subpage and start modifying it to this projects needs. I would like to suggest some cross-project consistancy where possible (I mean if there is no real difference between hyphen choice).Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of adopting some of the MMA formatting for record tables. However, first and foremost I'd to get the weight classes standardised, as that doesn't require any copying and pasting—just a consensus. They are the subject of most of the edit warring I've seen recently: from this to this, we have one unresponsive editor insisting on capitalisation and no hyphens, whilst the other insists on lower case and hyphens. I'm in the middle, in that I prefer lower case with no hyphens. I highly disagree with capitalising them like proper names: unlike the UFC, boxing weight classes are not a "brand" like the UFC's "Welterweight" or "Light Heavyweight" divisions, etc.—the weight ranges themselves are completely different, as is the sport itself, and they only have a fraction of the weight classes that boxing has.

So I'll start: if we go by User:Michig's example of using exact sanctioning body formatting, then that hits several stumbling blocks in the way of standardisation. The sanctioning bodies all use different formats, and are case-ambiguous except for The Ring and BBBofC, which use proper names. That doesn't even take into account hyphens: the UK media favours them (but not the BBBofC), as does the EBU, but only the WBO uses them in the US. It's unfeasible already, and here's where it starts to get really messy: say a boxer has unified the WBO "JR-WELTERWEIGHT", WBC "SUPERLIGHTWEIGHT", IBF "JR. WELTERWEIGHT", WBA "SUPER LIGHTWEIGHT" and The Ring "Jr. Welterweight" titles. What is their infobox, lead and fight record meant to say? Listing all those separate titles with case all over the place looks ridiculous, when we could simply bypass all that soup and use what WP already has—light welterweight. What if a boxer has the WBA "SUPER LIGHTWEIGHT" and WBC "SUPERLIGHTWEIGHT" titles, or the IBF "JR. WELTERWEIGHT" and WBO "JR-WELTERWEIGHT" titles—which format do we use? I say screw all that and use light welterweight, as the WP article is already named. Or, a boxer wins the WBA "SUPER LIGHTWEIGHT" title, loses it, then later wins the IBF "JR. WELTERWEIGHT" title. Surely the infobox weight doesn't get changed just because of a sanctioning body? Again, screw both of them and stick with light welterweight. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

OK - then my preference is all lowercase no hyphens. That as mentioned has a certain consistancy with what WP already does. Your right - get this sorted first and then deal with the MOS on record tables.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
One more anomaly that would arise from using exact sanctioning body format: the WBO uses "JR-HEAVYWEIGHT" instead of cruiserweight, "LT-HEAVYWEIGHT" instead of light heavyweight, and "SUP-MIDDLEWEIGHT" instead of super middleweight. Articles would look mighty dumb if we were to recreate all that, letter for letter. Imagine a lead that says..
"[Name] [(birthdate)] is a [nationality] professional boxer. He is the current WBO LT-HEAVYWEIGHT champion, having held the WBO SUP-MIDDLEWEIGHT and WBC SUPERMIDDLEWEIGHT titles."
Seriously..? Imagine that then going on their infobox, prose, fight record, and achievements navbox. This what I'm getting at and I'll keep repeating it until I'm blue in the face—we need standardisation, because right now anyone (including me) who edit wars over these things cannot refer to an MoS like in other WP subjects. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should get too hung up on abbreviations and punctuation used on websites. I doubt the engraving on the belt itself says 'SUP-MIDDLEWEIGHT'. Everybody is going to understand 'SUP-MIDDLEWEIGHT', 'super-middleweight' and 'super middleweight' to mean the same thing, so there would never be any real need to go to that level of specific formatting - pick one of those. In the infobox we just put the weight class so if there's more than one name for the same weight class my preference would be to go with the name that makes most sense to the boxer's nationality, but I could live with one name for each class there. --Michig (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
So let's pick. And how do we define formats for nationality? Where do we set it in stone for other editors to check—maybe here? We've got the formats for the US and Europe somewhat laid out, but what about Canada, Africa, South America, Australia, East Asia, etc.? It's not as simple as basing a hyphen on nationality—there's way too many permutations, and who has the time to go around checking the format that every continent on the planet uses? Plus, we also still have the case to deal with ("super featherweight" vs "Super Featherweight"). As for "hung up", one only has to look at this IP (and their continuing history) to see what "hung up" really means. Without an MoS, it's hard to explain to RfPP or AIV what they're doing wrong besides being abusive; and they've been doing that crap monthly since June. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Please, before you reach any conclusion this situation should also be explained to other Wikipedia editors and ask for their opinion, including the ones who have contributed to the Wikipedia articles of Miguel Cotto, Floyd Mayweather, Jr., Sugar Ray Robinson and Muhammad Ali between others. I'm obviously referring to those articles because the editors in charge still choose to use the capitalised letters when referring to weight classes and similar style of record tables. Let's just wait and reach an agreement with other contributors to boxing articles so we can all share our opinion. I've been reading this discussion and I think there are several points which I agree with but as this is a serious matter that will modify several articles, we should also wait for other users opinion.--Fallengrademan (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For any future editors joining in and having a look for sources other than that of sanctioning bodies, I've gathered up as much for English-speaking media as I can in a single sitting. So, in no particular order, whilst always trying to include a two-word weight class:

