Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 10

Bouts billed as championship fights
Throughout boxing history, there have been hundreds of champions. The first disputes go back to the 1890s from the heavyweight title with the recognized world championship lineage of John L. Sullivan through James J. Jeffries. During the reign of James J. Corbett, Peter Maher claimed the heavyweight title and fought for that championship claim against Bob Fitzsimmons in a rematch on Feb 21, 1896. The fight was billed as the world's heavyweight championship, yet most fans and writers at the time recognized Corbett as the true champion. We include this to the record of Fitzsimmons obviously and also for the fight after in which he was "defeated" by Tom Sharkey.

When looking at the landscape of the times before alphabet championships, it is not too far removed from what we have nowadays. How is the middleweight championship landscape of 1911-1913 different from how the first 168lbs undisputed championship took place or any other division's lead up to an undisputed fight in the last ten years? The only differences I see are that nowadays, no decisions (newspaper decisions) are obsolete, and the titleholders do not fight multiple fights between title fights. Look at the careers of Leo Houck, Mike Gibbons, Harry Lewis, Jack Dillon, Georges Carpentier, Cyclone Johnny Thompson, Billy Papke, and Frank Klaus. The undisputed champion was eventually crowned through multiple fights billed as championship fights (aka unifications). The inauguration of the NYSAC title only shows the future trends since Papke was still promoted as a title claimant before his bout with Klaus. The latter had held that alphabet middleweight title. All one has to do is choose their favorite combination of letters and imagine each title claim as a sanctioning body. This shows the importance of a fight being promoted/billed as a championship bout regardless of the era.

When we look at the situation between George Foreman and Shannon Briggs, we are looking at a fight that was promoted and billed as being for the "linear heavyweight championship." I understand the debate which culminated in the removal of lineal titles. I am not attempting to revive a dead argument despite having brought up a word that may indicate that I am trying to do so. I will show an example of what I mean after making my main points.

We already do not follow boxrec blindly, which is abundantly clear when you look at the champions of the Ring Magazine world champions. Boxrec includes no mention of any ring magazine championships, yet we have them, which shows that we do not base our information purely on what is shown on boxrec. Let's do the same in the cases of Tyson Fury, Shannon Briggs, and George Foreman. Watch the ring introductions of Foreman vs. Briggs, Spinks vs. Cooney, and Fury vs. any of his comeback opponents not named Deontay Wilder. Each introduction of the billing of the bout has two unifying similarities. No presence of a physical world championship belt, yet a statement of a fighter being some form of "the heavyweight champion." Boxrec lists no ring titles, as we know, but it lists Spinks vs. Cooney as having been promoted as the world's heavyweight championship. Foreman vs. Briggs and Fury's bouts in between his alphabet fights have no indication of being billed/promoted for any form of the world's heavyweight title by boxrec. We have proven not to care about what boxrec says as set in stone, so this should be completely irrelevant as each fight could, and honestly  should have that note by boxrec as having been promoted as heavyweight championship bouts.

Now, I said that I am not reviving a debate on lineal titles. The examples have focused on heavyweight champions who have been called lineal champions at different points of their careers. Still, this change does not affect all other fighters referred to as lineal champions at some point or another. For example, Guillermo Rigondeaux gained recognition as the lineal super bantamweight champion and never lost that status in the ring or abdicated it verbally. Rigondeaux vs. Ceja would not be affected by this change as the contest was billed as a WBC super bantamweight title  Eliminator. This is a fight that was NOT promoted/billed as a world championship fight, and it must remain as such, whereas the fights aforementioned were promoted & billed as world title fights.

