Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 2

Boxers nicknames Part III

 * Following on from the two proposals above I suggest the following proposal - all common nicknames that are backed up by multiple reliable sources should by included in the infobox - whether they are negative or positive, official or unofficial.
 * I think we have established above that a boxers nickname is a central piece of information. Many fighters have more than one nickname, take the following examples for instance. Anthony Small has multiple comedic nicknames including "the Scream", "Sweet Pea" and "Sugar Ray Clay Jones Jr." - he isnt the only one and I think all should be added.
 * But not all boxers like their nicknames and infact many find them offensive or misrepresentative. However, I feel that at wikipedia we shouldnt take peoples personal feelings into consideration and we shouldnt cover up negative aspects of a biography. We dont hide the fact that Luis Resto destroyed a mans life or that Mike Tyson disfigured another fighter. We dont sweep things under the carpet to be polite - this isnt a dinner party!
 * We also shouldnt ignore negative nicknames. Jimmy McLarnin didnt like being called "the Hebrew Scourge" or "the Jew Killer", Nikolai Valuev finds "the Beast from the East" offensive, Thomas Hearns objected to "the Hitman", Victor Ortiz doesnt like being called "Vicious", John Mugabi didnt like "the Beast" and Kermit Cintron doesnt like being called "the Killer" because of his charity work, Audley Harrison hates "Fraudley" and "A-Farce", Paulie Malinaggi never liked being called "the Dead End Kid", as did Sam Langford being called "the Boston Tar Baby". But interesting Ricky Hatton has embraced the "Ricky Fatton" nickname and even wore a fat suit during his ringwalk at the Juan Lazcano fight and "the Ghost" was also used as a term of abuse by another fighter towards Kelly Pavlik and then Kelly turned it positive and took it as his nickname.
 * Basically what I am saying is that boxers often have multiple nicknames and often have nicknames that they dont like but as long as they are commonly used and backed up by reliable sources then it should be shown in the infobox. I would also add that if there are multiple nicknames then if one is an official nickname then we should have (official) after that one.


 * Support as nominator.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support claudevsq (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support yeah, I dig it. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support sounds reasonable--twelsht (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support I originally would have preferred only the official nicnames, but reading your explanation it sounds good. I agree. Unak78 (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support When you put it this way it is a good idea when you put it that way. The K.O. King (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, we're unable to impliment. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of WBO Champions
I'd like to develop a consensus on recognition of World Boxing Organization championships. The List of current world boxing champions includes the WBO belts. If we do decide to recognize the organization's champions, historically when should we start that recognition?

I oppose recognition of the WBO. The Darrin Morris situtation is one reason why. The WBO moved him up in their rankings twice after he died.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The WBO (along with the WBA, WBC & IBF) is a recognized organization. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Recognized by whom?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant to say they're sanctioned. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sanctioned for what and by whom?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * See WBA, WBC, WBO & IBF for elaboration. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In those articles I see that:
 * In the past, the WBC clearly opposed recognition of the WBO.
 * The IBF article implies that the WBO is not recognized in Japan.
 * The WBA recognizes WBO champions when determining their super champions.
 * --SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a hugh mess, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Heavyweight class, the WBC & IBF are generally considered the most prestiges, with the WBO next & WBA last. Now, the IBO is a different story. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats a bold statement GD!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Valuev, just doesn't deserve his belt. Holyfield should've been award the title. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ABCs are generally run by idiots, if we were going to remove recognition of them every time that they do something stupid the lists will become obsolete. Take for example the massive creation of multiple fringe championships by the WBA. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  02:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that we revisit the recognition of sanctioning bodies every time they do something stupid. We'd never stop reviewing the WBA.
 * The question I'm asking is why should the WBO be recognized? If we don't even ask this question we have no justification for not including the IBO, WBU, etc.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The WBO & IBO have been around since 1988. Since the IBO tends to join others in recognizing champions; the WBO is given prominance. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For me, there's no doubt of the legit claim that the WBO has on being a sanctioning body. The IBO, I don't know, but the WBO is for sure one of the "big 4", and that at least for, let's say, 10 years. That's my opinion. claudevsq (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ten years? That's an interesting starting point. Was there anything in particular that happened ten years ago that made you consider them worthy of recognition?


 * I don't think anyone would argue that they were worthy from the start, when their first WBO heavyweight title fight was between Francesco Damiani and Johnny DuPlooy.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for fights
It appears that the standard naming convention for fights is for example Larry Holmes vs. Gerry Cooney, Bernard Hopkins vs. Felix Trinidad etc.

Should the following fights be renamed to keep the same convention?


 * Mayweather-Judah boxing match
 * De La Hoya – Mayweather boxing match
 * Tyson-Holyfield I

...and others.

Please give your thoughts. Seth Whales (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer using the '-' instead of the 'vs'. Eitherway, those matches should be consistant. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article titles should reflect how the fight is commonly known. Ex.: Thrilla in Manila, Tyson-Holyfield I, Ali-Frazier II. We shouldn't standardize them.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Audley Harrison
I have started a BLP Noticeboard thread about the Harrison article. Project members are welcome to join the discussion and leave their opinions. Jamie S93  20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Artie Diamond
Artie Diamond is at AfD, the discussion could use some expert opinion. J04n(talk page) 02:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Septuple champion
I am not willing to tackle Pacquiao's popularity head-on. So, let the project decide if we should include Camacho's NBA title as a minor title, which would made him a septuple champion as well, despite only in the "major + minor" classification. I reverted the removal of the "major + minor" table twice, I had previously restored it by going back to an older reversion, but the user clearly doesn't want to use the talk page. Thus, due to his "my POV its undoubtly correct" approach, I protected the article for a bit. The protection will be completely removed once we get a concensus to quote. its protected for the time being. Now, if we are recognizing the "ABCs + Lineals" in Pacquiao's case (as everybody seems to be doing) then I see no problem with a "major + minor" table as long as its explicitly clear which ones are minors. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  09:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Referee Technical Decision
The term "Referee Technical Decision" seems to be made up, RTD is likely to mean "Retired" instead. Thus, the article entitled Referee technical decision should be moved to "RTD" or "Retired" with the current title being deleted. A discussion on this issue and what "RTD" means held on the BoxRec forums has resulted in the aforementioned.--Emaster82 (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always been of the opinion that RTD means retired as well so would agree with the title changeNotjamesbond (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We need a reliable source for this.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot provide such a source. Is there a source, though, which says that RTD means "Referee Technical Decision"? The article's creator commented as follows: "Created article. Largely, I am doing this because I was unable to find anything but (strong) anecdotal information on what an RTD is. I hope that someone can improve/refine this article."--Emaster82 (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find much. There is this [], but it's not as reliable as I'd like.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The following sources have now been provided in the above-mentioned BoxRec forum thread: "RTD = Retired is in Abbreviations and Definitions, page 11 of the British Boxing Yearbook 1985 It is also in the Boxing News Annuals and Pugilato record books"--Emaster82 (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have access to (one of) the sources mentioned one paragraph above? (Every expert on the BoxRec forums opines RTD means "Retired" so that it's just a matter of providing a reliable source.)--Emaster82 (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Universal Boxing Organisation
Is this organisation deemed notable enough for an article? I did find this reference which refers to a fight between Joseph Kwadjo and Zulfikar Joy Ali. Eldumpo (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead an create it. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was already created but I have now added some references and text. Any input to improve it would be welcome. Eldumpo (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ouch, they have Dariusz Snarski as their lightweight champion... -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  05:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Shaheed Benazir Bhutto International Boxing Tournament
Anybody who could help me with developing article on Shaheed Benazir Bhutto International Boxing Tournament? --Saqib talk 16:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Farnell
Is Anthony Farnell worthy of keeping or can members of this project help to save it from a AfD? --Jza84 |  Talk 12:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It easily passes WP:ATHLETE as he has competed at a fully-professional level of sport. The article does need expanding and more references though. --Jimbo[online] 12:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