UK

  • Boxing News: lower case, hyphenated ("super-middleweight")
  • Daily Mail: lower case, mixed hyphenation ("super middleweight" and "super-middleweight")
  • Daily Mirror: lower case, hyphenated ("light-welterweight")
  • The Sun: lower case, hyphenated ("light-heavyweight")
  • Sky Sports: lower case, hyphenated ("super-middleweight")
  • BoxNation: title case, hyphenated ("Super-Middleweight")
  • BBC: lower case, hyphenated ("super-middleweight")
  • ITV: title case, no hyphens ("Light Welterweight")

Lower case vs title case: 6–2
Hyphenation: 7–1


US

  • ESPN: lower case, no hyphens ("light heavyweight")
  • The Ring articles: lower case, no hyphens ("junior middleweight")
  • The Ring rankings: mixed title and lower case, no hyphens ("Light Heavyweight" and "light heavyweight")
  • BoxingScene: lower case, no hyphens ("Super middle", "Light welter", etc.)
  • Boxing News 24: title case, no hyphens ("Light Heavyweight", "Junior Middleweight", etc.)
  • Fightnews: lower case, no hyphens ("super lightweight")
  • Transnational Boxing Rankings Board: title case, no hyphens ("Light Heavyweight", "Junior Middleweight", etc.)
  • BoxRec: lower case, no hyphens ("super flyweight", "light heavyweight", etc.)

Lower case vs title case: 6–3
Hyphenation: none


Australia

Lower case: ubiquitous
Hyphenation: 2–2


Canada

  • Canoe.ca: lower case, hyphenated ("super-middleweight" and "light-heavyweight")
  • Winnipeg Free Press: lower case, hyphenated ("light-heavyweight")
  • Montreal Gazette: lower case, hyphenated ("light-heavyweight")
  • Toronto Sun: lower case, hyphenated ("super-middleweight" and "light-heavyweight")

Lower case: ubiquitous
Hyphenation: ubiquitous


South Africa

  • Sport24: lower case, hyphenated ("super-middleweight" and "light-heavyweight")
  • Times Live: lower case, hyphenated ("super-middleweight" and "light-heavyweight")
  • IOL Sport: lower case, no hyphens ("super middleweight", "junior welterweight", etc.)

Lower case: ubiquitous
Hyphenation: 2–1


My observations:

  • Title case just isn't a common format. Ditch it altogether and let's never hear of it again. Think of it like this: weight classes are categories—concepts, even—as are music genres. The latter are not considered proper names on WP, per MoS, so let's have the same rule for boxing weight classes. Otherwise we might as well start writing "Super Welterweight™ Championship© Title®" like WWE or something.
  • It's clear the US does not favour hyphenation whilst the rest almost unanimously do. However, what to do in the case of non-US boxers who are based in the US, such as Sergey Kovalev? It would seem odd to hyphenate his weight class in accordance with European media, when most of his coverage (TV networks, etc.) is US-based.
  • I'll ask again—if we end up going with sanctioning body format, surely it's best to default to "light[-]welterweight/middleweight" in the case of a boxer holding both a "super lightweight/welterweight" and junior welterweight/middleweight" title? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:32, 7 November 2015‎ (UTC)

Capitalization

The weight classes should use lower case. This is consistent with MOS:CAPS.

Furthermore, the words "title", "champion" and "championship" should absolutely not be capitalised, like they are way too often right now. Again, they are not proper names even though a sanctioning body may prefer to stylise them in title case, e.g. "World Heavyweight Champion". That's something WWE can get away with, because it's their specially branded title, but boxing sanctioning bodies are not brands—they hand out belts for weight classes, which themselves are not branded (unlike UFC). Mainstream media also doesn't capitalise them, so neither should we. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hyphens

I'm not convinced that we need to standardize this rather than use the national variety of English used in the article. For Kovalev that is American English.

Title names

When referring to one specific sanctioning body's title, I think we should use the name the sanctioning body uses. When referring to the titles of multiple sanctioning bodies, I prefer to be concise and just use one name for the weight class (Ex.Floyd Mayweather held the lineal, WBA, WBC and The Ring light middleweight titles.)

Record totals

I don't have an opinion on this beyond saying it seems like a waste of space to write "0 draws" or "0 No contests" for the vast majority of fighters.

Record table format

I haven't noticed many problems or edit warring with these so I'd rather not spend our efforts on this. I do like to see upcoming fights in the tables.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this kind of edit warring—particularly the full stops at the end of sentence fragments—is exactly why I included record tables in the RfC. In fact, I finally found WP's own guideline which can finally put an end to such edits: "They should not have final punctuation unless they consist of complete sentences." That's helpfully set in stone for us already. Therefore, this is how the "Notes" column should read for, e.g., Andre Ward's fight against Rodriguez: "Retained WBA (Super), lineal and The Ring super middleweight titles". NO full stop at the end.
I have no problem with adding upcoming fights if they have a date (not necessarily venue) confirmed by at least one realiable source. However, ambiguous date ranges like "2016" and nothing else should not be accepted. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
That dispute on the Andre Ward article is typical. It's about capitalization and the format of record totals. If we can write a MOS for those and the other two issues above, that should solve about 99% of these silly disputes.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I do have an issue with up-coming fights especially those more than a month in advance. Its supposed to be a record and too much can go wrong. The MMA records do not allow them for the same reason. Much as we rely on Boxrec it should not be considered a reliable source for future events.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Ronda Rousey's MMA record has listed her upcoming fight with Holly Holm for a long time. If an event and opponent is confirmed by reliable sources (major media outlets, not BoxRec) for a boxer or MMAist, why not include it? It's like an everday calendar—things change, but things in writing are also assumed to go ahead unless otherwise stated. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
According to the MMA MOS on records the Ronda Rousey's upcoming fight should not be listed (pretty much for the same reasons I listed). The place for up-coming fights is in the text along with a suitable reference.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Project page guideline/MoS

