Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 5

MoS:Boxing Final call
An MOS for the Boxing project can be found here and is, I think, ready to be put on the main Project page. It has been long overdue and follows the MOS for MMA as a guide. Final call for comments - I hope it can be put up in a weeks time.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The write-up so far has been entirely the effort of Mac Dreamstate. I have no corrections or comments (besides thanks) to add.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's still not a resoluton, you have three users who have voiced their opinion and have supported the inclusion of flags. We need to reach an agreement to approve this. I please ask you and Mac Dreamstate to not take things for granted.--Fallengrademan (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The whole point of the Rfc is to have comment - no one is taking anything for granted. The flag section is only a small part and can be excluded if necessary and added in later.  Alternatively (my preference) is that it is left in as is since that reflects long standing WP:MOSMMA and WP:MOSICON and altered after the flags RFC is finished.  I haven't given my view on Flags yes - that discussion is expected to continue in the above section.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Fallengrademan, who's taking things for granted? I've been practically pleading here for months trying to get an MOS written up, but hardly anybody was serious about it until I went the WP:BOLD route. Now that I've finally got one ready to go, having spent days writing it and almost the entire year warning this place that an MOS is coming, you're suggesting that *I* don't take things for granted, when you yourself have suggested nothing whatsoever in the past two months except for the inclusion of some cute, itty bitty flagicons? Get with the program. That's the whole point of a discussion—not to sit on the fence and wonder what happens next, then complain when things actually get rolling. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not need to be disrespectful, you are obviously angry about this and I'm feeling a little bit offended by your sarcastic comments when I'm taking my opinion about flags siriously. Whether I did or not participate before it's irrelevant now as I have voiced my opinion and I'm an active user in this discussion topic. Either way I also do not agree with the professional boxing record table you developed and some other things, in a few days I will rewrite some of the stuff you wrote in the MOS Guideline for Wikiproject Boxing so you other users including you can share their opinion. Also I apologize for the invitations I send I thought there would be no problem if I told them my opinion. Cheers.--Fallengrademan (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Very keen to see these changes that you have in mind. How about laying out the suggestions here before changing them yourself? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought about that, but as you had no problem in creating a whole guideline, while we are still discussing some stuff, I though I would simply change things there so you and other users can see them. Still I have no time for any of that now as I have to study. Either way MacDreamstate, I actually agree with a lot of stuff you've written there, it's not that oppose to you completly, I actually like some of those changes. You should check my sandbox and tell what you think about that "professional boxing record" table.--Fallengrademan (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha, now we're actually exchanging ideas. OK, whenever you're ready:
 * I like the fully-worded result types such as "unanimous decision", etc. That would remove the need for tooltips explaining abbreviations. It's also similar to the MMA records. Support.
 * Splitting Round and Time is a good idea because the commas as separators look ugly. Support.
 * MDY date (in the case of a US-based fighter) is a good idea; likewise DMY for European fighters. However, Japan and some others use YYYY-MM-DD. Support either way.
 * Fully-worded "United States" is superflous when "US" can simply be used. Oppose.
 * Not using rowspan for repeated consecutive instances of the same venue looks needlessly redundant. Oppose.
 * Ditto for Notes. If a boxer retains a title multiple consecutive times, a single instance and rowspan avoids the repeating redundancy.
 * Small text from Type onwards? As a reader, I'm left scratching my head as to why everything suddenly shrinks after the first three fields. Oppose. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought about Fully-worded because maybe United States is recognized worldwide as US, but what about Zimbabwe (ZI), Yemen (YE), The Bahamas (BA)? those abbreviations are probably less known, so instead on making readers move to another article to find out what countries are those abbreviations from, maybe it would be better to have the Fully-worded countries. The small text "thing" is mostly to follow the MMA MOS "professional record table" style, so I think we should let users decide on a votation. The rowspan thing, it's because I believe every fight on a boxing record should stand on it's own and have their own notes, also to follow the MMA MOS "professional record table" style.--Fallengrademan (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst I have advocated emulating the MMA record table "as close as possible", that doesn't mean I think they should be identical. After all, different sports. There's bits from the MMA record which I like (zero flags), bits which I don't ("Res." instead of "Result" is a pointless truncation), and other bits which I've tried to replicate without success (sortable fields). I thought it'd look cool if we had the latter for boxing records (readers could sort by fight number, result, date, etc.), but I just couldn't figure out how it worked no matter how many experiments I tried. I've given up on that idea. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the fully spelled out countries, I took United States off and added Saint Lucia for Gros Islet, also took United States off Cayman Islands. These are good examples where even people who work on codes are unlikely to remember them.  I have no objection to selective abbreviation of US and UK, if it's thought helpful, but it is otherwise good to be consistent.   I would suggest that the country name be made non-breaking as a councel of perfection. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC).

I fully support Mac Dreamstate's MOS proposal. GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I would be inclined to replace "should have an infobox" with "may have an infobox".  I am aware that these are only guidelines, the community has made it clear that projects may not mandate or prohibit infoboxes.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC).