McWilliams & McJoe Arroyo
Ok, here's a tricky one. I'm under the impression that McWilliams Arroyo and McJoe Arroyo are the only set of twins to medal at the World Amateur Boxing Championships. I know that Wladimir Sidorenko did it, but as far as my memory goes, Valeriy failed to do so. Can someone clean the dust off the record books and check if this is correct? -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  05:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Amateur boxing isn't my area. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sports Notability
There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons
The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at WikiProject Boxing/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 32 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Xenobot Mk V to tag articles in project scope and/or auto-assess unassessed articles
A request has been made at User:Xenobot/R to tag & auto-assess articles in the scope of this project based on and/or auto-assess the project's unassessed articles.

To auto-assess, looks for a stub template on the article, or inherits the class rating from other project banners (see here for further details).

Feel free to raise any questions or concerns regarding this process. The task will commence after 72 hours if there are no objections.

The-Pope (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ 4770 edits. – xeno talk 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ultraweight division
I have just proded ultraweight as a hoax as I cannot get any ghits on it. If this is mistaken, con someone here please remove the prod notice.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  19:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/William Smith (boxer)
The article for William Smith (boxer) has been nominated for deletion. J04n(talk page) 09:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Mass blanking of ten thousand articles by a 'bot
It has been proposed that we mass blank articles using a 'bot. This is going to affect several biographies of boxers, amongst other things. For details, see the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC) discuss this

We're now at the stage where the 'bot is ready to roll, and no-one has voiced an objection. (Indeed, to the contrary: Several people want to go further, and mass delete the articles.) If the 'bot goes ahead, this will probably light up some people's watchlists like Diwali. Be warned. Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Audley Harrison
Could somebody please fix the "Professional boxing record" section? For some reason the table is messed but I am not sure why. Dr. Loosmark 12:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed it up, except for the color scheme in the WIN/LOSS column. I don't know how to get rid of the color teal. Harrison's current record is 27-4, he's to meet Haye on November 13, 2010. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Finishing Professional Records
Hi, I joined today and have always have wondered if there is any plan to complete the professional records on most, at least modern, boxers?

There are a lot of fighters such as Miguel Cotto who are top ranked but fail to have professional records on there pages. I can speak from experience that it's not the most entertaining thing to do. But I notice that virtually all major kickboxers and MMA fighters have professional records written up. Not to start a comparison battle.

I was wondering if people wanted to add this to the to-do list. Of course there have to be a list of boxers who are most urgent and are considered "modern". ~Ghost563~ 9/20/2010 7:13PM EST

Roy Jones Jr Record is wrong
He has 7 losses not 6. On the list of his fights at the bottom they missed the Griffin loss by dq when he was 34-0. Sorry I would fix it but don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.105.76 (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Boxing articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release
Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Boxing articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (&diams;) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Craig Snyder (boxer)
The article Craig Snyder (boxer) is tagged as an unreferenced BLP. It needs attention. I'm posting here in case someone with more knowledge of boxing might like to take an interest, decide whether the subject meets WP:GNG or not, and provide at least one reliable third party reference.--Plad2 (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Plad2, My name is Craig Snyder and I have a great deal of boxing knowledge because I am the person this wiki page is featuring. If you would like some more reference sources, I have a scrap book from both my amateur and professional boxing careers and would be happy to scan & upload articles which may be of interest to update and properly reference any information that is contained in an article for wikipedia. you can leave me a reply here if you would like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.112.237 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Again Plad2, Craig Snyder Again. I also Have a relatively recent photo of my friend Harry Arroyo which you may want for his wiki page, I can scan and upload this photo if you would like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAOArtist (talk • contribs) 22:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are who you claim? it's best you not get too involved with that article, per WP:COI. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

FAR notice
nominated Simon Byrne for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

John C. Heenan: projected rewrite
Having rewritten the article on Tom Sayers (using the previous article as a sort of template), I would now like to do the same for Sayers's great rival, Jack Heenan. Since this article is deemed a stub, the rewrite will be more substantial. Any thoughts? Iain07 (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing
I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Outline of boxing
There is no Outline of boxing.

To create one, click on the redlink above and add this line:

 boxing 

Then press save and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

For a relevant discussion see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/archive 40

Here's the outline they created: Outline of birds.

The Transhumanist 19:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sports outlines currently under development include:


 * Outline of basketball
 * Outline of tennis
 * Outline of motorcycles and motorcycling
 * Outline of running
 * Outline of cricket


 * Can you beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?


 * For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.