Five editors seems to be all we can dredge up so far—at least those who are willing to discuss and communicate. Any other editors appear to be limiting themselves solely to regular record table updates, or the ones listed as WikiProject members aren't all that interested. No problem. So, after we get some support/oppose answers to the basics (I'm cooling off on record tables for now; the edit warring isn't happening on those as much, so I'll revisit it later unless someone else wants to take it on in the meantime), I am willing to write up a similar style guide to that of WikiProject MMA, and put that on the WikiProject Boxing front page so that editors can finally have something to which to refer. Let's get to it. Support or oppose:

Weight class hyphenation

Fighters based in the U.S. (e.g. Sergey Kovalev/light heavyweight), no hyphens. Fighters based anywhere else (e.g. James DeGale/super-middleweight), use hyphens. To avoid edit warring of this kind.

Weight class case

Lower case for all weight classes, including the words "champion[ship]", "title", and "lineal". To avoid edit warring of this kind.

Weight class naming format (infobox)

Use WP's own neutral article name, e.g. "light[-]welterweight", "super[-]featherweight", etc. to avoid sanctioning body variation altogether.

Weight class naming format (lead, prose, tables, navboxes)

If a fighter has won titles by only one sanctioning body in a weight class, use a near-exact replication of their naming scheme ("WBA super[-]lightweight" or "WBO junior[-]heavyweight", etc.) If a fighter has won titles by multiple sanctioning bodies in the same weight class, default to WP's own neutral article name to avoid cruft and confusion ("WBC and IBF light[-]middleweight" instead of "WBC super[-]welterweight and IBF junior[-]middleweight"). To avoid edit warring of this kind.

With five editors weighing in, hopefully we can avoid a stalemate and reach consensus. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no issue with following your lead. Write up the MOS and post it.Peter Rehse (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I've now got most of the infobox and lead section guidelines written up, but not much on prose or record tables—and those aren't my main concern right now. How would I go about making it visible to everyone else here to offer feedback? In a sandbox or something? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Where is it now? If it is not on wikipedia I would just put it here - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines. People will look at it and comment if they feel its necessary - or more to the point lack of comment means acceptance. I figure two weeks for comment should be enough.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
A lot of this has been paraphrased and adapted from WikiProject MMA, but here's what I've cooked up so far:
I moved the lot to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines so it does not get confused with the regular talk discussions. It looks good.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