 * ✅, by making it sound a tad more optional/recommended. Also did the same with the professional record section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This RfC should be delayed until the result of the flagicon RfC (above) is known. Futher, including UK after England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland is unnecessary. Daicaregos (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Including the UK is necessary, if we're going to include Canada, Denmark, United States etc etc. :) GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, the WP:PERENial question. I think the last time it was discussed was here.  Mr Stephen (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the issue that caused an IP to change the American flags to American state flags at Joe Calzaghe, which is what brought about these 2 concurrent related Rfc :) GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:POINTy edits from one IP should not cause a current consensus to be disregarded. Daicaregos (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Rather irrelevant though, as the 2 Rfc are in progress. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So why bring it up? Daicaregos (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. Though, I don't know if that will be the case here in these 2 Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason, just platitudes. You consider the IPs actions to be irrelevant to this RfC, yet chose to highlight them here. You seem to be responding to nearly everyone posting on these RfCs. Please stop wasting our time with inane comments. It is perfectly legitimate to make editors aware of the current relevant consensus, as Mr Stephen did above. You've had your say - we are aware you support the proposal. Take a break GoodDay... and give us all a break too. Daicaregos (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We're getting away from the Rfc-in-question. Will gladly end this discussion within a discussion here. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I despair... Daicaregos (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment: ya'll should merge WikiProject Boxing/Style and WikiProject Boxing/MOSGuidelines NE Ent 00:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they should be in one page.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅—merged/overwritten. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we still waiting on the flags thing to play out? Let's just bypass it for now and remove it from the MOS later if need be. Flags are only one isolated part of the MOS, namely the record table, so there really needs to be feedback on the rest of it. I'm also talking things like presentation: WP:PW/MOS looks nice and attractive compared to the rather plain and bloated boxing one that's on hold now, whilst WP:MOSALBUM looks plain and to-the-point (the way I prefer things to be). There's only so much I can cook up myself, so advise me, people: Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How do all the bullets look? Should I use more sub-sub-section headings to break it up a bit?
 * Too many clickable syntax boxes? I got those from WP:MMA, but may have gone overboard with the examples. Think of it as my way of covering every possible permutation.. or potential edit war.
 * In the record table,  for multiple repeating content within Opponent, Location and Notes – yes or no?
 * Three-letter DMY dates for European boxers, DMY for US, YYYY-MM-DD wherever else that uses it – yes or no?
 * Non-repeating tooltips for Type abbreviations – yes or no?
 * Fight articles linked via date instead of Type – yes or no?
 * Fully-worded "United States" in Location – yes or no?
 * Opponents and locations linked only on the first instance, starting from the bottom of the table – yes or no?


 * Here are some advices.

No, I personally think every fight in a boxing record should stand on their own. (even if that means to repeat the content) Yes. No, I believe jury decisions to be more important than fight dates. Yes, it's easier for readers to identify the country than abbreviations.
 * In the record table,  for multiple repeating content within Opponent, Location and Notes – yes or no?
 * Three-letter DMY dates for European boxers, DMY for US, YYYY-MM-DD wherever else that uses it – yes or no?
 * Fight articles linked via date instead of Type – yes or no?
 * Fully-worded "United States" in Location – yes or no?

All the best luck. You worked really hard, hope it gets approved. Later will continue discuss about flag icons.--Fallengrademan (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Updates and near-final tweaks: Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It took a while, but I agree now that rowspans are a no-go. They've been dropped.
 * However, per WP:OVERLINK, I maintain that anything Wiki-link'able should be only linked once, on the first instance, from the bottom of the table. That goes for opponents, locations and titles.
 * ... Something with which this IP obviously disagrees, having reverted me twice, but they can get lost if they don't plan to state what their gripe is. There is absolutely no point in linking stuff repeatedly.
 * Also, detailed city and county information like this is not happening. All that's needed is the city, state/province and country. Fight record tables are not meant to be geography lessons or tourist manuals.
 * Not on board with fight articles being linked via result type. The date on which an event occurred is more important than the result, is more logical for linking purposes, and BoxRec also uses that format (more or less).
 * Not on board with small text, except for the Notes column. I see no reason for text size to be reduced from Type onwards, and MOS:FONTSIZE somewhat agrees with me here, in that "Reduced font sizes should be used sparingly."
 * Still not sure about fully-worded "United States". The reader can easily clarify the abbreviated country by clicking on the state link, and abbreviations are to be expected in a long, repeating table.
 * No objections to tooltips instead of fully-worded result types, so tooltips it shall be. No longer will readers be confused as to what an "MD" is.
 * DMY/MDY is happening. YYYY-MM-DD for Japanese boxers, I guess?
 * Weight class and sanctioning body format was agreed via consensus, and the MOS now reflects every imaginable permutation for different sections (infobox, lead, prose, fight record table, title succession box). Therefore, let there be no more crap like "Lineal" or "Super Middleweight Interim Champion" ever again. Revert such idiocy on sight.
 * I agree with everything except with the small text. The only sections that should be in small text are Location and Notes. Also DMY/MDY is happening, YYYY-MM-DD for Japanese boxers is a great idea. In my opinion we should also use the fully abbreviated country clause for the United States only. Nevetheless we could also ask for others users opinion regarding this matter.--Fallengrademan (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Small text for Location and Notes has been in place for a short while now. Per MOS:ACRO and MOS:U.S., fully worded "United States" is not necessary for tables or infoboxes, so "US" it shall remain. The record tables often end up cramped enough as it is, when Notes are filled out. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Carl Froch vs. George Groves II
I wouldn't know where to start on this, but I wholeheartedly believe we need an article for this event. It is one of the biggest fights to have happened in the UK for years, if not decades; two world titles were on the line; it was a well-documented grudge match between two boxers who had a lot to say; the whole event ("80,000 at Wembley!", yada yada) is still talked about whenever Froch or Groves is the subject; and it was broadcast to U.S. audiences as well. I've been tempted to just go ahead and create the article, but then I'm always held back on one thing which every other fight article seems to have—an official poster. How does one acquire those for WP? If I get a tip on that, I might try to make at least the beginnings of an article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are some of them   . You would upload the image to Wikipedia (not Commons) so you should use File Upload Wizard and the permission would be fair use as it is copyrighted but is the subject of discussion. The Upload Wizard should guide you through which fair use to choose etc (it should be poster). When it asks for rationale for fair use just copy what it says for the other fight posters when you click on the image it should say on more details. You have to download the posters to your computer before you upload them. 92.237.211.110 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nice one! Making that article will be a welcome change from all the monotonous infobox/record table editing. It would've stood on its own without the poster, but having one—via the appropriate channels—will make it all the more sweet. Appreciated on the tip. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