 * Here are some examples of developed outlines:


 * Outline of cell biology
 * Outline of meteorology (weather)
 * Outline of Iceland
 * Outline of Japan
 * Outline of anarchism
 * Outline of chocolate


 * The Transhumanist 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability of fights
I was wondering what factors establish notability of individual fights for them to warrant an article. My question come because I see that Manny Pacquiao's fight yesterday has an article but Haye v Harrison does not yet exist. 03 md  16:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you think that the Haye-Harrison fight was notable enough, then be bold and create an article about it. Joaquin008 ( talk ) 17:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wowsers, I hadn't known Haye fought Harrison. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not follow David Haye's fights so I have nothing to say about the match with Harrison. I did follow the Pacquiao vs. Margarito bout and IMO it's worth an article. Joaquin008 ( talk ) 19:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Pac-man is a fighting machine. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's for sure :) Pac-man gave us a very exciting fight! Joaquin008 ( talk ) 19:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

request for review..
The article at Micky Ward is listed as a possible copy vio of Ward's official home page. I attempted to re-write the article completely (without even referencing the copy-vio version). Could someone look it over, and if it is a CopyVio, move mine there instead? SirFozzie (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, somebody who know how to do that, will. It should be replaced by your version. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured list List of current world boxing champions is at risk of demotion
Hello. The subject list (promoted to featured status in August 2006) is showing its age somewhat and no longer meets the current standards. An initial list of issues has been left on the article's talkpage which should be addressed in the next ten days to prevent the list being nominated for demotion at WP:FLRC. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

List of current world boxing champions at WP:FLRC
nominated List of current world boxing champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

British boxing bios infoboxes
Seeking clarification here. What's our criteria for using flags in the infoboxes? Do we use for all of them? or go by boxer's self-preferences -, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿, or 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 (note that Northern Ireland has no flag). GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't use flags in infoboxes as it is inappropriate per MOS:FLAG--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD notification about Apollo Creed
I have nominated Apollo Creed, an article in this projects scope, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles_for_deletion/Apollo_Creed. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: request change "no contest" to "win" for bradley
This is what the new edits would look like on the article:

I dont think one very controversial decision by California State Athletic Commission should speak for the whole boxing world or wikipedia for that matter. All references agree Bradley dominated the frist 3 rounds in the fight againnst nate campbell, and the referee also ruled it a win for Bradley. I dont see sny source telling us CSAC has an authority to rule over all other boxing governing bodies. Impartial sources call the CSAC decision "unfair". Therefore, either of the following decisions should be used instead of No Contest:

Someone65 (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Technical decision
 * Referee technical decision (How most third party sources saw this fight.)
 * Technical knockout (as the ref put it)

Do you support or oppose this proposal??