List of The Ring world champions

An editor is changing Jimmy McLarnins nationality from Canadian to Irish, and Rinty Monaghan from British to Irish, this may tie into the above flags debate, d we remove ALL flags on the Ring artcile? Or do we go with what was used previously? Murry1975 (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Please refrain from edit warring Murry1975, it is not constructive. Both McLarnin and Monaghan were born in Ireland and self identified as Irish throughout their careers and until their death. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Neither are associated with the state, and its flag. Monaghan was a British title holder. Do you have any evidence of these alleged self-identification with the state? Stop using OR and conjecture, but thanks for the hint. Murry1975 (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple sources on the internet referring to both boxers as Irish. McLarnin wore a shamrock on his shorts and used "Irish", "Celt" etc as his nicknames, Monaghan sang "When Irish Eyes are Smiling" after his fights. Surely there is a better way to go about editing articles without edit warring. --Donniediamond (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
From Andrew Gallimore’s book on McLarnin: Jimmy McLarnin, with his fierce blue eyes, bright green robe and shamrock on his shorts fought like an Irishman’s supposed to fight. He was brave and game and knocked opponents out cold. Jimmy became, in the words of one Ring columnist ‘an absolute Godlike idol with the Irish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donniediamond (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The confusion may lie with the fact that they were both born on the island of Ireland before any part of it had independence as it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Also, Murry1975 has a point about Monaghan not being associated with the state as he would need Irish citizenship which he was not automatically entitled to if you read Irish nationality law#Historical provisions (the 1956 Act was retroactive but he retired in 1950) as he was from Belfast and legally choosing to be British and/or Irish was only mandated in the Good Friday Agreement of 1998. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe that that is correct. Monaghan was born on the island of Ireland before 6 December 1922 and therefore automatically an Irish citizen. Not only that but he was described as Irish in the press then and still is now and his ring nickname was 'the Singing Irishman'. --Donniediamond (talk) 10:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
As stated above that was retroactive and since he retired in 1950 he did not represent Ireland in boxing as he was born a British citizen and no proof he took up Irish citizenship during his career (which he was not entitled to at the time as the law came into effect in 1956 and was the law of Ireland not Britain anyway) and he was fighting for the British title etc. He may have been ethnically Irish but back then it would be like calling someone Scottish but they are still British. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Jimmy McLarnin was also born in what is now Northern Ireland (still in the UK) and he was born to a Protestant family but that doesn't really matter as he lived in Canada since he was 3. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
He was born in Ireland. Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland state that he was legally Irish. His nomme-de-guerre was Irish. He self identified as being Irish and the media then and now consider him Irish. Just yesterday he was voted the best Irish boxer of all time by a British boxing television channel. Oh, and they have Rinty Monaghan in that list as well, which is rather convenient considering the above discourse. Pretty cut and dried really.--Donniediamond (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Many people from Northern Ireland are ethnically Irish but do not take up Irish citizenship you seem to be confused between the two as both boxers never represented the Republic of Ireland. The current sources on both their pages (as is on pretty much every boxers Wikipedia page) is Boxrec and both have no mention of representing the Republic of Ireland see [5][6]. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 15:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
You have completely ignored the facts I have put forward. Born in Ireland. Self identified as Irish. Identified in the press at the time and now as Irish. You do not have to represent the Republic of Ireland to be Irish, that is a rather spurious suggestion. BoxRec does not have a field on nationality, it has a field on place of birth and residence, even if it did it would not trump the rest of the sources. --Donniediamond (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I know you do not have to represent the Republic of Ireland to be Irish that is what I am saying! They can be ethically Irish but the Republic of Ireland is a country which they did not represent. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. But no professional boxer represents a country per se. I am not stating that he represented the Republic of Ireland internationally, just like he never represented Canada or the United States internationally. I am stating that his nationality is Irish, that considered himself Irish as did the media then and the media now. I have backed this up with multiple sources. If you require more I am happy to provide them. I recognize that he lived in Canada for over a decade, however that does not make him Canadian and he did not identify as Canadian. --Donniediamond (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
But he has Canadian citizenship and there is not proof he had Irish citizenship the flag on the tables show the Republic of Ireland flag and nationality is different from ethnicity. Here is a source that calls him Canadian [7] it is from Encyclopædia Britannica which is like and predates Wikipedia which states Irish born Canadian and Canadian boxer his Wikipedia was previously Irish-Canadian which was also true as he was an ethnic Irish and Canadian citizen. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 16:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, he was an American citizen for the vast majority of his life. In any event citizenship is not the same as nationality. McLarnin self identified as Irish, not 'ethnically Irish', not 'Irish Canadian', but Irish. The vast majority of sources identify McLarnin as Irish and that should be reflected in the article. --Donniediamond (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Many sources call him Canadian and his own page stated "the second best Canadian boxer of all-time" and when you added referred to as the best Irish boxer it still did not refer to the Republic of Ireland which are the flags you keep changing it to. He was raised in Canada since he was 3. Lennox Lewis page does not state he is Jamaican (where his parents were born), it says holds dual British and Canadian citizenship, nor does it say the boxer of Jamaican decent and this goes for many other pages as citizenship is included. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Did McLarnin even hold Canadian citizenship? I've not seen any evidence that he did. When he went to America at 14 he had no documentation and had to apply to retrospectively for a Canadian birth certificate which was falsified to say he was two years older than he actually was and this birth certificate simply said his place of birth was “Ireland”. He had obtained an American passport in California and was an American citizen for the rest of his life. I am sure there are sources that state he was Canadian and others state he was American more again state he was Irish but he himself self-identified as Irish not Canadian or American and that I believe has primacy over the three. --Donniediamond (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hi all! I just wanted to let you know, that I created three categories for {{boxrec}}: Boxrec ID different in Wikidata, Boxrec ID not in Wikidata and Boxrec template with no ID. More interesting to project memmbers would be 1st and 3rd category. So, the first one is mainly for copy-paste errors - the ID is wrong here or at Wikidata, so it should be corrected. I assume, you know how to edit Wikipedia articles :), but if you have problems with correcting IDs at Wikidata, just leave me a note here, or article's talk page or my talk page (with ping), would be better to include also correct ID. There is some knid of related manual for Sports reference ID. And the third category is for another error - the ID isn't present at article or Wikidata, so it should be added to Wikipedia article, at least. The second category is more for Wikidata people :) but feel free to add ID to Wikidata. If you have some questions, I will be happy to answer them. Merry Christmas! --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:33, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Notability guidelines

Two recent deletion decisions appear to me to be going directly against the notablity guidelines found at WP:NBOX. The two articles in question are:

No. 2 of the guidelines states "Has fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title for an affiliated organization of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated (NABO))." In Magali's nomination, the editor stated that the regional titles (IBF Pan Pacific, WBC International, and WBO Oriental). A similar discussion transpired for Bogdanov and his WBO Oriental title fight (where he fought Magali).

So the question is this: Do the regional titles of the four main sanctioning bodies count to establish notability? I always thought they did, but the confusion may lie in the distinction of the affiliated organization (e.g., OPBF is an affiliated organization while IBF Pan Pacific is under the structure of the IBF). I cannot see that there is that much more coverage for the WBC-affilated African Boxing Union over the IBF Continental Africa title.