Finally, I would like to say that the conclusion that lineal titles are not to be included in boxing info tables has been a positive effect which has made working on records without alphabet letters much more accurate to the times. The lineal concept did not exist before the 1960s, and it is and always has been disingenuous to call champions prior "lineal" champions. Removing this concept from our records has forced me to read more about how champions were referred to before alphabet titles to retain the historical championships. For example, did you know that while many fans today call Marvin Hart the former "lineal" heavyweight champion, the newspapers reporting on him at the time did not even fully recognize his championship and referred to it as a title "claim"? Furthermore, Tommy Burns won the Police Gazette's vacant heavyweight championship after defeating Bill Squires. Without removing lineal titles, that information would be lost in archives and ultimately in time. I hope that these fights billed as championship fights aren't forgotten in time by the boxing fans who may be passing through an older record.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The reality is that there was never a 'pre-alphabet' era where there was one recognized world champion. Multiple US state commissions recognized their own champions. The BBBofC (and the IBU) declared world champions who were often different to the most-recognized (and usually mob-controlled) US champion. All we should do is report the titles as they were declared at the time, without making judgments about who was the 'real' champion. --Michig (talk) 08:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * And by 'declared at the time' I mean by governing bodies, NOT by promoters, ring announcers, and TV presenters. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I never claimed that there was ever a time when there was one recognized world champion. I am acknowledging that and attempting to come up with a solution for listing the multiple champions in a way that retains historical information.


 * If we simply report titles as declared by commissions, many championship bouts will be lost in time on Wikipedia. There are zero reports of any commissions or governing bodies declaring Tommy Ryan as the welterweight champion, but you cannot refute his welterweight championship. He was also involved in fights that were billed as the world & American middleweight championship, however, we don't have any records of an American governing body substantiating this claim, we just have the records of the fights being billed as such. By saying that we should now require governing bodies to have backed up all championships for them to be listed, we are making unfair judgments on who was and was not involved in title bouts and therefore not being impartial to the historical facts.


 * By restricting this information based on the fact that the IBU, BBBofC, and multiple US state commissions did not recognize Ryan as a champion IS making judgments about who the 'real' champion at the time was and disregarding the reports of the time. European governing bodies and some American commissions recognized champions prior to the 1920s before the long staple of the NYSAC and NBA titles. The problem is that those commissions and governing bodies were not consistent enough and or their champion records are partially missing. Prior to the 1930s/1920s, the way in which champions were recognized was not consistent enough to be held to the same standard. The 1910s and prior was filled with claimants as recognized and acknowledged by the newspaper writers.


 * Furthermore, the many-colored champions of the 1890s and 1900s would have to have their titles deleted based on the fact that there were no governing bodies declaring their colored championships. By leaving notes in the notes section that certain bouts were billed as championship fights, we are giving factual information without our judgments on who does and doesn't deserve to have historical championship records kept.


 * At the end of the day, the notes section is there for important notes about a fight, such as the way in which a DQ or NC occurred, or any titles fought for or included in the billing of the fight, regardless of any opinion on their validity, is an important historical fact.


 * If we are to go based on what you say we should, we must also delete all Ring magazine championships as a magazine is not a governing body. Think for a moment about how deleting these Ring title fights is going to do championship record keeping any good whatsoever.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * There are problems with counting fights that are simply 'billed' as championship fights as genuine title fights, because it's too easy for promoters to do this. When Tyson Fury didn't have a world championship belt, for example, and when even the various bodies that claim to determine the 'lineal' champions had removed him from that position, he was still billed as the lineal heavyweight champion in his comeback fights. I think we need to be careful about which claims to world title fights we include and also be very clear how we present them. --Michig (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I completely agree and that is why my proposal would not affect the List of world heavyweight boxing champions. All it would do is denote that a particular bout was billed as a title fight, rather than proclaim it to be a genuine title fight. I am leaving three different snippet examples of the careers of Foreman, Briggs, and Fury. NOTE: In these examples, only fights with the billing of this claim have this change. Fights such as Fury vs. Seferi, which was billed as a "heavyweight bout" do not have inclusion because the billing does not include the championship claim, despite Fury and the ring announcer claiming that he was the "lineal" heavyweight champion. The same is true for his fight versus Pianeta. Due to these fights not being genuine title bouts, there is no inclusion of having "won" "lost" or "retained" the championship claim.