AfC help please
Greetings. There is a draft over at AfC, Draft:Oktay Takalak. I am unsure if this meets your notability criteria. Could someone please take a look and let me know your thoughts? Thanks. Article needs work (being written by someone who I think their first language is not English), but I think it can be easily fixed, if it meets notability criteria. Please ping me if you respond (either here or on the draft).  Onel 5969  TT me 12:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that as French champion he's notable, and there are a few additional sources that could be used. e.g., , . --Michig (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Location of bouts?
My first choice would be to eliminate the location column & just have the opponents, date of bout, length of bout & result of bout, in the fight record boxes. However, if that's not acceptable & we can't decide on whether or not to use sovereign state/flag or non-sovereign state/flag for locations? Then I'd suggest we use sovereign states/flags for those boxer's who've fought in different sovereign states. For those boxers who've fought all their bouts in just one sovereign state? we use the non-sovereign states/flags. What do you all think? GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of eliminating the location column as I believe that it is neccesary info. However I agree to using only sovereign state flags.--Fallengrademan (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see a good reason not to include location. It is, unfortunately, often a major factor in results, especially if the fight is in Germany it seems. Personally, I don't feel that flags really add anything useful. --Michig (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with ditching the location column. As for flags, I'll post my updated view on their usage later (something to do with the country/state/sovereign state thing; rather minor). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

AIBA Pro Boxing
How come we don't have an article on AIBA Pro Boxing yet? It appears to have received lots of news coverage. . 103.6.159.69 (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Another AfC help please
Draft:Christopher Cole (boxer)- he's an Irish national champion, does that make him notable enough? I tried reading WP:NBOX, but it didn't seem to cover this (either that or I didn't understand it properly). Thanks. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Should it be compulsory or optional?
Is it optional or complusory for professional boxers to have ever opponet listed or not I have noticed alot of boxers especially female boxers or male boxers from previous decades don't. I've noticed quite a few boxers especially from previous decades have little or sometime no third person sources I done what can with some and a few female boxers too but I just thought I ought to point that out. Dwanyewest (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Not compulsory, but if a record table is incomplete, then Expand section should be in place to let readers know that some fights are not listed. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

MOS boxing: final FINAL call
Righto folks, the all-encompassing Manual of Style for boxing (or MOS:BOX, as I would like it to be known) has been sitting quietly in place since December, gradually closing loopholes and garnering positive feedback. I am aware of instruction creep, and how the MOS may appear daunting with its myriad permutations and clauses, but it has to be done. There have been too many inconsistencies and editors taking liberties with formatting on boxing articles (mainly regarding weight classes, sanctioning bodies, and championships), but now 99.9% of those are covered—and I mean stamped out.

There will be no more tripe such as "Light Heavyweight Title, Interim Welterweight Title, and Lineal Super Middleweight Championship" (yes, editors have actually written stuff like that), or "39 Wins, 2 Losses, 1 Draw", or promoters in the lead. All fixed. The only thing that remains to be settled are the dastardly record table flagicons, and whether or not to use "UK" as the top-level suffix for England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland (and, by extension, whether to include US/Canadian/Australian states). In the words of Cr1TiKaL, "Let's do this shit." Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That's funny. Yes it was necessary and glad it's done.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali
There is a debate going on at Muhammad Ali's talkpage, there are a couple editors insists on adding the biography infobox just purely because "it adds more information" which clearly violates WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. I would like some editors from the boxing project to give their input.-- 717 18:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Does she deserve an article?
Does Marian “Tyger” Trimiar deserve an article and is she notable. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am also doing an article on Jackie Tonawanda. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

NZNBF - does it meet WP:NBOX?
Does NZNBF, one of the governing bodies of professional boxing in New Zealand, meet the affiliation criteria for titles as laid out in WP:NBOX? This concerns the Hemi Ahio article, which is currently facing speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ali Raymi
This article looks like a propaganda piece. I removed the most POV wording but I suspect the sources are not really reliable. Could someone familiar with boxing sources investigate? Also, I wonder if it really is possible to be a "strawweight" (<105lb/48kg) and be 1.73m tall (while being a martial art professional rather than a starved Ethiopian). Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I find most of the boxing aspects of that article to be laughable. One of the article's recent editions outright deified him as some kind of fallen legend, just because he had a 100% KO ratio against utterly non-notable opposition. If he was at one time ranked top ten by the ABCs, then fine (one of the refs, the WBO one, is reliable), but all the other puffery about him having a "world record" for KOs can get lost (which I've done just now). There was one editor who even insisted that, on the basis of Raymi's nickname being "God", he should have Category:God in the categories section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Nico Hernández - new Olympic medalist - re-review & re-rate article, please?
The Wikipedia article on light-flyweight boxer Nico Hernández, originally (rightly) rated as a "stub" article -- but incorrectly rated as "low-importance" in the boxing category -- has been radically expanded, with multiple major-media references, and other credible sources. It now covers his early life and career, major influences, and detailed breakdown of key events in his surprise rise to an Olympic bronze medal, a few days ago, in Rio -- becoming the first U.S. boxing Olympic medalist since 2008, and apparently first U.S. Olympic medalist in his division in decades. Re-evaluate, please?
 * ~ Zxtxtxz (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Francisco Rodríguez, Mexican American boxer
I was reading the article on Francisco Rodríguez, the Mexican boxer and have a few comments. I have also noticed him called "El Niño Azteka" with a "k" instead of a "c." There are links from Youtube that could be added in "External Links," such as: (about his organ donation) "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoTC3KJ9Fwk", "'El Niño Azteca´dio vida depués [sic] de la vida"; from Univision and posted by Univision; "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtaYGr-XU38", "Gift of Hope Entrevista: El Boxeador" from the Gift of Hope Organ and Tissue Donor Network, and posted by this network; "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQgBFkSX9Hg", "How Paco Rodriguez multiplied his life by five", by Loyola Medicine and posted by Loyola Medicine; and "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_KdJ1_aAxE", "QUE NO SE APAGUE ESE CORAZON [sic]" from Gift of Hope Latino and posted by this organization; (his fight against Robert Da Luz, posted by 8 Count Productions, a promoter of that fight):  "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-iuIDQhpAU", (Rounds 1-2); "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2w_7ByfMyk", (Rounds 3-4), "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaRjn3zYPVQ", (Rounds 5-6); and "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRMXYP02rDQ", (Rounds 7-8). The channel of 8 Count Productions is called "The Best in Chicago Boxing." 2601:246:100:436F:6872:7353:D6C8:2A38 (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