If so, then what about a clarification change to the following: "Has fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title for of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF Latino, WBA Pan African, WBC International, or WBO European) or an affiliated organization of one of the above listed major sanctioning bodies (e.g., IBF-affiliated (USBA), WBA-affiliated (BUI or PABA), WBC-affiliated (ABCO, BBBofC (and its predecessor the NSC), EBU (and its predecessor the IBU), NABF, or OPBF), or WBO-affiliated (NABO)). RonSigPi (talk) 03:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Disappointing to see that both of those articles have been deleted. I would have voted to ‘’’Keep’’’ both of them. I feel they have both got to a level where they are notable as they satisfy Criteria 2. Please post any boxing related AfD’s to this page so they can be assessed.--Donniediamond (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
In my reading neither satisfied Criteria 2 in that #2 did not refer to a blanket coverage of regional titles but listed specific ones. There are so many titles in the boxing world and many could not be considered notable so a specific listing for regional level is necessary. That was the intent behind #2 but for sure the language does need tightening up to avoid the understandable confusion. There have been grumblings in the past that the criteria were too loose and I tend to agree but lets discuss. Looking at User:RonSigPi's contribution above I would remove the e.g. for clarity's sake and question the inclusion of the WBC International title. International titles are stepping stones to the world title and I am not sure they are notable in their own right.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
It certainly requires some discussion. It's always a difficult one, but think the bar is pretty high for some boxers and low for others. Are we saying that these boxers haven't fought at a level high enough to win an EBU affiliated national title which would have given them automatic notability? I believe they have. Plus wasn't Magali involved in that ill-fated bout with Browne in Australia? There was a lot of coverage about that fight in the media. --Donniediamond (talk) 12:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Regarding European level, I've interpreted the guidelines as granting notability to any fighter who has fought for at least the European Union (EBU-EU) title, what with it being the highest regional level title below the full European (EBU) version. I could be very wrong, hence a few articles I've created would fail notability.. D'oh. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
To follow on, I believe notability should be granted to a boxer who challenges for at least a second-tier or interim version of the main sanctioning body's titles. Mainly I'm thinking of WBC Silver, as that title has pretty much always guaranteed a shot at a world title somewhere down the line—it seems to work in the same way as an interim title. However, below that tier, I do not think notability should be granted to International, Inter-Continental, NABO, Youth, Asia/Pan Pacific, Latino, Fedelatin, and other such regional titles. If those are all that a boxer has fought for, then IMO they are not notable enough to warrant an article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
At the moment WP:BOX would give notability to anyone that has fought for a International or Inter-Continental of one of the big four under Criteria 2 : national or higher non-world title for an affiliated organization. It would also give notability if you won the Irish, French of British titles. That's how I am reading it anyway.
What could cause some concern is Criteria 3 : ranked in the world top ten of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO. It's not really very difficult for a good promoter to buy you into that position. In any event I think the bar is already too high for boxers, especially when looking at the criteria for other sports such as Curling or Golf.--Donniediamond (talk) 09:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I disagree completely with ranking being an indicator of notability. As you said, everyone who follows boxing knows that top-ten rankings can be "bought" or attained via dubious means. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
When the WP:NBOX had its last major update, I believe the intention was that, e.g. WBC International, WBO Oriental, and IBF Pan Pacific titles would be considered part of the "…or higher…" of WP:NBOX №2, hence Carlo Magali would be notable. The justification being that if (IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO affiliated) national titles are notable, then the (IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO affiliated) international titles are also notable. The difficulty with boxing is the hierarchy is not as clear as in, e.g. association football (soccer) which has one (albeit corrupt) world governing body (FIFA), and one administrative body per continent (Africa, Asia, Europe, North/Central America & Caribbean, Oceania, and South America). I believe the intention for WP:NBOX was to have global uniformity, so that, e.g. the European Boxing Union was considered as notable as, e.g.the Oriental and Pacific Boxing Federation. As an aside, I believe Andrey Bogdanov would also be considered notable, not because of his Russia, Baltic Boxing Union, or World Boxing Union (German Version) title fights (unless they are IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO affiliated (I don't believe they are)), but WBO Oriental featherweight title fight. Interestingly, Russian Federation Professional Boxing Federation is affiliated with Pan Asian Boxing Association that is affiliated with WBA, but Russia is affiliated with European Boxing Union that is affiliated with WBC… if only life was simple. This was one of the reasons I initiated the List of boxing organisations article back in July 2013, my intention was to try and define the hierarchy of Associations/Councils/Federations/Organisation and their respective titles… but I haven't got around to it. Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Rankings are a murky and underhanded business that it true but I can understand why that criteria might have been added and as you said it is because of the lack of structure to professional boxing. Whilst I don't like it, I still think the bar is already higher for boxing than most other sports especially other combat sports. If we consider MMA, you only have had to have 3 fights at any level in either of UFC, Bellator, Invicta or Shooto to be considered notable, and lets not even discuss Kickboxing.
By the way, great work of the List of Organizations DynamoDegsy.--Donniediamond (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I raised some of my concerns regards top-ten rankings here… Notability via Ring magazine rankings, i.e. are the historic top-ten rankings as published in The Ring readily available, e.g. who, according to The Ring, were the top-ten middleweights in October 1964? As an alternative to top-ten ratings, perhaps the top, e.g. 1% of 'lb for lb' boxers in the BoxRec all-time rankings could be considered notable? (5488-boxers) Or perhaps any boxer scoring more than, e.g. 100-points in the BoxRec 'lb for lb' all-time rankings could be considered notable? (4010-boxers). Best regards DynamoDegsy (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

In view of the discussion I made a proposal here - Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Boxing clarification - consistent with what is discussed above. While I understand some of the rankings concerns for #3, since #2 is causing actual and active controversy over its lack of clarity, I think its best to focus on #2 and once that is resolved work on #3 if necessary. RonSigPi (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Flag icons 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.
There is no consensus. The responces are thought out, but are to evenly split. One opinion is that they provide easy identification of the nationality of boxers. The other that flags are a magnet to disagreement and that words are better than flags. Being a no consensus close WP:NOCONSENSUS should apply and appropriate guidelines should be followed. AlbinoFerret 22:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Should flag icons be included in professional boxing record tables?