 * P.S. This would not promote the change of adding all fights with what they are billed as I.E. Ali vs Foster being billed as "The Sound and the Fury" as this is irrelevant to the point of keeping records of bouts that were historically listed as for a championship yet only substantiated by a claim after the consistent establishment of the governing bodies which when unified, denote and undisputed champion: The NYSAC and NBA which later developed into the WBA WBC and later IBF and later WBO and hopefully not the IBO down the line.


 * P.P.S. This does not affect bouts that have any of the sanctioning bodies' titles needed for undisputed at that time.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Flagicons: the rematch
Is it now time to get a new RfC going for these? I'm seeing it become an issue that some editors have encountered. The last RfC took place from December 2015 to January 2016, and ended in a no-consensus. Per bullet point #2, that is to mean flags which were present in a record table for a long time should stay in place, whereas tables which either never had flags (Nick Blackwell, Robin Krasniqi) or have been without them for many years (Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson) should not have them added/re-added. Obviously that confuses many new editors.

From the looks of it, we have a very different group of editors actively maintaining the Project compared to six years ago—whether that makes a difference remains to be seen, as I have no idea what y'alls stance is. Mine hasn't changed one bit. I maintain that professional boxers do not represent nationalities in the same way that amateurs do at an international level. Their licences also don't matter, as David Haye (or was it Derek Chisora?) famously boxed under a Luxembourgian licence in 2012, despite being British. Likewise another Brit, Danny Williams, boxed under a Latvian licence.

As I harped on about in the first RfC 'til I was blue in the face, the most logical reason to get rid of record table flags is that it would completely eliminate the edit wars which pop up in regard to Andy Ruiz Jr. (US/Mexican flags), Carl Frampton (UK/Irish flags), and many others. I'm also not willing to compromise on retaining country flags for the Location column—I want them all gone.

So, before I consider starting an RfC, it'd be helpful to know how many Project members are willing to chip in and be heard. The RfC would hopefully also draw in outside editors with no ties to the Project, for a most balanced set of opinions. It could all end up in another no-consensus, or even a consensus where everyone says "We love these cute little flaggies!".. ugh. Either way, that time might be now. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes. Now is the time. I added the record of Tommy Gibbons only to see it completely deleted and disrespected because some editors are too lazy to learn how to use search and replace and decided the best use of Wikipedia is to hide limit and restrict information.I like flagicons, but some “contributors” of Wikipedia have a vendetta against records saying this is not a database. If deleting flagicons is how we save records so be it. I like the icons and have kept my mouth shut on this topic because of it, but the alternative is to delete mass amounts of information because of know it alls that have never heard of boxrec. Some fighters on boxec have no nationality listed, therefore we need to delete all flagicons. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * A related but different subject is this, which concerns me greatly. It would appear as though there is an opinion amongst some editors that boxing records should not be present on WP at all. We will definitely need to invite them here for discussion, because such a rigid adherence to WP:NOSTATS could affect thousands, if not tens of thousands of boxing articles—many of which we've put shitloads of effort into over the years. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd welcome an RfC regarding flags. As for the record table issue, that would be a hill that I'd happily die on...I pretty much view them as a necessity for boxing BLPs (more so for modern boxers). – 2 . O . Boxing  18:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be great to end the disputes about them, but I have to admit that sometimes I like them so I can quickly see things like "This boxer only fought guys from the UK for the first five years of his career."--Jahalive (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't deny their usefuless as a visual aid for that reason, but I believe the negatives (i.e., the edit warring they attract) outweigh their usefulness. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I have always liked the flagicons for that reason of knowing the nationality of the people they fought, but if deleting them will save all full records and allow me to continue mass adding records, I care more about the record. I have already begun mass deleting flagicons from historical fighters and champions just to be safe. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't recommend mass-deleting flagicons for the reason above, unless you created the tables yourself. If a record table has had them for a while, it may be seen as disrupting WP:STABLE to remove such visually orientated content without a consensus in place. Before the MOS gathered ground, I made the mistake of pre-emptively mass-deleting flags across several articles, only for a pesky IP and some other guy to crawl out of the woodwork in protest of it. The last thing I want with a fresh RfC is for a bunch of concurrent edit wars to bog it down, as happened last time. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I am only mass deleting flags for the records I put in (over 250). Part of my initial goal was to add so many records with flagicons that it would become the consensus, but after this issue with Tommy Gibbons, I am going to do the exact opposite. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the majority of fighters with flagicons pre 1960 are riddled with modern flags that didn’t exist at the time so I think that is a good place to start. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm wary of having concurrent topics running, but this other record table issue—meaning, whether to include them at all—is a serious one with a lot of overlap to the flagicons. It could be that modern boxers (who didn't have hundreds of fights) might need to be treated differently than historical ones. Or, looking at bullet #3 of WP:NOTDATABASE ("Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article..."), we could start adding a collapsible parameter to the really lengthy records. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This is what I have been doing to each record that has newspaper decisions, but it should also be added to any record over 80 fights in my opinion.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have been adding collapsible options for fighters with newspaper decisions already. See Jack Britton and Ted Kid Lewis for examples of how I want it to be. Modern fighters will be affected if we delete fights. See Roberto Duran and Julio Cesar Chavez for examples. I personally feel the collapsible parameter should be in place for every career.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 19:01, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

("Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article...") I do not feel this applies to any record whatsoever regardless of a collapsible parameter as this is the reason we place boxing records at the bottom of the article. The reason I feel all records should be collapsible for those nerds such as us that want to go down to the sources.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

The biggest issue with this is not only that we haven't come to a conclusion, but that there is no consistency. There are plenty of fighters that can't have flagicons because the ethnicity of the fighters some boxers with articles faced is not known. If some articles cannot have flag icons, for the sake of consistency, no records should have flagicons.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Already there's your first stumbling block, and I did try to warn you about mass-deleting them—some editors are (justifiably) sticking to the existing RfC, when there hasn't been a new one to usurp it yet. I really wouldn't advise zapping any more of them until that has taken place. As I said, I know full well what happens when it backfires:, , . Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

When are we going to do anything about this? We need to also think about ease of reading for the visually impared...CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

So does this mean that we just don’t care about people who have visual impairments and have difficulty see through all the pretty colors? Someone on this project said they had difficulty seeing the difference between the previous orange for newspaper decisions and losses. We can’t pretend like people with worse visual ailments couldn’t possibly care about boxing. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How can flag icons be used in cases such as Spain in the 1930s…? What flag is to be used in cases of civil wars where there was no flag consensus…? Also, why must flagicons be protected so much when we do not even list flags that existed at the time…? Cases like Ezzard Charles where the American flag showing is not the 1912 flag that was used at the time. We show the flag of Italy that isn’t representing the Kingdom of Italy in 1944 and instead a flag that was not used until 1946…If we “need” to retain flagicons, perhaps they should be consistent with the flags that existed…? CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Besides MOS:FLAGCRUFT and MOS:SPORTFLAG, this is just another reason to get rid. – 2 . O . Boxing  20:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good either way. I'll get that RfC started this week. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's begin! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just as an observation, reading these boxers records when the flags are present make it look so much better and it's easier to see where they have competed. Would love it to be changed back to that. 2001:569:7120:D500:8D1F:93B3:C4C:B62C (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Infobox tweaks: wins/losses/draws/NCs
Since the start of the MOS, I've been a proponent for including a redundant "0" even if a boxer has no losses, whilst omitting draws and NCs. Not really sure what my rationale was, but it's pointless either way. What's say we simply let the fields for Total fights and Wins balance themselves out and omit "0" from all fields until they become "1" or more? The infobox (truncated for example purposes) for Oleksandr Usyk would therefore look like this:

As can be seen, there is no reason to list "0" losses since the total and wins tally up anyway. Listing "0" for losses, draws and NCs would look even dumber. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with this proposal. It is clear by looking at 19 fights, 19 wins, that there are 0 losses in this context.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The rationale I always figured was behind it was that undefeated records are always emphasised, whereas 0 draws and NCs aren't. Although I like it, I'm not fussed either way. – 2 . O . Boxing  20:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

INFONAT
Can somebody incorporate the guidance from WP:INFONAT into the MOS? Cheers. – 2 . O . Boxing  20:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Are we to begin ditching nationality altogether from the self-explanatory ones? As in, no more  for Mayweather, or   for Joshua? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yea that's the idea. It should only be used for the mandem like Dillian and similar such cases. – 2 . O . Boxing  21:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know, I'll add it to the MOS. Just thinking, it may possibly avert some of the edit warring over English/Scottish/Welsh/NI when it comes to that field. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice one. That's two of the most common types of persistent edit wars that I deal with put to bed. Happy days. – 2 . O . Boxing  04:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like and turns it into something like
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
 * John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from cite web, cite journal and doi.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Sanctioning bodies
I'm always looking at ways to bring as much of MOS:BOXING in line with WP's overarching MOS, so that we don't encounter the ire of editors unfamiliar with our practices at WikiProject Boxing. MOS:INFONAT was a great spot—just another small detail to make MOS:BOXING look more 'legit', shall we say, and not just an "essay". Truth be told, it still kinda stings how that editor put it so dismissively.. got me right in the feelz.

Anyway, one format I've insisted on sticking to for years is abbreviating the sanctioning bodies, mainly WBA/WBA/IBF/WBO, but also IBO, EBU and whichever others are common. However, I may have been going about this wrong. At MOS:ACRO it says:

"Unless specified in the 'Exceptions' section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses ... if it is used later in the article."

Therefore, in order to be compliant with MOS:ABBR, what we should be doing in the lead and body of every boxing article (record tables and succession boxes are exempt for brevity) is replicating the format used in the lead section of Vitali Klitschko‎, namely:

"He held the World Boxing Organization (WBO) title from 1999 to 2000 ... and the World Boxing Council (WBC) title twice between 2004 and 2013."

This is already regularly done with the Boxing Writers Association of America (BWAA) when naming awards, so it's time we start doing the same for the sanctioning bodies. Granted, it might look a bit clunky having to spell them out all the time, and in mainstream media the fully-worded names of the orgs are rarely used, but we have to accept they're not on the abovementioned list of exceptions. We wouldn't have to leg to stand on if any senior editor happened to come along and scrutinise MOS:BOXING for "doing our own thing", which is a possibility if edit wars spill out into WP:EWN, WP:AIV, WP:3O, etc.

Bases covered and all that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, in my first few months of editing I edit warred with somebody to remove instances of this. They won (they linked a guideline or two), but I think I snuck back and changed it anyway (naughty). I don't like it! But I don't really have much of a valid argument to make. – 2 . O . Boxing  08:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Lennox Lewis: British or English
Did Lewis identify as British or English, during his boxing career. If British? Why then is the "U.K." omitted from his boxing matches articles' infoboxes & his BLP's infobox, concerning his birthplace? GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * People born in England are British. There's no need to include UK after England. – 2 . O . Boxing  18:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * People born in Maryland are American. There's no need to include USA after Maryland. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Maryland isn't a country. And we never use USA in locations. – 2 . O . Boxing  18:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * England isn't a sovereign state, either. My concern is that the boxers' birthplace should match their personal preference. We don't add "UK" to Joe Calzaghe's BLP infobox, because he identified as Welsh. We should be adding "UK" to Lewis' BLP infobox, because he identified as British. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Lewis' personal preference of British does match his place of birth. People born in England are British. Both Lewis and Calzaghe are British. England and Wales are in the UK. The reason UK is omitted has nothing to doing with a person identifying as English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British; it's omitted because it's unnecessary. – 2 . O . Boxing  20:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's omitted because over the years, enough editors pushed to have it omitted, which gives the UK special treatment. Anyways, we're just going in circles here. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your last sentence is one thing we can agree on. – 2 . O . Boxing  22:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And the only one we'll agree on, apparently. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Should this article exist?
Should Deirdre Nelson have an article as she did fight Mary Ann Almager for a boxing world title and she did take the Irish government to be the fight licenced female boxer. Irish boxing history-maker Deirdre Nelson challenged for a world title in Las Vegas in her first professional fight | The Irish Sun (thesun.ie), Woman boxer wins legal fight – The Irish Times Dwanyewest (talk) 11:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth
Can we add a note in the infobox and lead sections with links to WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY. It'll give us a more professional look ;) – 2 . O . Boxing  20:23, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not spotting this. Do you mean one of those "See [policy]" hatnotes at the top of a section? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"African Boxing Confederation" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect African Boxing Confederation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And similarly American Boxing Confederation. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