This article could do with some help?
Boxing in the United States anybody willing to help improve this article would be great? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Boxing
has been created for any of you who want to follow boxing related deletion discussions. From now on any Boxing related AFDs should be listed at this rather than Martial Arts....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

New record and summery template
Just an ideal template we could use for boxing articles. As I've noticed this year, the boxing record for athletes has taken some changes. Personally I think it needs a quality look. I couldn't find the discussion for the current one to place my thoughts on some changes, so I have placed my idea on here to share and welcome feedback so we could make something likable for athletes articles. I have made this familiar to the martial arts template purely because it's tidy and simple. It has all the columns of information you need to know. It is also easy to follow. I see on the current template that they have now made it that the country is mentioned with also including the flag. To me, that seems no point having the flag there. Anyways, feel free to add some feedback. Would really like to make something new and compulsory. Kidsoljah (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Greetings, good to see you here. Just as a matter of opinion, I can't say there's anything in the new templates which doesn't fill the criteria for a "quality look". It's not about looking fancy or better than other projects; it's practicality. They were modelled after the MMA records, but with many differences simply because boxing and MMA are different sports. I'll do my best to address your individual points:
 * "Res." was changed to "Result" because there is no need to truncate the word (as opposed to "Number"/"No.")
 * The use of "&" is discouraged by MOS:AMP.
 * Full stop/period after "title(s)" goes against WP:BULLET. That's how sentence fragments work.
 * Non-capitalisation of weight classes ("super middleweight title", not "Super Middleweight Title") was agreed upon long ago.
 * Separate Venue and Location columns would make things look clunky if only a location is known; a blank cell right in the middle of a table isn't exactly "tidy", except for Notes, where it makes sense that some fights had titles on the line and others did not.
 * Likewise Round and Time; by combining them, we avoid the need for a blank cell, or a redundant "3:00" in the case of decisions.
 * Method is more descriptive for stoppage types in MMA, whereas a Type of result is more so a boxing thing. I dunno, that's a nitpicky one.
 * Your idea for the summary looks very ambiguous, and the exact opposite of "tidy". What does the big "21" mean? I don't see anything wrong with the current summary box, which is neat and collapsible, only shows draws and NCs when they apply, and (as of last night) even has newspaper decisions added as an element.
 * Truncated months in a table are permissable under MOS:DATEFORMAT. Keeps things "tidy and simple".
 * Fight numbers ("No.") was an idea lifted from BoxRec, and are helpful when a reader wants to determine "How many fights in did this event take place?" They're also incredibly helpful when creating record tables from scratch, in terms of crosschecking.
 * As for flags, that's been a sore and divisive spot within the past year. This RfC concluded that there is currently WP:NOCONSENSUS on the issue of flagicons, therefore any original edition of an article with or without them should stand.
 * Sortable tables, like the MMA records, are a pretty good idea but not essential. It can be implemented if you really want, but it'd mean yet more minor edits across hundreds of articles which already have the new format.
 * Your feedback is appreciated nonetheless. It's been a long while since anyone had any opinion on the new formats, so it's largely been a one-man task on my side to get things set in stone. If you have any other suggestions or comments, please post them, but I can't promise to be on board with yet more sweeping changes at this late stage. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback, here's my take and views on the points you've listed; Kidsoljah (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For staters I think it's only appropriate to truncate the word "Result" to "Res." purely because the column its self is a very small section of information. It only contains a max of 4 worlds and also it will leave more space for the other columns.
 * Points 2, 3, and 4, I can't disagree with.
 * This is a tricky one because this section is messy. Having the flagicon means there's no need to state the country. It's one or the other. I don't mind having the venue and location column combined as one and I couldn't agree with you more with the Round and Time columns also being combined. But I think the flagicon has to go if this were the case. There's absolutely no reason nor point it being included now in this section.
 * Method or Type, I don't mind either one of them to be used.
 * The summary box I created will be collapsible. The reason being I believe it's easy to follow. Obviously there's adjustments that need to be done to make it better but the current version is the exact same as the martial arts template. I don't see how it's not tidy. Maybe including colour makes it look a bit much, but that's all I can think of. It's just simple and basic, you don't need something complicated and to much if you get what I mean. After all, it's only a summary box.
 * The current date format I don't mind.
 * Including fight numbers is good, I agree with your reasons here.
 * I believe the flags should stay in the opponent column. Thus because for readers we know where the fighter fights out of and represents.
 * Sortable tables, I like also and I would strongly implement it.
 * Again, I disagree completely with truncating Result to Res., and am not on board with that change. "Number">"No." is a commonly known truncation worldwide, but "Result">"Res." is not. I know the idea is to tighten up the cramped table as much as possible, but I don't think doing so on this column is the way to go about it. The reader already has to sift through a whole bunch of tooltips already.
 * Unfortunately, there's not much we can do about the locational flagicons at this point. The last RfC on the issue was very messy, inconclusive (opinions were split right down the middle), and is too recent for a "rematch". It also nearly derailed the whole MOS project which has been in the works since June 2015, and created a lot of delay in getting it finished. It was by far the most irritating debate with which I've ever been involved on WP. So many of the contributors to that discussion didn't give a shit about standardising the rest of the boxing formats; all they cared about were some silly flags..
 * Type it shall be. A "method" of decision or draw sounds a bit odd in the content of boxing.
 * I still see nothing wrong with the summary box I created as part of the MOS. Having had it in mind since January, I finally got it working with every stat needed, and it was heavily inspired by MMArecordbox. I'm not on board with changing that.
 * Sortable tables I am fine with and will add to MOS:BOXING/RECORD soon. It's about as easy can be—just tack on  at the end of , and there it is.
 * Thing is, there is already a consensus for the existing format, and it's only been in place for less than a year. Changing parts of it yet again, after all the delays and road bumps in getting it set in stone, isn't the best idea (WP:CCC: "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive"), and I can't lend my support to that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I guess you've made some firm points. I would like to see the font size changed and sortable tables included at the very least. Then maybe down the line get rid of theses unnecessary flags. Kidsoljah (talk) 07:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I think this is perfect for a Boxing Record Boxes JMichael22 (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Boxing
Is there any problems with this Boxing Record template JMichael22 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Plenty wrong with it.
 * Fight numbers (No.) are needed, and I've been saying this time and time and time and time again 'til I'm blue in the face. They were carried over from BoxRec for good reason, and are staying put.
 * The table elements should conform to WP:ACCESS, namely  →   and   →.
 * The repeating locations are overlinked.
 * The tooltips for result types are absent (WP:ACCESS again).
 * There is no need for additional small text besides Location and Notes. These are not, and never were, the same as MMA tables.
 * There is no need for fully-worded months in a table, as we've been over agaaaain and agaaaain.
 * There is no need for a full stop after "debut" or "title(s)" (WP:BULLET).
 * There needs to be the country name, in text, after city/province—flags alone are not sufficient (MOS:FLAG).
 * MOS:BOXING (a project which began in June 2015, inspired by MOS:MMA) was agreed upon via consensus from November 2015 to February 2016, underwent a transitional/waiting period for the rest of the year, was finalised in August, and is now in place across hundreds of articles. If you're this late to the party, then too bad—the invitation for community feedback was on here for ages. Many sports have an MOS in place: MMA, baseball, professional wrestling, Formula 1, tennis, etc. This just happens to be the one for boxing—finally, after so many years—and you won't get any support from me in changing it anytime soon. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Couple new ones
I just wanted to let other project members I finished a couple new boxer articles, maybe we can make them part of the project. Check them out: Andres Hernandez and Tami Mauriello. I am thinking of starting one of Bob Pastor. Thanks and God bless! Antonio el culoco Martin ''dime 04:04, March 2, 2014 (UTC)