Would you agree to using only sovereign state flags? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Using flags will merely open up disputes over which flags to use. For example - IMHO, we should stick with only sovereign state flags. But not everyone agrees with this. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as professional boxers do not represent nationalities in the same way as amateurs. They flip-flop all the time, and it practically invites edit wars such as whether Danny García should have an American or Puerto Rican flag; Sakio Bika an Australian or Cameroonian flag; Omar Figueroa an American or Mexican flag; Arthur Abraham a German or Armenian flag; Nonito Donaire a Filipino or American flag; Joe Calzaghe a British or Welsh flag; etc. etc. etc. WikiProject MMA started the initiative of ditching flagicons many years ago, so WikiProject Boxing should absolutely follow suit. And I quote:

In the column Opponent, do not add flag icons before the name of the opponent. Per MOS:ICON, the consensus in Wikipedia is that flag icons should not be used to emphasize nationality without good reason. Flag icons for sportspeople should only be used in a sporting sense, that is, only when they are representing a national squad/team or for representative nationality in a competition, not legal nationality. There is no international sport governing body in MMA and MMA events are mainly handled by individual promotions. As such, MMA fighters do not represent their countries in a sporting sense, so flag icons do not serve an encyclopedic purpose. Flag icons should not be added only because they look good, because aesthetics are in the eye of the beholder: one reader's harmless decoration may be another reader's distraction ... In the column Location, do not add flag icons as they are redundant since the country must be mentioned in the text and their usage in such conditions is against Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons), they increase server load and can be annoying for people with slow connections or text-based browsers.

And if anything, MOS:FLAG clearly does not support its use in this case:

If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.

Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The RfC was: Should flag icons be included in professional boxing record tables? The proposer's rationale relates to the fight location, not to the opponent, which appears to be how other editors have responded. In general, I find flag icons to have a useful role as an aid to visual navigation. However, with regard to the opponent, I am swayed by Mac Dreamstate's argument that many fighter's change their nationalities, and, therefore the MOS:FLAG quote is relevant here. Consequently, I oppose including flagicons in the opponent column. With regard to fight location. I agree with the proposer that flagicons allow us to see in which country the fight took place far quicker than by reading the location alone. For example: Of the two articles on boxers that are WP:FAs, only one includes a professional boxing record table: Susianna Kentikian. Here flag icons are used alongside locations. Within a couple seconds, by looking at the flag icons I was able to discover that all but one of her fights were in Germany. Without the flagicons it would have taken considerably longer, maybe 30 times longer, to discover the same information. That makes them useful, not merely decoration. Consequently, I support including flagicons in the location column. To summarise:

*Oppose including flagicons in the opponent column

The location in text should give the same information.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
It does. But flagicons are far quicker to scan than text. Daicaregos (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
And that leads us right back to the issue we had at Talk:Joe Calzaghe, as to whether national, sovereign, or state flags should be used for those locations, and how consistently that should be applied across WP. Yet, it could all be avoided with just a written location and an extra minute or so of reading—which really isn't much effort to expend, if one has actually decided to take the time in reading the table in detail. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
@Daicaregos: Not what I meant. Made the question as neutral as possible and I would prefer to have flags for both location and opponent because I would still have to click on the fighter's page to see where they are from as they might be from the same city or country and it might be in a neutral location. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
So you prefer to have them, but look at what happens when there is disagreement on their consistent usage—all of which could be avoided without having them there in the first place. Also, MOS:FLAG is not in your favour here, as this is just the type of situation in which their contentious use is discouraged altogether:

Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags, and flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words. ... If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.