ABC regional titles
I've been using these formats for as long as I can remember.. .. but a recent edit by User:Fep1970 made me realise they're not correct. Yes, they're affiliated with the main orgs, but not labelled as such. Some may remember I made a similar mistake with WBC International Silver. So, zap the prefixed main orgs wherever you see them and just leave the affiliated org. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * WBA–NABA
 * WBC–NABF
 * IBF–USBA
 * WBO–NABO

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)

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 about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles
{{Archive top
 * result =

In this Request for Comment, editors discussed what abbreviations for versus should be used in the context of boxing match article titles. Specifically, the abbreviations v., v, vs., and vs are discussed.

Firstly, I find that there does appear to be a consensus against using v or v. abbreviations in boxing match titles. A strong majority of editors agree that v or v. is either (or both) uncommon in boxing articles or more associated with the legal realm, rather than sporting.

While consensus is not a headcount, I would like the preface by saying there are four editors who made policy-based arguments for a vs preference while there are two against the preference.{{efn|For the purposes of this close, I will refer to those who support a vs preference as the affirmation and those against it as the opposition.}} Furthermore, there was one other editor on the affirmation that gave a WP:ILIKEIT !vote (that !vote will not be considered in this consensus analysis) and there was one editor who never clearly stated or implied their position but made an argument giving some credence to the opposition (that will be given a more limited weight in the analysis).{{efn|These numbers put this discussion in the 30-70% range that are typical of no consensus results. (see here) Of course weight of arguments must be assessed as well. Here is a survey of the !votes: Affirmation: Tbf69, The Gnome, Scapulus, and HTGS Opposition: Squared.Circle.Boxing and Jahalive Discounted: Mac Dreamstate (this users ILIKEIT !vote was discounted but other separate analysis done by them of the dialect differences was considered as you'll see below) Other: SMCCandlish (argued that there is a regional distinction, never stated position clearly)}} The affirmation argues that it would create a consistent standard and would be simpler/cleaner/shorter, while those in the opposition emphasized that there are regional dialect differences{{efn|It was pointed out in the discussion by many editors that vs. is more common in America than in Europe and other areas of the world, where vs is prominent. Regional difference was acknowledged by at least four of the participants (Mac Dreamstate, SMCCandlish, Squared.Circle.Boxing, and Jahalive). This demonstrates that there is considerable agreement on the substance of the oppositions dialect argument.}} that could lead to one article using vs and another using vs. (this argument is grounded in MOS:TIES, MOS:ENGVAR, and WP:TITLEVAR). I think it needs to be noted that both camps have good arguments that are based in Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

To a certain extent, this discussion suffered from a lack of participation, which is problematic considering this could have project wide implications for Wikiproject Boxing. While the affirmation has a technical numeric majority by two !votes, there isn't a silver bullet policy argument here to tip the scale enough to reach a consensus for either side, especially considering the credence given to the opposition by multiple participants. Therefore, there is no consensus to replace vs. with vs in boxing match titles.