 * Support, per nomination. Someone65 (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I tend to always use the results from Boxrec (which on this occasion says no contest) even though I think that Nate Campbell clearly quit (as did Devon Alexander last week), we can't just change results of fights because we don't like it, I would suggest always using Boxrec in such cases. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not changing the results. Boxrec is simply followin the california governing body decision, which is not a global one; hence i disagree with it. I'm not californian and most reports regard it as a win for bradley, because that was the referee decision. Someone65 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I definitely agree with Mr.Apples2010. -- Joaquin008 ( talk ) 17:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * comment Can you provide a reliable source from after the CSAC made its ruling (Aug. 2009 ) that indicates the result was anything other than a "No contest"?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but there are several post fight reports which agreed with the ref decision of a Bradley win, , , , etc. Someone65 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with the referee's decision as well, however, the athletic comission of the state the fight happened in declared it a no contest. And the MCs don't include it as a win when they read out his record, see here:, if they included the campbell fight as a win it would be 26-0. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually seeing your point now and willing to close this proposal request. Someone65 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Is BoxRec.com a reliable source?
This article by Thomas Hauser is the most comprehensive I've seen about BoxRec. Any other background information would be useful to assess this source on the criteria found in WP:RS.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is Someone65 (talk) 22:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Great debating, but a website which has "BoxRec : this data may be incomplete and/or inaccurate" as a caveat presumably shouldn't be considered reliable. Perhaps, if it is considered a reliable source by the boxing community here, we need to update WP:RS to include websites which, themselves, state they may be incomplete and/or inaccurate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 23:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember reading somewhere that promoters and matchmakers use boxrec extensively. Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you "remember reading somewhere" that other people use it, but is it a WP:RS? It self-declares as being possibly "incomplete and/or inaccurate".  The Rambling Man (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was responding to this: "if it is considered a reliable source by the boxing community". Mr.Apples2010 (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose the real question should have been, does this source meet the requirements of WP:RS, after all that's what's important here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Boxrec is a reliable source and is used extensively within the boxing community Notjamesbond (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that caveat disqualifies it from being a reliable source. The crux of the issue is: How does it measure up against the requirements of WP:RS?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, please demonstrate how it meets WP:RS. Thanks.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really get this discussion, Boxrec has been a reliable source for ages, the article link above clearly demonstrates that significant movers within the boxing community think so too. Take away Boxrec as a source and you take away the source material for a whole bunch of boxing related articles that simply cannot be found elsewhere on the net.  I have written quite a few boxing articles using Boxrec but also being backed up with other sources, every single time the other sources (local & national papers, BBC website) have backed up the records kept on Boxrec Notjamesbond (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry you don't get it. I'm just trying to understand how a website which itself says it may be inaccurate/incomplete can meet our requirements for being a reliable source.  Can its reliability be adequately demonstrated? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * it's the only source out there that is anywhere close to being any good in terms of boxing records. If it's good enough for boxing promoters it should be good enough for us.  If boxrec is removed as a 'reliable' source then you would simply not be able to replicate a lot of the current source links regarding boxing articles on wikipedia.  Also, I repeat that I have written a number of boxing bio's and whenever I've cross checked Boxrec it's always been right Notjamesbond (talk) 08:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sure you've used it, and many others may have done, but I want to see some evidence that it meets WP:RS. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence? I'm not sure that you've read what I've been saying, countless times on articles I have been able to cross reference with other sources and it is always right.  You seem to be trying to pick fault in a source which has been used for ages and is used by the industry itself. This article states as much and even this article appears on a site that you could reasonably argue doesn't meet WP:RS. Notjamesbond (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand my perspective. I, as a novice, visited a website which declares that it may be inaccurate and/or incomplete. I wanted to see how it can meet the requirements of WP:RS. Just saying it's used "countless times" doesn't show it meets WP:RS. I'm not arguing that the site "doesn't meet WP:RS", I'm looking for supporting evidence that it does meet WP:RS. If a site has "questionable" veracity then I'm just questioning how it could be considered reliable. I can see that, in the opinion of one writer, the source is "indispensible" but if a site is declaring itself as possibly inaccurate and/or incomplete, I can't see how it's objectively reliable. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But what is there to achieve in declaring it not reliable? Simply put Boxrec is the core source for the majority of boxing articles certinaly that I've ever worked on, the information for a lot of fights simply cannot be found elsewhere.  You remove Boxrec as a source and you would have gaping unsourced holes in a whole bunch of articles.  Using the 'inaccurate' argument it can also be argued that numerous British newspapers should also give themselves the same caveat that they too could be possibly inaccurate and/or incomplete.  When it comes to boxing there simply isn't any other reliable source for historical boxing records, I feel that the people who should know are the promoters and they use it and say it's invaluable, or at least according to the seconds out article they do.  Plus again, I have to repeat, the evidence can often by found in the cross checking, when an additional source does mention a fight it checks out with what Boxrec has on there Notjamesbond (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In order for material to be featured quality, that material must rely on WP:RS to verify it. All I'm asking for is objective evidence that supports this reference (which self-declares as possibly inaccurate and/or incomplete).  If additional sources can be used to cross-reference this site then the additional sources may well be a better (more reliable) bet than this site.  British newspapers are generally subject to editorial review which is why we can "rely" on them more than a site that says it may be inaccurate.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that what your asking is not easily achieved. A quick trawl of google brings up many references to boxrec but no articles about boxrec.  I agree with you that if an additional source material is there then it should be used but all too often the additional sources are not there.  In terms of boxing biographies in particular where boxrec comes into it's own is with a boxers earlier record.  These shows are often not covered by the local or national media and the only online historical record is boxrec.  As a boxer becomes better known and more famous, the local press start picking up on the fact and start reporting in which case an editor can start using these new sources as a reference.  Some boxers are lucky of course, they have had a significant amateur career which has gained significant coverage therefore boxrec can be used as a back up to the other published data.  Others however, haven't had any sort of amateur career and the first time anyone will really write about them is if they fight for a local or national title, usually after having already had around 10-15 fights on small hall shows, in these instances you'd be left with a whole section of the article which is unsourced except for boxrec Notjamesbond (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand it's difficult to achieve the requirements of WP:RS. However, we really need to do our best, particularly when it comes to references being used for featured lists and articles.  From a purely objective perspective, if I'm reading one of Wikipedia's "finest" articles which is referenced mainly from a site which self-declares as possibly inaccurate and/or incomplete, I would lose all faith in the veracity of the article.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if it's a featured or good article then it shouldn't be referenced mainly from Boxrec as that gives no other information other than a boxers record. In that instance Boxrec would in theory be only complimentary as the article would be about somebody noteworthy and would have a number of other sources. However even on a featured article which is well referenced from elsewhere, there is still a strong possibility that some fights on that persons record could not be cross referenced with other published material.  Therefore I think you need to put boxrec into context and use an argument of what's reasonable to expect.  Boxrec perhaps wouldn't be the best reference for a title fight but it might be the only reference for a boxers first fight and therein lies the difference, one is notable and the other is not.  You'd only really need to mention the boxers first fight if they become notable and by then it's too late because when the boxer was fighting that first time nobody knew how good they would be so no published media wrote about them.  This is why Boxrec plays such a crucial role for promoters and for editors like myself who tend to edit material on boxing.  Okay off to work now, real life is calling ;) Notjamesbond (talk) 10:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not objecting to your arguments, in my mind it just boils down to be able to demonstrate a compliance with WP:RS. Work?  I've been there for two hours already... ;) The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Those references to BoxRec you've found with your quick trawl of Google could mean it qualifies as a reliable source based on usage by other sources. Can you provide some examples?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay Boxrec does seem to be widely used by a variety of other news sources, in the main these are the usual boxing websites but there are a number of examples further afield too. Some of the most interesting are as follows:
 * ESPN in an article talking about David Hayes possible next fight they says "Boxrec reports that "positive negotiations" are currently taking place between the Haye and Povetkin camps"
 * Whittier Daily News a newspaper in California uses Boxrec as a source when discussing a professional boxer who is running for city council. The paper uses information taken from Boxrec such as his professional record and his nickname
 * The Coventry Telegraph in England uses information from Boxrec to pad out an article about a former boxer in the city who is going to have a bar named after them. The paper uses the speculative 'all time' rating function to describe the boxer, Les Allen, as the "sixth best middleweight Britain has ever produced"
 * The West Seattle Herald in America uses Boxrec as a source to describe boxer Vincent Thompsons record saying "Vicious" Vincent Thompson, 28, of Tacoma, is ranked 77th in the country as a heavyweight professional boxer, and 199 in the world, according to BoxRec.com"
 * The Wall Street Journal no less, uses Boxrec as a prelude to the recent Tim Bradley-Devon Alexander match saying "The last time two undefeated American world-title-belt holders squared off was Mike Tyson against Tony Tucker in 1987, according to the boxing database Boxrec.com."
 * Gold Coast.com in Australia interviews a local boxer, Lucas Browne, who when describing his next opponent says "I have looked at his record on boxrec.com and his wins weren't of the highest quality, but at the same time he has still beaten eight people".
 * There are much more references when you include boxing sites like 'Doghouseboxing', 'ringsidereport', 'saddoboxing', 'Eastsideboxing', 'Boxingscene.com' and 'Crunchsports.com'. Again it comes down to the fact that in a huge variety of cases Boxrec is the only source and as listed above it's good enough for journalists in England, the States and Australia.Notjamesbond (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting article here one of the Boxrec journalists has been shortlisted for a sports writing award for his work on Boxrec Notjamesbond (talk) 17:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work. I think all this makes it clear that BoxRec.com qualifies as a reliable source. Thanks!--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

David Haye
What should this boxer be described as? British or English. Reliable sources have been provided for both. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From this discussion on a related issue it looks like the preference is 'British', especially for pro boxers.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * However, it is noted in this discussion that there is no consensus on the matter. Daicaregos (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, both have reliable sources but I would describe him as British. -- Joaquin008 ( talk ) 20:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As would I. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of People's Choice Heavyweight Tournament