Arlene Blencowe deserving?
Does Arlene Blencowe deserve a wikipedia article?

Australian National Boxing Federation
can some fix this page up Australian National Boxing Federation Boxing in Australia and List of Australian heavyweight boxing champions List of Australian cruiserweight boxing champions List of Australian Light Heavyweight boxing champions List of Australian Super Middleweight boxing champions List of Australian middleweight boxing champions List of Australian light middleweight boxing champions List of Australian welterweight boxing champions please

Tarick Salmaci
I came across Tarick Salmaci from this post made at WP:MCQ. I tweaked the image formatting a bit, but the article needs quite a bit more clean up. The sourcing provided is iffy looking, so I'm wondering if someone from this WikiProject is familiar with this fighter and can say he satisfies WP:BIO or WP:NBOX. Cleaning things up a bit is no big deal, but there's no point in doing so if he's not Wikipedia notable. It also appears that Tarick Salamaci himself or an SPA claiming to be him is editing the article which might cause some WP:NPOV issues. Anyway, if any can provide suggestions on improving the article or knows where to find better sources, then please post them on the article's talk page. Thanks in advance -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's horribly written (self-promotional) but he claims top ten position in WBO and WBC (unreferenced) which would meet WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. The has been tagged with BLP sources since May 2008, so it's a bit surprising that nobody has been able to find better sources for some of the claims being made. Boxing (at all levels) seems to get a fair amount of coverage in the media, so maybe better sources do exist. Googling get s quite a few YouTube, IMDb and social media hits, but not of what looks like independent sigcov. I did find the following, however:
 * http://boxrec.com/boxer/19153
 * http://www.arabamericannews.com/news/news/id_2374/Passion-for-life,-not-for-boxing.html
 * https://www.chicagomaroon.com/2005/05/13/exclusive-interview-the-contenders-tarick-salmaci-speaks-with-the-maroon/
 * http://www.boxinginsider.com/columns/jackie-kallen-what-happened-to-the-contenders/
 * https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=OeHgDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&lpg=PA62&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=9u1bAx2-A3IC&pg=PA191&lpg=PA191#v=onepage&q&f=false, and
 * http://www.boxingscene.com/interview-with-tarick-salmaci--2394.
 * I'm not sure how many of those would be considered in and of itself enough to establish notability or even be RS, but maybe together they show WP:NEXIST. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to boxrec, which is pretty reliable, he won the North American Boxing Organization super middleweight title. That meets criterion 2 of WP:NBOX. It can be verified here, along with his ranking claims (although it is from an interview - to me that makes me want to find further verification on the rankings, but for the title, along with what boxrec says, I think that is verified). RonSigPi (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that info . I figure out a way to try and incorporate the BoxRec sourcs into the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Joe Fournier
I've had an article for Joe Fournier rejected because he's not notable enough as a boxer. He came to my attention fighting on the undercard of the David Haye fight in the summer. He's had 8 professional fights and has 3 more lined up next year including in Vegas on the frampton undercard. Does anyone have any advice how to get the article published? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blanky34 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please check out WP:NBOX.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ed Bad Boy Brown 20-0 16 KOs Amateur record 370-20 Murdered while scheduled for Showtime TV Boxing card
Hello Boxing writers at Wiki I have an article on a subject which I believe should merit Notability even though it doesn't meet guidelines. I believe that boxing people who write here will agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ed_Brown_(boxer) [ WP:NPA - content redacted by User:Dweller] Thanks for any help or notes on this. His death was a National news story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanHamilton1998 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed a personal attack. Any boxing experts out there who can help with establishing the notability of this boxer on behalf of, who is a newbie, would be welcome and WP:WELCOME. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I want to thank all the Wiki Editors who helped me get this article to this stage. The ones who have treated me fairly and worked hard to improve this article. I feel strongly about the Ed Brown article and have taken some actions of one or two editors personally. I should have been above that. I believe this article has the merit for a wiki article and boxing experts who have created the quality boxing encyclopedia here at Wikipedia will agree. It seems every few weeks another boxer from Chicago appears on TV dedicating a their performance to Ed Brown and that will continue with Kenny Sims Jr. on Showtime in a few days and when Adrian Granados fights Adrian Broner next month. Ed Brown's influence is continuing to shape top notch boxing past the grave. DanHamilton1998 (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Djamel Dahou notability
Came across this at WP:NPP where it was tagged for speedy deletion. Can anyone more knowledgable on the subject assist in bringing it into shape? Valenciano (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