(non-admin closure)  Iamreallygoodatcheckers{{sup| talk}} 08:12, 10 March 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 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 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&mdash;Deen the Great vs. Walid Sharks&mdash;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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * Oppose & Suggestion  To 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)


 * Proposal based on the above comments, what do we think about this as a compromise:
 * Fights that have not to taken place should never be entered into a fighter's record.
 * Fights scheduled, with sources consistent with WP:GNG and not promotional/tabloid sources and the like, are allowed to have an entry in the text of an article; but again, nothing should be in the fighter's record.
 * Rumored fights may only be discussed in an article, even at times have their own stand alone article, when there is extensive coverage from a multitude of sources consistent with WP:GNG. The sources must establish the fight as being a major proposed event on par with an upcoming Super Bowl or Olympics. The coverage of this should be enough that the fight is notable for its absence even if the fight never takes place. Examples of this include the Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Manny Pacquiao fight covered in the media before their 2015 meeting (as a stand alone article) or the professional fight between Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe that is discussed in both articles as a rematch of their Olympic gold medal fight that never occurred.

This keeps some happy in that records stay 100% accurate, keeps others happy allowing upcoming sourced fights to be discussed, and gives a path for well sourced rumored fights to be included when they are notable. To me, this meets almost all the major points raised. Thoughts User:Mac Dreamstate, User:Cassiopeia, User:Squared.Circle.Boxing, and User talk:CaPslOcksBroKEn? (please add anyone I missed. RonSigPi (talk)
 * I would be very happy with this solution, especially point #1. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support #1 and #2. For #3 -Ramous fights should NOT be recorded let a lone have a stand alone article. If a actual fight which had happened and it is extremely important and well-source we can also create a stand a lone page after the fight had happened. Cassiopeia  talk  01:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. Prose is the place to detail upcoming fights, not the record table. – 2 . O . Boxing  18:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Support but I would like to propose that an upcoming fight would be listed once the weigh-in has taken place. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Weight in is not an actual fight and should not have the fight info stated in the fight record section but only after the fight since it violate WP:V. Cassiopeia  talk  10:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fights are often cancelled in the 24 hour period between the weigh-in and fight. I'd be OK with using the hidden comments only when an event has started, then fill in the blanks and unhide when the result is announced. If a fight hasn't happened then we don't have anything to make a record of. – 2 . O . Boxing  12:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Support User::Squared.Circle.Boxing proposal as that was my original suggestion. Cassiopeia  talk  03:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

For the most part that's a wrap, then? The RfC seemed to expire without much activity, but nonetheless that's five supports overall for User:RonSigPi's proposal, therefore a healthy Project-wise consensus. Can MOS:BOXING/RECORD now be amended to deprecate adding upcoming fights to record tables, and to zap all existing ones? And that we'll never have to see edits this or this ever again ? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No objections from me. – 2 . O . Boxing  05:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Get those itchy revert fingers clicking, people! Crawford–Spence is exactly the reason this RfC got going. Watch them cancel it with a week to go, and then won't the users I called out above feel a bit silly? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My finger was indeed very itchy when I saw the Crawford–Spence edits! Is there any need to request a closure? The consensus is clear and in such cases involved editors can close. – 2 . O . Boxing  19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure what happens when an RfC sort of goes out on a whimper like that, actually. If editors themselves get to close, that's great. If it still needs outside involvement to 'stick' as a local consensus, well.. where were them lot for over a month? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § Suggestion: Changing "Achievements and titles" order in Template:Infobox sportsperson== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports § Suggestion: Changing "Achievements and titles" order in Template:Infobox sportsperson. &#x0020;This invitation comes as this WikiProject's Infobox boxer (amateur) is a wrapper of Infobox sportsperson. CLalgo (talk) 10:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