The article People's Choice Heavyweight Tournament has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references found one published (gBooks) minor reference to the fight.Craig Peterson and Burt Cooper are the only mentioned fighters and neither is mentioned in this article. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Elmo Henderson and Muhammad Ali
Please see Talk:Muhammad_Ali about the idea of including the victory of Elmo Henderson against Muhammad Ali in the latter's article WhisperToMe (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Undefeated" in lead?
I recently removed "undefeated" from the lead of a bio article on a pro boxer with one fight (one win, of course); while strictly true, it strikes me as excessively promotional, and unremarkable, not worthy of being in the lead paragraph of an encyclopedic article. (A pro with a 10-0 record would notable and an "undefeated" in the lead might be appropriate, although with the stats in the infobox, it might be better to leave out the "undefeated" bit until a fighter has a truly exceptional record.) Since the article's author disagrees, I defer to y'all's collective wisdom. Studerby (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should not have been re-added. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with GoodDay. -- Joaquin008 ( talk ) 11:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Input request from WP:BOXING participants at WT:MMA
Hello WP:BOXING folks, some of the participants for WP:MMA have been discussing the topic of creating a bot to roam through BLP's of fighters to remove the flag icons from these articles to comply with MOS:FLAG. The folks at WP:MMA are asking for your input in including Boxing fighter articles for the bot to roam through and remove such flags. Please visit this link to participate in our discussion. Thanks. Dachknanddarice ( T ‖ C ) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

name claim - Jesse Vargas
Hi - a report Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard at the BLPN is disputing the name of this boxer, any specialist eyes appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

name claim - Charles Berger
Charles Berger (wrestler)

Another one. Any informed assistance appreciated - Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you need as a reliable source? Unless i try to make Gilles Poisson or his son to call you, i just dont know... :)

Mario Lévesque —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.255.241 (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Super champion and Unified champion
I'm looking for opinions on use of the terms "Super champion" and "Unified champion" on the List of current world boxing champions. Some of the sanctioning bodies use these terms, generally to award more than one title in the same weight class. Other sanctioning bodies don't. An editor wants to use the term "Unified champion" differently than the sanctioning bodies do.

Examples:
 * The WBA calls Juan Manuel Marquez their Lightweight Super Champion . An editor doesn't want him listed as "Super champion" in the WBA box on the table List of current world boxing champions, but rather "Unified champion" because he also holds the WBO Super Champion belt.


 * The IBF doesn't use the term "Unified champion", but an editor wants "Unified champion" in the IBF heavyweight box because Wladimir Klitschko also holds the WBO title. I think this is misleading because it implies that the IBF uses the term "Unified champion."

What do you think of these uses of the terms?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO, Super champion is a PR stunt by the sanctioning bodies. Unified champion is the undisputed champion, the boxer with all the major titles. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we don't have any undisputed champions anymore.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Don King won't allow it. It's more money in his & his friends pockets, to keep the titles fractured. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As GoodDay said, Don King won't allow it. :) -- Joaquin008 ( talk ) 17:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it fair to say that there is consensus that "Unified champion" should not be used unless a boxer holds all the major titles?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I've always understood it, the boxer who held all the major titles -in this case WBA, WBC, WBO & IBF- was called the Undisputed champion. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks like there is consensus.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the term Undisputed Champion should be applied if the boxer holds all the major belts (although there are no more undisputed champions nowadays). :) -- Joaquin008 ( talk ) 17:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shaun George


The article Shaun George has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * fails notability criteria under Notability_(sports)

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Gerhard Schönbacher
I am making an article on Gerhard Schönbacher, an Austrian former professional cyclist. There are several newspaper articles that mention he was a cyclist in summer, and an amateur boxer in winter. I can not find anything on his boxing career, so it could just be that it was just a minor hobby. Does somebody has access to some website or database to find if his boxing career is notable? He was born on 25 January 1954, and was supposed to be boxing in the winters, around 1979 and 1980, in Austria. Thanks! --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 17:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate content for Notes column of record tables
I recently noticed the addition of many details by. I'm quite certain that much of the content he adds are inappropriate for statistics tables, but since attempts by me and another user to communicate with him have failed and he hasn't edited a single talk page after nearly 2500 edits, I figure I should get some opinions on his conduct. Examples of his additions include: I find all of the above inappropriate for a statistics table, which should be concise. These details bloat the table, reduce readability, and belong to the career section of an article (provided that they can be attributed to a reliable source; WP:V). Thoughts? —LOL T/C 05:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Match summaries: "Despite a somewhat slow start, Foreman dominated the latter rounds en route to a unanimous decision."
 * Records broken and how/when the previous record was achieved: "Foreman becomes the oldest boxer in history to win the major heavyweight title at the age of 45 (surpassing Jersey Joe Walcott, who became Heavyweight champion at the age of 37 by defeating Ezzard Charles in 1951)."
 * Stating who was the underdog: "Morrison was the underdog coming into the fight."
 * Knockdowns: "Coetzer was knocked down in the 4th and 8th rounds."
 * How easy a fight was: "The fight was one of the easiest Foreman had in his entire comeback."
 * Point deductions: "Foreman was deducted a point in round 11."
 * Broadcast and event title: "This fight was shown on closed circuit TV and was billed as 'The Preacher vs. The Puncher' ".
 * Name of the referee: "Referee Robert Byrd stopped the fight."
 * Time elapsed since the previous bout: "After 10 years away from the ring, Foreman surprised the boxing world by announcing a comeback at the age of 38."
 * Boxer's weight: "Foreman came into the fight at 267 pounds"
 * Annual awards: "1977 Fight of the Year by The Ring Magazine."
 * What "boxing traditionalists" considered, and what happened to the opponent after the bout: "Boxing traditionalists consider this fight as being for the Lineal World Heavyweight title ('the man who beat the man'), which Briggs then lost in his subsequent fight against Lennox Lewis."
 * What do you think is appropriate content for the notes column?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that opinions and other stuff should not clutter up a record. Any factual reports about fights should go in the biography section, not the record section. Records should, in my opinion, indicate who fought, the result, the date, the place, and any titles at stake. Perhaps even a note if the fight won a "fight of the year" award would be OK, but giving a description of the fight or a personal assessment of who was winning and why seems to violate Wiki's original research policies. I've been trying to remove some of this commentary but keeps restoring it. It would be nice to have a consensus on the issue.MKil (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)MKil

Ring Magazine pound for pound
There's an edit war going on in this article on how to list Nonito Donaire's nationality.