Therefore, whenever there is a flag involving a fighter from the UK, there is a strong chance of someone going around and changing the flag to England/Scotland/Wales/NI or vice versa. Or if a fighter is American in birth and citizenship, but strongly identifies as Puerto Rican or Mexican, someone might be hellbent on their flag being either of the latter. I've seen both situations, repeatedly. Note that the most oft-used source for record tables, BoxRec, also does not display flags next to opponents. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The idea of using flag icons is to determine a fighters' place of birth, whether that fighter strongly identifies himself/herself as Puerto Rican or Mexican because of his/hers descendence is irrelevant, thats a personal opinion, if we state in WikiProject Boxing that flag icons should only be used to determine a fighter's place of birth then that would end discussions. Oscar de la Hoya, for example, has Mexican descendence and though he might also speak spanish or wear a Mexican flag when he enters the ring he was born in the United States, it's his place of brith. We can't ask every fighter that has an artile in wikipedia whether they would like to be recognized for his/her descendence or place of birth. I repeat flag icons should only be used to determine the fighter's place of birth, not his/her descendence.--Fallengrademan (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Flags for place of birth still leaves an open window for users to edit war over trivialities like whether to use flags for UK/England/Scotland/Wales/NI, or US/TX, etc. Also, your flags-for-birthplace logic falls completely flat on these example scenarios: Sakio Bika, born in Cameroon, now citizen of Australia. Same for Vic Darchinyan, born in Armenia, Australian citizen. Roy Jones Jr., born in the US, now a Russian citizen. Paulie Malignaggi, born in Sicily, US citizen. Stop the madness! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
No, flags should only be used to determine a fighter's place of brith, if Darchinyan was born in Armenia then the Armenian flag should identify him, this same criteria should be applied to Sakio Bika, Malignaggi and Jones, Jr.--Fallengrademan (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Why can we not just follow WP:Manual of Style#Identity and use what they prefer like British or Welsh? Then use this as the basis for location like if they identify as British then use the British flag in location then a Welsh flag if they fight someone that identifies as Welsh and they fight in Wales. Not applicable for U.S. states as their Wikipedia articles don't say the Texan boxer. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
@User:Fallengrademan, that is utterly absurd. Are you seriously suggesting that there should be a Zimbabwean flag next to Dereck Chisora, when he has UK citizenship and explicitly "represents" the UK? Or Arthur Abraham, who is a German citizen and has boxed almost his entire career in Germany, despite being born in Armenia? Or how about the current Haitian-born contingent, namely Adonis Stevenson, Bermane Stiverne and Jean Pascal, all of whom are Canadian citizens and are based in Montreal? Your reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the IP user 92.237.211.110.--Fallengrademan (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I also agree with IP 92.237... Wikipedia's Manual of Style is not absurd at all and this is not the venue to disagree with it. As for the example given, Dereck Chisora, virtually all descriptions of him to use "Zimbabwean" do so as "Zimbabwean-born" and the vast majority note him as a "British boxer". His own website gives his nationality as "United Kingdom <sic>" So, as far as WP:Manual of Style#Identity is concerned, he should be noted as British, as he is on his Wiki page. There is no reason not to follow MOS here. Daicaregos (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Why is there a back-and-forth dispute going on over Daicaregos' position? Neither he or the other Keep the flags editors are going to change their stance. Just like the Delete the flags editors are not gonna change theirs stance. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The point of an RfC is to encourage debate, not stifle it. And, as my previous comment suggests, I have changed my stance - to that of following a perfectly good and applicable part of MOS, namely WP:Manual of Style#Identity, as suggested by IP 92.237... above. Daicaregos (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Daicaregos, are you interpreting WP:Manual of Style#Identity as saying flags should be included? #Identity only addresses non-sport cases where there is a dispute over what text term to use for someone. Sports cases are covered by MOS:SPORTFLAGS - if someone is officially representing a country then exactly that flag may be used, if there is no official representation then there is no flag. Flags should not be arbitrarily used to indicate or assign nationality. Alsee (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
My rationale for opposing the inclusion of flagicons (now struck, above) was that Mac Dreamstate suggested that as boxers are prone to changing their nationality, it was best not to include it. However, I now agree with the IP who said we should adhere to MOS#Identity and use the nationality that sources use or with which they identify. Daicaregos (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Support inclution of flag icons in the professional boxing record tables. I see no problem in adding flag location to the professional boxing record tables. It's faster to identify the country.--Fallengrademan (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Would you agree to using only sovereign state flags? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment User:Fallengrademan is now canvassing multiple users but not presenting his invitation in a neutral manner—he is already saying to them that he is in favour of flagicons, which goes completely against WP:CANVASS. Please be aware of this, along with other users joining the discussion. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for that, I did not know I could share my opinion while inviting them, I already change the messages. Cheers.--Fallengrademan (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Would you agree to using only sovereign state flags? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@GoodDay, that might be a good idea, but it would be better to hear all the other users opinion.--Fallengrademan (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I've asked them aswell :) GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
TwoNyce, please don't call someone a "bully" for opening an RFC. RFC is a core dispute resolution mechanism here. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and by opening the RFC they are implicitly consenting to the consensus outcome. They could get blocked if they were to persist after an unfavorable consensus. Alsee (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Would you agree to using only sovereign state flags? GoodDay (talk) 14:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment Heh, accusations of bullying is a new one to me—cool stuff. How's that ownership of the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. article going? User:TwoNyce clearly has the concept of bullying confused with WP:BOLD, as that's what was needed to get things changed on WP. Edit wars regarding weight classes, case, and other details have been going on for years, as User:TwoNyce knows very well: 1, 2, 3, 4. All of that bullshit could be avoided with an MOS in place, which is exactly what I've tried to do here. Forget the flagicons for a moment—things like weight classes fall under basic WP:MOS, and nobody has so far voiced a problem with what I've proposed. But hey, if throwing around accusations of "bullying" is your way of saying "I can't hang" when changes are on the horizon, then that's your problem. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment @Mac Dreamstate Changes are only on the horizon when people agree on a resolution, there is still not a resolution, we are still discussing and you keep editing articles with the excuse of the WP:BOLD when you know there are some users who do not agree with your point of view. However, if some user reverts your edit you instantly blame him/her of trying to create "edit wars", so the logic of WP:BOLD only applies to you? NO. If you go now and edit an article knowing that there is still a discussion going on and people have yet to agree with what you state, then you are aware that they will come back and revert your edit. Nor TwoNyce, you or any other users are owners of any article. Furthermore, this type of behavior: But hey, if throwing around accusations of "bullying" is your way of saying "I can't hang" when changes are on the horizon, is exactly what I meant when I told you to not take things for granted. You have been here pleading for months trying to get an MOS written up, well now you have an answer, and several users are giving you their opinion. If you go now and start editing articles based on your MOS knowing that it is still not approved, that there are users who are not aware of this discussion or that simply do not support your claims, then do not try play the victim. Oh and by the way using words like "bullshit" is not going to take you anywhere, you need to calm down.--Fallengrademan (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment OK, so first I'm a "bully" and now I'm a "victim"—keep 'em coming. Maybe "keeping calm" doesn't translate all that well through text, but all's calm over here. At the least I've actually got people talking about this stuff—and guess what made that happen? Me being extra-bold and editing a bunch of articles to see if editors would finally be attracted to this discussion area. It worked. So I've edit warred—again, if that's what it took to get everyone here, with opinions aplenty, then it was worth it. I'm more than willing to discuss, compromise, discuss some more and compromise some more, but it wasn't until the IP from June started doing his thing, followed by me having to go to WP:DR to get you, User:Fallengrademan, to even say a word, that anything actually got rolling here. It had to be done, because silent edit wars (1, 2, 3) weren't getting anybody anywhere. Begrudge my conduct all you want, but the fact that we're here and discussing can only be a good thing. As for the actual MOS and agreement/disagreement on it, only three users including yourself have weighed in on it so far. The bulk of the discussion above pertains only to flagicons, which is a far less significant matter compared to all the inconsistencies like weight classes, record table formatting, lead, etc. If all that still makes me a "bully", anyone is welcome to take it to WP:CONDUCT and we'll go through yet more typing exercises without anything getting settled at this WikiProject. Very productive, I'm sure. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose flags. MOS:SPORTFLAGS says Flags should never indicate the player's nationality. Flags are only to be used if someone is officially representing a nation, such as in the Olympics or a national sport team. Alsee (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose flags Flags are pretty, but words are better. And flags are cruft unless you know know what they all stand for. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC).
  • Support For me it makes it really quick and easy to see nationality of a boxer's opponents at a glance. Likewise flags for countries where he boxed. Images work better for me than words. Mouse over easily gives name of country if I don't recognise the flag. Perhaps we need to make it clear that this just represents the boxer's nationality, not that he has or does represent that country officially. I could live with replacing flags with nationality in text but to me that is overkill and too big a job.Rcbutcher (talk) 06:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose flags per User:Alsee comment above, nationality is only related to a few specific events. MilborneOne (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I'm slightly ambivalent. Including the name would be helpful to the reader to easily see where the boxer is from. On the other hand, as other users have stated, these boxers do not necessarily represent their country on an olympic level. Meatsgains (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose flags Based on MOS:SPORTFLAGS and the user Farmbrough's argument and WP:MOSICON in general.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment – Once again a case for ditching flags: an IP figures that Carl Frampton (via Scott Quigg) should be displayed using the Ulster Banner (Northern Ireland). The same has also happened for some time at Frampton's article, mainly on the amateur infobox. And I say again, the whole issue would vanish if we followed WikiProject MMA with their no-flags rule. It's a no-brainer: either appease—even babysit—those who claim to "need" a "visual aid" to discern a country or nationality instead of text, or we make the issue over flag-wrangling (such as at Joe Calzaghe and Frampton) go away once and for all. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ditto for Deontay Wilder, where an editor is insisting on using a Mexican flag for an American fighter. Same has happened in the past for Omar Figueroa and Mikey García. Schtaaaap the madness and zap those damn flags! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Editor preferences noted to date:

Support RfC to include flag icons in professional boxing record tables - 7
Oppose RfC to include flag icons in professional boxing record tables - 6

Daicaregos (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Where to next? A deadline so that the rest of the MOS can be dealt with? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
If they're not going to be eliminated? Push to have them all sovereign state flags & limited to location usage. GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
There's also the self-identification/birthplace thing which needs to be set in stone. Hopefully another RfC won't be needed for that or the sovereign state issue. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Repository of older boxing images

I found a repository of some images of older boxers, circa 1922–1958 (though almost all are undated): [8]. They're all from the collection of Harry E. Winkler, who was a correspondent for The Ring from '39 to '53, which is held by the University of Notre Dame library's special collections. While some might be PD, and some might be appropriate for uploading as fair use images, many would probably work best in the context of a {{external media}} box. Anyway I'm dropping this here since I think someone more into boxing than myself could make use of them. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Gary Stretch

Gary Stretch has been an actor and a boxer. The part of the article about him that's about boxing is largely unsourced, and there's an objection that it's inaccurate. (See its talk page.) I know next to nothing about boxing and thus am nowhere near as well qualified to fix the article than is the average viewer of this talk page. Please help. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Change to boxing notability guidelines

In view of recent discussions, I made a proposed change to the boxing notability guidelines here: Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Boxing proposal. RonSigPi (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Darnell Boone

OK, so he meets none of the criteria at NBOX, but hear me out on this idea. I believe Boone warrants an article for several reasons: 1. He handed Adonis Stevenson his first and only loss to date, and fought him again; 2. He stretched Sergey Kovalev to a split decision, and fought him again; 3. He knocked down and gave a young Andre Ward hell for a few rounds, on a prominent stage as part of the Mayweather–Mitchell undercard; 4. Has fought many other well-known names across weight divisions such as Erislandy Lara, Curtis Stevens, and Brian Vera. I'm confident of finding refs to verify all the above. I just think he's a special case, having troubled the current top three light heavyweights in the world and creating a long-lasting buzz in doing so. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing/Archive_4&oldid=1137391762"