ACRO1STUSE
MOS:ACRO1STUSE: Unless specified in the "Exceptions" section below, an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. maximum transmission unit (MTU) if it is used later in the article. Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. Another exception is when something is most commonly known by its acronym, in which case the expansion can be omitted (except in the lead of its own article) or be in parentheses—e.g. according to the CIA (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency).[a]I think it's about time we bring boxing BLPs in line with the rest of Wikipedia. The acronyms for sanctioning bodies should be spelled out per the above; they're not listed in the exceptions list and them being most commonly known by their acronym is debatable (for every source that doesn't spell them out, there's one that does). BLPs for UFC, NBA, NFL and NHL spell them out and I'd argue they're significantly more commonly known by their acronyms than the list of alphabet titles. Additionally, non-boxing fans won't have an inkling what these acronyms mean. We shouldn't force readers to click links when we have a perfectly applicable guideline that prevents it.Pinging involved:   –  2 . O . Boxing  11:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)


 * WBC, WBA (Super), WBA (Regular), IBF, WBO, IBO I think is fair to say are known to boxing fans, and are acceptable abbreviations as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines. It is not a question of "forcing" readers to click links. As the links are provided as sources of information. This is the established way of writing lead sections and the manner in which the vast majority are written. Changing them is not required.
 * World Boxing Council (WBC), World Boxing Association (WBA) (Regular version), World Boxing Association (WBA) (Super version), International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Organisation (WBO), International Boxing Organisation (IBO) are unnecessary and I think should not be spelled out in this way. LRQ 98 (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think is fair to say are known to boxing fans is the point I'm making; only boxing fans know what the acronyms stand for, the rest of the world doesn't. If people don't know what the acronyms stand for then they're forced to click the link to find out. MOS:NOFORCELINK is relevant. MOS:BOXING is based on established policy and guidelines. WP:CONLEVEL applies, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. 2 . O . Boxing  13:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Let it be known that I've never liked WP's policy on fully-worded acronyms, but I also accept that boxing articles aren't going to get special treatment on WP. All it would take is an admin with a keen eye to notice that WikiProject Boxing is trying to do its own thing compared to the myriad other more mainstream sports mentioned above, and we'd be promptly slapped down on the grounds of WP:CONLEVEL. In December, a pointy IP already got on our cases about this (see Talk:Ricky Hatton), so better to start doing it now.
 * And for sure, "World Boxing Association (WBA) title (Regular version)" and "World Boxing Association (WBA) title (Super version)" do look horribly clunky, but it's all I've come up with. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Would this apply also for titles which are sanctioned by other bodies, such as titles sanctioned by the European Boxing Union, Commonwealth Boxing Council and British Boxing Board of Control? Chezza123 (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The only other alternative I can think of for Super and Regular would be to use a note. And no, Chezza, it wouldn't apply to British, Commonwealth or European because we don't use the acronyms. – 2 . O . Boxing  15:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A note—now that I like! I've seen them being used at such a variety of articles—often with far more complicated details than our Super/Regular dealy—that we could easily adopt it. Sometimes I see being used (e.g., Crawford's article), and other times I see  . Not sure if there's a difference. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know the difference either. Will have to look into it. The note idea could also help reduce clutter for undisputed champions. It would be an eyesore for the big four plus the IBO. – 2 . O . Boxing  17:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Is there anything that can be done to distinguish the IBO since they are not apart of the main four? Chezza123 (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe just continue to list it separately from any sentence containing the word "undisputed". "He has also held the International Boxing Organization (IBO) title since..." or something. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Are we any closer to switching to notes for Super/Regular, etc.? The only sticking point was whether to use or , but I'm really eager to see how it'll look. Got a good feeling about it. If either Crawford or Spence collect all the marbles, it would also be a good opportunity to experiment prominently (meaning, high visibility so that everyone sees a new format) with undisputed titles as mentioned above. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * After reading Help:Footnotes, I think may be the best option.  seems to be used for adding notes within citations, or citations within notes, or something. –  2 . O . Boxing  09:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I've tried the note at Savannah Marshall. Wasn't too sure on the exact wording so I kept it simple. – 2 . O . Boxing  20:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Neat and tidy. I'd only suggest a colon after "... two weight classes", since it's effectively forming a list. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)