1. By following what's on the Ring Magazine pound for pound website, which lists Donaire as from the Philippines

2. By following Donaire's bio on his own website, which lists Donaire as from both the Philippines and the United States

At present the two editors who were warring are suspended, do you guys have any opinion on how to handle this? --112.203.102.163 (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Go with the Phillippines flag. GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Again? I though it was solved...I would say go with the Philippines flag too. -- Joaquin008 ( talk ) 17:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be Philippine flag. First, the Philippine Flag / Filipino Nationality was showed in the following references/websites pertaining to Nonito Donaire - BoxRec.com, The Ring, WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO etc. Second, Donaire is a true-blooded Filipino, by descent, by genealogy, by birth. Like other boxers, he and his family opted to live in the United States to have a better life that's why he is a US resident. Third, in Donaire's website FILIPINOFlash.com, it was indicated that he is a Filipino-American but the flag that was used as web design is a Philippine flag. Fourth, in all of his fights, Donaire always carries the Philippine flag. Donaire really represents his first, primary, original Nationality (Filipino).--Doughn (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This edit war has gone on in three places: Donaire's article, The Ring Magazine pound for pound list and the List of current world boxing champions. Would anyone mind if I changed the title of this discussion to reflect that? It would be nice to resolve it for all three at once.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No probs. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ok for me, go ahead. -- <font color="OrangeRed">Joaquin008 ( talk ) 06:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The two users are unblocked now. Let's see if the edit war continues... -- <font color="OrangeRed">Joaquin008 ( talk ) 16:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

They're still going at it on Fernando Montiel. --112.203.91.106 (talk) 03:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

And also at Vic Darchinyan. --112.203.21.95 (talk) 09:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting it to us. -- <font color="OrangeRed">Joaquin008 ( talk ) 09:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In Nonito Donaire's page, it is acceptable to indicate the he gained his US citizenship thru permanent residency in the United States. Filipino citizenship should be listed first because he is a true-blooded Filipino by descent and by birth. In the tables (Professional boxing record of opponents, list of current world boxing champions, Ring Magazine pound for pound), only the flag of the boxer's first, primary and original nationality should be shown if the format only allows one flag of nationality and not the gained nationality, unless if the boxer renounced his first nationality the gained nationality will be replaced. So the name Nonito Donaire in every tables of any wiki pages should be incorporated with the flag of his first, primary and original nationality which is the Philippine flag.--Doughn (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus that only the flag of the boxer's first, primary and original nationality should be shown. What is it about the format of these articles that you think only allows one flag?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Suggested bans
Users BrendanFrye and Jakeroland should be banned from editing the following pages: List of current world boxing champions, Ring Magazine pound for pound, Nonito Donaire, Fernando Montiel, Vic Darchinyan and in other pages that pertains to Nonito Donaire.--Doughn (talk) 12:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * From Talk:Nonito Donaire it doesn't look like there is any consensus for how to deal with his nationality. Try to build consensus on the talk page: WP:TALKDONTREVERT. If that doesn't work, try Dispute resolution.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It has been established that the user, Doughn, is a Filipino Nationalist on a Filipino ONLY agenda for Nonito Donaire. I have proof for these claims. You will find this proof in his edit comments in the pages outlined above and on his User Page where he sports 2 Filipino emblems. All along, I have maintained that BOTH FLAGS should be shown as Nonito Donaire states he is a "Filipino-American" on his very own website (found by avid Wiki user, Zarcadia)... http://www.filipinoflash.com/public/biography.php

I trust you will do the right thing and take appropriate action against this user who has called for my ban. I will wait a few days for you to go over this before I start editing again. Thank you...

Jakeroland (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

WTF? No one notified me of the call for my banishment? Doughn is totally out of line in his calls for my banishment and his weird stance/contributions to this topic. BrendanFrye (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Notability criteria?
Is the standard as lax as sports in general, or something a bit more stringent? In particular, should Whitey Neal (17-21-11) be kept? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Weight class categories
Should categories such as Category:Heavyweights be changed to Category:Heavyweight boxers since there are already categories for Category:Heavyweight kickboxers and Category:Heavyweight mixed martial artists? -- WölffReik (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Help request: mexican user taking Puerto Rico-Mexico too seriously
I am requesting help with user Alberto Ariza. He erased the entire List of Puerto Rican boxing world champions, which remained that way for two months until it was found by me. It took me ages just to figure out how that list worked to add a single entry, so i am requesting help from a more experienced user who can undo further damage to Pierto Rico related articles by this user. El Alternativo (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Infobox content
Howdy. Should Canada, United States & United Kingdom be excluded from the infoboxes of Canadian, American & British boxers, only -- if at all? I've been doing my deletions per the assumption that they are to be, but an editor has (rightly so) suggested I get a consensus first. So what the views at this WikiProject? GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re boxers from the United Kingdom: according to WP:UKNOWGOV "The top level frame of reference is the country within the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales)", which should not be linked, per WP:OVERLINK ("Avoid linking the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, and common professions."). Daicaregos (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm gonna continue with deleting Canada & the United States from those infoboxes; since there's been no complaints. GoodDay (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to exclude them? From which fields?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I figured it was commonm among Canadian & American bio infoboxes, to exclud the countries. The British bio infoboxes, exclude their country. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give us an example?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean all Wiki bio articles, not just boxers. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you give us an example of a bio article that excludes the country?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's 2 examples: Pierre Trudeau & Jimmy Carter. If we do keep using Canada & USA, then shouldn't we use UK. Have the sovereign states in all boxing bio infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I guess for heads of national governments the thinking is that the country is so obvious that it isn't necessary to include it in the birthplace or nationality field. It is used in many bio infoboxes. For example: Watson, Crick and Rosalind Franklin.


 * For athletes that compete internationally, particularly if they have officially represented a country (in an event like the Olympics) I think the nationality should be there. If the nationality is the same as the country of birth then I have no problem with leaving it out of the birthplace.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we delete all flags & nationalities from all boxing bio infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to do that? WizOfOz (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We should follow MOS:FLAG.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * … and WP:UKNATIONALS. Daicaregos (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're gonna have sovereign-state in every non-British boxer infoboxes, we should ignore UKNAT (which is allowable) & have their sovereign state included as well. GoodDay (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The infobox notes a boxer's nationality, not his "sovereign-state". In most non-British contexts they are the same. In the UK they aren't (see individual question 15 on the recent census). Daicaregos (talk) 13:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well folks, we've gotta have the United Kingdom in the British boxer infoboxes in some form. Total exclusion creates the impression of promoting Irish, Scottish, Welsh & English nationalism. This avoid the UK at all cost, is a form of censurship. GoodDay (talk) 13:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason why we can't have something in those British bio infoboxes, showing the UK. 1) Have the Union Jack, in the nationality section. 2) Have "British", in the nationality section or 3) Have "United Kingdom" in the 'birth place' & 'death place' sections. Certainly, total exclusion (which is the current case) isn't being NPoV. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with 2) and 3).--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Some flawed arguements out there:
 * 1) WP:UKNATIONALS is an essay not a guideline, which i have been informed is a failed attempt at a guideline so it has no validity whatsoever as a guideline that has to be adhered to so that is a flawed arguement.
 * 2) WP:UKNOWGOV clearly refers to "Local government areas" as in districts and councils (where it makes sense) so how that is relevant to this issue is puzzling, especially as we are simply stating the settlement and country within the UK that someone was born at the moment. Thus does WP:UKNOWGOV even apply at all? More than likely not, meaning there is no case against stating i.e. London, England, United Kingdom.
 * 3) No flags to denote nationality per WP:MOSFLAG so its a no runner.