cyberboxingzone.com
Is cyberboxingzone.com considered a leading or worthwhile source for citing in boxing articles? I have run into a user who is dropping cites with cyberboxingzone.com URLs all over boxing articles in a seeming priority, promotional manner. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In his defence, I would not label it as promotional. It's kind of the only site which outright lists all the winners of the mythical lineal championship. However, realistically I know it fails WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY pretty badly. If that were to result in the list of lineal boxing world champions getting AfD'd, I would be most saddened—I adore that article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Promo bombing is promo bombing. If its being done to promote the site it needs to be stopped.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I genuinely don't think it's being done for promotion. Rather, it's just a case of them latching onto a source because it happens to be the only one out there. Granted, I acknowledge that it fails WP:RS right now and should be looked into further, but I don't see what they're doing as malicious. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is still going on. He is repeatedly inserting citations to the Cyber Boxing Zone lists of champs in many articles.
 * He has added them to sentences that already have a reference.
 * He has added them to sentences where it doesn't support anything in the sentence.
 * It doesn't look like he's used any other sources in all the citations he's added.
 * I can't help but doubt these are being added to verify article content but rather to populate numerous articles with Cyber Boxing Zone citations.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ali Raymi
This page -which clearly has issues- is being hijacked by one or more individuals that seem hell bent in removing the relevant tags and preserve a lot of dubious content, please keep an eye on it. 2600:387:2:811:0:0:0:78 (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, unless the "conspiracy theories" are true and this boxer was a fictional character, I'm sure that no random user would have a 20-year old studio photo that is PD. Please deal with this copyvio as well. 2600:387:2:811:0:0:0:78 (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've had my eye on it for a while, and keep meaning to rewrite the boxing career section to read more straight-to-the-point, but admittedly it's stayed low priority since I just don't have much interest in him. As to whether he existed, I don't have much doubt about that—there's enough refs to say he did—but all the puffery on his boxing "achievements" (of which there were absolutely none at a notable level) needs taking care of for sure. I'll bump it up on my cleanup list. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Recommended Sites For Boxing Records
Hi, I was looking to improve the Terrell Gausha article, and I was wondering if there was a source that this project recommends for boxing records. Thanks Red Fiona (talk) 16:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * BoxRec is what we all use. Some details for individual fights are often missing (such as why a disqualification or technical decision occurred), so you might have to crosscheck video sources and written articles for confirmation. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Red Fiona (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

IBO potentially become a notable World Title as part of WP:NBOX
Hey I would like to discuss potentially adding IBO into Wikipedia notability WP:NBOX The IBO has done well since they open in 1988 and having world champions like Lennox Lewis, Wladimir Klitschko, Roy Jones, Jr., Floyd Mayweather, Jr., Manny Pacquiao, Bernard Hopkins, Gennady Golovkin and many more. In saying that I only want to add it to the part where it says "1. Has fought for a world title (e.g. super, regular/full, interim) for one of the following current or historical major sanctioning bodies" Not the part where it says "2. Has fought for a regular/full national or higher non-world title for an affiliated organization"

So what does everyone think?


 * Support addition of IBO (full titles only) to WP:NBOX. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I have a number of concerns (FYI, most of my facts are based off Boxrec):
 * First, there is heavy regional bias. For a lot of the smaller weights, more than half the title fights have occurred in South Africa (e.g., minimumweight, light flyweight, super flyweight).  For other weights, about half the bouts took place at a combination of South Africa and some other country without a huge boxing culture where one champion defended the title at home a lot (e.g., bantamweight (SA and Denmark), super bantamweight (SA and Namibia), and featherweight (SA and Singapore).
 * Second, the title being held by major champions appears to be more of the title wanting to be associated with them, not them pursuing the title. No major champion you mentioned won the IBO title first - they became major champions and then somehow picked up the title along the way.  Under the idea that one does not inherit notability, the title does not on its own by being held by major champions.
 * Third, major boxing media do not list their champions in their champions list (see USA's, UK's , and even South Africa's as examples) nor do boxing rankings lists (see  and ).  That suggests title fights not on that list are not covered by those outlets and therefore do not gain much coverage.
 * Fourth, the presumptions go all the way back to the start of the title. Can we say with fair confidence that, for example, Steve Msimanga and Mawanda Sineko can be presumed notable (fought for initial IBO minimumweight title)?  Msimanga was 1-2 in attempts for the South Africa minimumweight title with Sineko being 0-4 for the same title.  Neither fought for anything outside a national title and only one did either one of them fight outside South Africa (Sineko in Indonesia - he lost).  Did a Google search on both - found nothing worth note on Msimanga and one decent article on Sineko.  I know this is just a sample test, but its not a good start.
 * In view of all this, I don't think the IBO is significant enough to change the presumption. RonSigPi (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * RonSigPi I respect your opinion and you have brought up a very good point so I have two questions in response 1) ibo has been slowly increasing in popularity and slowly becoming more significant, do you think it would ever be notibile enough? 2)would it be possible to say all full world champions after certain time like for example all champions after 2010 or something? --Bennyaha (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * For point 1, outside of WP:CRYSTAL concerns, it is possible for it to become notable enough. However, with already four major sanctioning bodies I think the space is crowded and adding a fifth my be tough.  Major media outlets dedicate themselves to covering the four major bodies and the regional titles of those bodies.  Seems difficult for more resources to be dedicated to fights of a fifth body.  For your second point, and tied into your first, I think the IBO would need a landmark moment (or maybe a few).  To me, the WBO became a full title after the middleweight title win by Oscar De La Hoya and the the unification fight by Bernard Hopkins.  Not until 2007 is it considered a major title for List of undisputed boxing champions.  So a few major events need to take place.  And if you look at the talk page, there is dispute if even the WBO should be included.  Another thing in the WBO's favor is that many of their early champions and contenders (pre-De La Hoya) meet WP:NBOX otherwise (e.g., fought for other world titles).  So maybe after a certain year we could consider IBO title fighters being given a presumption of notability, but I don't think we are there and will continue to be far off without a few landmark events. RonSigPi (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have five different types of belts already. Where does it end? Will we have twenty different World title belts in each division? Everybody that competes gets a world title On top of that it will task even more difficult for a fighter to be considered undisputed on Wikipedia. I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere otherwise it will hurt how people view boxing.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the number of titles matters for notability. Yes, boxing has a lot of titles, but so does track and field (e.g., high jump world champions for indoor and outdoor for some reason, outdoor world champions for 100m and 200m, half marathon and cross country championships, etc.).  To me, the question is "Do champions and challengers of IBO titles typically receive non-routine coverage to a level that we can presume all champions and challengers are notable?"  From what I am seeing, the answer is no. RonSigPi (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think titles matter as much in Track and field as it does boxing. What really matters in Track is who can run the fastest. You can be a terrible boxer and hold a world title belt (as we all have seen). I'm looking at the IBO title holders right now and I see none that I would consider a Pound for pound, besides Golovkin who is a legend.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. I expected to oppose, but looking at current and recent champions, there don't appear to be any that would not be notable enough for an article here, which should be the consideration, rather than whether the IBO title is a genuine world title. We would perhaps need to define a cut-off date, however, as I don't believe all their champions going back to 1988 would be considered notable enough. --Michig (talk) 07:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I wanna ask how well is The IBO title known in women's boxing, when compared to the other four major world titles? and how will it affect the statues of undisputed champion? Will A boxer have to get five instead of just four to be considered undisputed by wikipedia?--Fruitloop11 (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's outside the scope of this discussion. There are differing definitions of 'undisputed' anyway. The issue is whether or not being IBO world champion is generally going to indicate sufficient notability. --Michig (talk) 10:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's outside the scope. Considering it can create bigger problems. I remember when 3 was enough to call a fighter undisputed on Wikipedia. Now it's 4. It could damage articles in the future and possibly lead to edit wars where one user claims 4 is undisputed and another claims 5. Also I don't think it hurts the IBO title if we leave it as a minor title.No boxer is great because they hold an IBO title.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(←) I don't think that the IBO is quite there yet. However, looking at the list of current world champions and noting that we currently list The Ring and lineal champions, I'd rather have it replace one of those. Excluding things like the Roy Jones debacle,The Ring has always crowned what is regarded as the division's lineal champion due to its eligibility criteria (clash of top ranked boxers). Sure, there are neutrality concerns since the magazine is now property of one of the largest promoters in the game, but listing both still seems redundant. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  05:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, I say this as someone that argued keeping The Ring over the IBO a decade ago. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  06:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about Notibility
I have two questions about the Notability

In New Zealand there are two commissioning bodies for professional boxing one particular called the NZPBA which I am personally apart of as a judge NZPBA are affiliated with all the major sanctioning bodies which we all know is WBA, WBC, WBO and IBF They even state with the announcer in every event before it starts that they are affiliated with all these bodies and is semi mentioned in this article NZPBA Talks about History so does that mean the NZPBA title (which is the full national title) grant boxers notability? Second question is that if an amateur boxer fights in an final for a National title affiliated with AIBA like in New Zealand as shown here New Zealand National medal list, does that grant the amateur boxer notability? I do get confused with the WP:NBOX sometimes.

--Bennyaha (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * My (personal) practice has been to wait until they win or medal in a mid-tier regional tournament before creating a biography... There are many boxers that win national titles and then fade into oscurity. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  19:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Should Angel McKenzie get an article?
Angel McKenzie is surely a notable boxer she was a European champion in boxing and appeared on Big Brother 10 (UK). Dwanyewest (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While I am at it what about Gail Grandchamp?Dwanyewest (talk) 20:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Do they have to have records?
Do professional boxers have to have their fight records I feel alot of boxers particulary women such as Diana Prazak, Duda Yankovich, Belinda Laracuente, Myriam Lamare and Emiko Raika don't have thier fight records on display and how do you create one? Dwanyewest (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * They don't have to have records, especially if they're not a high-profile fighter, but as this is an ongoing WikiProject it would be great if every article did have one. To create them, have a read of MOS:BOXING/RECORD and go nuts! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The record tables can be instrusive in a smartphone, even while browsing in the mobile version. I'm not saying that they should be removed, but they should be hidden by default until someone clicks the "[show]" button. 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:89 (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Could other WikiProject members pitch in, please? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems sensible. I can understand why they may seem like WP:LISTCRUFT to some people, and the change would be minimal. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  10:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If enough folks are of the same opinion, I can make the change at BoxingRecordSummary. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we need to keep records. They are important in understanding a fighter's career and frankly are useful in linking to other fighters.  However, I see no problem with making them hidden by default.  Due to the similar nature of MMA fighter articles, we may want to loop in WP:MMA on this. RonSigPi (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Having them collapsed would certainly reduce some scrolling, especially with massive articles like Mayweather Jr. and Pacquiao. And scratch what I said above about the summary box—I totally forgot that it's a separate table to the actual fight record. I guess some kind of  field would need placing at the top of the wikitable? That's a whole shitload of manual edits, unless someone can use a bot (I'm clueless on those). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A WP:BOTREQ should be helpful, since it's a very basic thing. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  06:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