The WP:UKNOWGOV and WP:OVERLINK articles being used as an arguement would appear to be a way of preventing a reader from finding out E/NI/S/W are part of the UK, as firstly you couldn't state it according to WP:UKNOWGOV, and according to the arguement provided for WP:OVERLINK, you couldn't link E/NI/S/W which if you did would take you to that country's article where it says in the opening statement that it is a part of the UK. Then again one policy has no relevance to this issue and the other can be ignored in the greater interest of NPOV.

Also if other articles such as American and Canadian boxers have their actual sovereign state mentioned alongside their state then why not the UK? The similarities are obvious if we considered E/NI/S/W as states like New York and British Columbia.

So there is no case at all for "United Kingdom"'s exclusion from the infobox, and there is no reason for GoodDay to delete "USA" or "Canada" from those articles.

Mabuska (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Armando Muniz
Someone needs to separate the two boxers named Armando Muniz into two separate pages. Their bios have been merged into one inaccurate one. I would because I went to high school with the younger one, but I don't know anything about the older gentleman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.238.186 (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox parameters question
I've raised an issue on the "Nationality" parameter in the infobox over at the Infobox boxer discussion page. As much opinion as possible would be appreciated. Mabuska (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Two different persons
This article describes the former Puerto Rican boxer Luis Ortiz.

The infobox on the right is about the still active Cuban boxer Luis Ortiz.

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Luis_Ortiz

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Luis_Ortiz_%28of_Cuba%29

--77.191.21.49 (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, we can split the main article into Luis Ortiz (Puerto Rican boxer) and Luis Ortiz (Cuban boxer). -- <font color="OrangeRed">Joaquin008 ( talk ) 17:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject Boxing to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at WikiProject Boxing/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! <font face="Broadway">Mr.Z-man 21:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Charles Atkinson Boxing trainer/ consultant
A good class amateur career was followed by an unremarkable spell as a pro. Graduated to professional training, managing and promoting following an apprenticeship under his father, Charles Atkinson Sr. B.E.M. from 1973 TO 1981 promoted fights at the famous old Liverpool Stadium in partnership with brother Mike. During that period fighters such as John Conteh, Tony Sibson, Herol Graham and Leon Spinks appeared at the old arena. First boxer to sign for Atkinson was Joey Singleton, who took the British Jr. Welter title with a 15 round win over Pat McCormack in 1973, in only his 8th. fight. Singleton went on to win a Lonsdale belt outright in only 11 fights. In 1983 was appointed head trainer in Bangkok by legendary Thai promoter and businessman Somphop Srisomwongse who was trying to halt an 8 year gap in the country winning a world title. Atkinson's Thai proteges went on to win 7 W.B.C.titles between them, namely Sot Chitalada, Phayao Poonterat, Napa Kiatwanchai, Samart Payakerun, Samarn Sor Chatterung, and Sirimongkol Singwancha 2 titles. Additional Thai fighters also picked up 4 W.B.C.International titles and 4 W.B.U TITLES during the spell. Atkinson't biggest win was probably Samarn Sor Chatterung, a 20-1 underdog coming from behind to knock out Mexican legend Humberto Gonzalez in 8 rounds in Los Angeles to win the W.B.C. lt Flyeight title. Atkinson mixed training fighters with acting as a boxing advisor to Granada T.V. in the U.K. from 1986 to 1996. In 2011 he was contacted by an Indian Co. Olympic Gold Quest which sponsors Indian Sports stars to work with 5 time World Amateur female Boxing Champion, M.C. Mary Kom in Mumbai. He remains in the Olympic Gold Qest team — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.135.83 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Boxing navbox
Made a new navbox to consolidate the many boxing topics: Boxing. Feel free to pitch in. StevePrutz (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

5th Street Gym (Miami Beach) & Angelo Dundee
I represent the 5th Street Gym on Miami Beach. Our owner, Angelo Dundee, is in the boxing hall of fame. We do not have a wikipedia page which is tragic. The 5th Street Gym, Angelo Dundee and his brother Chris Dundee have had more impact on boxing that any other group in the last 60 years. I have tried to place our gym in Wikipedia but it keeps getting declined. The editors in the chat told me I could come here and ask the boxing people to help write us into history.

We trained Ali, Foreman, Sugar Ray Leonard and a dozen other championship fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldmurphy (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There would be no boxing without the 5th Street Gym. Period.

Pauldmurphy (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Alexandros Nestoropolous
Can someone here take a look at this article? It doesn't add much, but a topic was also opened on it at WP:BLPN. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Boxing will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in boxing. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Women's boxing world titles
Are there particular world championships for women's boxing that would indicate notability? I know there's a list at WP:NSPORTS for men's boxing, but I was wondering if there'd been any discussion for women. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Syndicate Block Building
I'm trying to expand Wikipedia's coverage of my vicinity, and there's a very old, blah-looking building in Crawford, Nebraska that I've found has a long and varied history past its current life as a grocery market. In addition to having housed an opera house, post office, ballroom, bowling alley, and a hotel annex, apparently the first 45-round boxing match in history was held in the structure on Sept. 7, 1907. The fighters were Montana Jack Sullivan and Nat Dewey, and the fight ended with a tie.

I'm not familiar at all with sports, so I was wondering if the building's credentials in the boxing world make it at all quantifiable for a Wikipedia article. Chevsapher (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming of professional boxers from Thailand/
Here is a link to a discussion about problematic naming of articles about professional boxers and Muay Thai practitioners from Thailand/affiliated with Thai gyms/teams, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Thailand&oldid=483671657.

The individual known as Samson Dutch Boy Gym, is mentioned in the discussion. --Computadorcorriente (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Amateur Boxing In London
Hi, I am looking at improving the coverage of amateur boxing in London and bringing together links between past London ABA boxers and champions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianTLB (talk • contribs) 10:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Acropolis Cup (boxing)
Looks like this is a neglected area. The 1989 edition may have been the European Cup. Would be useful if a Greek reader could look at this. Rich Farmbrough, 15:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Note: the nav template is quite rightly up for deletion, since there's only two items to navigate - and they were prodded. Rich Farmbrough, 15:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC).

Capitalization of titles
There is a discussion in Talk:Mike Tyson about using capitals for titles in sentences. The discussion is should it be 'Mike Tyson was the Heavyweight Champion in year xxxx', or 'Mike Tyson was the heavyweight champion in year xxxx'. One argument states that some bodies such as WBA use one form and other bodies use the other form. Some boxers' articles as well as title categories have caps and some don't. Is there a policy on this yet, or does it need a proposal to resolve?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Totally agree, left my comments on the talk page. Cheers, --Jimbo[online] 22:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

TheShadowCrow and admin MaterialScientist have made a complete mess of the following boxing pages;

Vic Darchinyan Nonito Donaire Jorge Arce Marco Antonio Barrera Erik Morales Juan Manuel Marquez Roberto Duran Pernell Whitaker Lamont Peterson Tim Bradley Amir Khan Ricky Hatton Miguel Cotto Oscar De La Hoya Antonio Margarito Floyd Mayweather jr Shane Mosley Sugar Ray Leonard Thomas Hearns Marvin Hagler Sergio Martinez Jermain Taylor Joe Calzaghe Carl Froch Jean Pascal Chad Dawson Graziano Rochigianni Roy Jones, jr Dariusz Michalczewski Riddick Bowe George Foreman Vitali Klitschko Wladimir Klitschko

Thankfully I have cleaned up these pages in the past, so someone can simply revert to my old edits and add any updates needed, instead of redoing all the capitalization and records etc31.111.44.139 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nationalities, identity and representation
In recent days I have noticed that there appears to be some sort of conflict when multiple flags are placed in the massive "professional career record" tables. My particular case being Danny García who is fully Puerto Rican by blood (via both parents), born in Philadelphia and identifies as Puerto Rican (sourced as such in his biography) but stated that he represents both Puerto Rico and Philly prior to the Morales fight (wearing both flags in his trunks afterwards). I fail to see the issue with having two flags, but the talk page at the list of current champions seems to house several of these cases (Mexican-Americans being a previous example) which means that a general solution needs to be discussed.

Since I'm not interested in entering edit wars over the issue, I figured that instead, the overcrowding of flags should be removed (which was tried and explained in an attempt to kill the issue, but was quickly reverted). The need for flags besides every boxer seems awfully redundant (being a link to Boxrec with links to their own records in all of the articles), not to mention those besides the city that held the event which are always linked. That is without judging that in professional boxing, there is no "international circuit", with boxers fighting for themselves and money, not for their country, which should be enough to avoid the flags in the "pro career" tables.

Likewise, political nationality is already inferred when the birth place is listed in the infobox. So, I proppose that the "Nationality" option in the infoboxes is changed in a way that we can include all of the countries represented by said boxer. A slight rewording such as "Countries represented" or "Indentifies with/as" can eliminate all of the ambiguity and avoid conflicts. I believe that this would eliminate the conflicts not only involving Puerto Rican-Americans, which are a minority in this issue, but larger groups such as Mexican-Americans and several British boxers (these bring a prime example of dual pride and representation). El Alternativo (talk) 08:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be flags in the infoboxes. See WP:INFOBOXFLAG.--Jahalive (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no flags in infoboxes. As above.  Tigerboy1966  12:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello
Hi everyone. I am going to join this project and see what I can do. I'm really a Horse racing specialist, but I thought I might be able to add something to my "other" sport.  Tigerboy1966  11:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I've started by adding some references to Freddie Mills. Let me know what you think.  Tigerboy1966  12:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Indian Collaboration of the Month
Hi all, As a part of WP:INCOTM, we are working on the article of Mary Kom for the month of June 2012. My fellow Indian Wikipedians are requested to join and contribute in their best possible way :) Thanks, <font color="DeepPink">B <font color="MediumSlateBlue">Positive <font color="ForestGreen">(talk)   16:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

AfD nominations — how to add?
I want to add an AfD nomination for Mick Mullaney but can't see how (I suspect it's buried in something called "Article alerts" but I can't discover how to access that).—A bit iffy (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

List of champions articles
Would anyone have a problem with 'deleting' the flags from those articles: example List of WBC world champions? -- GoodDay (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Category:United States boxing Olympics squad navigational boxes
Category:United States boxing Olympics squad navigational boxes needs help filling in the templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Caping terms like "WBC Light Heavyweight Champion"
Because they are proper nouns. Any objections? --TheShadowCrow (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * MOS:CAPS is the relevant guideline. Reliable sources don't capitalize the weight class or the word "champion." For example, this article from The Telegraph reads: "In the wake of that loss Carl Froch, the current IBF super-middleweight champion..." We shouldn't capitalize the weight class or the word "champion" either.--Jahalive (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments. They shouldn't be capitalised as per MOS:CAPS. --Jimbo[online] 17:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:CAPS#Titles_of_people

Similar to the same reason why "president" is capitalized when saying "President RichardNixon" and "Heavyweight Champion Mike Tyson"

Titles are cap'd. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Take another look at WP:JOBTITLES. It says "They are capitalized only in the following cases: ..." None of those cases apply to this situation. It is not followed by a person's name, and is not considered to have become part of the name--Jahalive (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Boxing weight divisions
It seems hyphens should be used for weight divisions in boxing such as light welterweight, super middleweight etc, as well as having no caps, e.g., "super-middleweight". The website for the oldest boxing publication, Boxing News, is probably the best example; http://www.boxingnewsonline.net/.

Most boxing pages on Wikipedia don't include hyphens, but it's worth using them from now on, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.99.8.224 (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Middleweight champions
Hi, I recently edited the List of middleweight boxing champions article and attempted to make a new table presenting the champions from the four major sanctioning bodies in chronological order. I'd like to know what you guys think. Xaviersc (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good. Much clearer when their are multiple champions.--Jahalive (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Some IP user has ben reverting my edits in this article. I reverted the first one, but has done it again. I tried communication through the corresponding talk page but got no response, can someone lend me a hand on this? I don't want to get into a pointless edit war. Xaviersc (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed that reverting is happening with other weight class lists too. Has this been discussed anywhere? I see the IP hasn't responded on his talk page.--Jahalive (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)