This is a much bigger conversation than I anticipated I don't have a firm opinion if people want fight records are  hidden or not. But I agree with RonSigPi (talk) that fighter records should be kept and are important in understanding a fighter's career and frankly are useful in linking to other fighters. As it fustrating reading about a fighter career and not knowing their kickboxing/boxer career records or who they fought. I tend to find if its a fighter before the 1950's they won't have their records on display especially if its a female fighter. Just for the sake of transparency I posed a similar question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/Kickboxing task force.Dwanyewest (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * On a sidenote I believe any professional combat athlete whether it be MMA, Kickboxing or boxing should have their records on display. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Anybody interested in improving any women boxer articles there is a task force at WikiProject Women's sport/Boxing task force. Dwanyewest (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability
An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Professional record Notes tweak
I propose that the redundant "Professional debut" in the Notes column be removed from all contemporary records, particularly those which have recently incorporated the No. column per MOS:BOXING/RECORD. It should be obvious that the #1 slot is a boxer's professional debut, unless there is some MOS:ACCESS issue I'm not aware of. Exceptions can also include boxers whose debut might've had disputed circumstances (differently cited dates according to BoxRec, Fight Fax, etc.) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with your idea Mac Dreamstate (talk) but I still believe all professional fighters should have thier pro records on display. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I would support this if it's otherwise obvious that a fight is a boxer's debut, which it will be most of the time. --Michig (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I personally agree. The numbers state that it's the first fight, and pages for MMA fighters don't have the note on their WP records. Only adding a note on bouts named as the pro debut by other sources might be better, as you said. ChrisMorris1234 (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It doesn't actually bother me, having it there is no harm and it makes the table look nice. That's just my opinion. --Mahussain06 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree "professional debut" should be removed from notes if it is obviously their first fight. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's 5–1 to remove "Professional debut" from the Notes column, at least for boxers who had no disputed circumstances in their debut. Sounds like consensus. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

New MOS:BOXING element in need of discussion: trivia in the Notes column, particularly regarding what not to include. Catchweights in the column have been done away with for almost a year, along with eliminators and post-fight awards, but there's a loose end in the form of "first"s: do we include "first twelve-rounder", "first women's 3-minute round bout", "first bout on network TV", etc.? This could have an effect on thousands of articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

List of deaths due to injuries sustained in boxing
Hi there, I have just created List of deaths due to injuries sustained in boxing - please can you help expand as it's clearly massively incomplete? GiantSnowman 10:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Changes with Affiliations with PABA
As of now the Pan Asian Boxing Association will no longer be affiliated to the World Boxing Association. PABA has gone off and created their own sanctioning body called the WBS aka World Boxing Society.

WBA has replace PABA with two titles

1. WBA Oceania title which been going on since 2014.

2. WBA Asia Title (which they also have WBA East Asia & WBA South Asia) which have started this year. This is actually interesting because the WBC EPBC title quit the WBC and moved to WBA which created this title.

On a side not PABA did create a WBA Asia title in the passed to be a minor title of themselves but it didnt really kick off example Haithem Laamouz won that title against Sebastian Singh in July 2016

anyway concluding this anyone that wins the PABA title after June 2017 will no longer be WBA affiliated regional champion Passed PABA champions will be recognized as WBA Regional champions and keep their rankings but the current champions if they decide to defend it it will be under WBS not WBA

I think we need to change the notability requirement so we can put a time stamp on PABA stating anyone winning this title 2017 and before or something

--Bennyaha (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I think #2 needs a drastic change. I think there are a number of issues.  The first is what you bring up - that affiliations change from time to time.  The second is the use of e.g., - literally meaning "for example."  Some editors don't see it that way and require it to be one of the listed titles.  It just leads to confusion.  The third is what is "an affiliated organization" - in the example you bring up before the PABA dropping affiliation, PABA would be since it is a different organization but WBA Oceania/Asia would not since they are WBA titles.  Seems like coverage would be about the same.  My best suggestion is to come up with a hard list of regional titles we all agree on.  I would take the lead from WikiProject_Mixed martial arts/MMA notability - just like with Bellator Fighting Championships only helping give a presumption until 2015, would could have the PABA be the same until 2016.  This way the project keeps its own list of titles that can be better managed than changing the guideline every time.  I would include both affiliated organization titles (NABO) and regional titles of world sanctioning bodies (WBO Intercontinental).  I would start a list of titles (or someone else can if they want), but before doing that I think we should decide if this is the way to go. RonSigPi (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * There is a list of organisations here List of boxing organisations but only WBA, WBC, WBO and IBF are the notable titles and arguably IBO World title after 2010. Also an example I spoke about earlier about question of national bodies notability, one of the three national boxing bodies of New Zealand NZPBA is affiliated with all the major bodies, which under this current definition anyone that holds their National title is notable, This is the same with Australian National Boxing Federation being affiliated with WBC. PABA is until June 2017 officially I believe which is when they dropped all of PABA titles from WBA World boxing rankings. I would love to join you RonSigPi and help out --Bennyaha (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am willing to start a list. However, I think it needs to be more than Bennyaha and I.  Maybe two more editors.  That makes four total and a decent consensus. RonSigPi (talk) 21:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * PRehse What are your thoughts? --Bennyaha (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have never been happy with #2 for the reasons given by and certainly his suggestion for a hard list is the way to go.  Blanket affiliated organizations is really problematic since in reality some of them are really of no significance.  The same with National titles - not all are significant.  How does PABA fit in - I am really not sure but I won't argue against including it in the hard list.  At the very least it covers a larger region.PRehse (talk) 08:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft list start
PRehse My approach is that boxing is a lot like tennis and athletics - individual sports with worldwide appeal and interest. Therefore, its important to be considerate of WP:BIAS.

So here is my start list mostly based with my knowledge level (when otherwise, I mention it):
 * WBC-based - the WBC came about the most use way for editors - it organized with a number of other regional organizations. Due to the history of those affiliated organizations, I am most comfortable with their belts.  From my experience, I would include:
 * BBBofC
 * FEDCARBOX
 * European Boxing Union
 * NABF
 * OPBF
 * WBC Silver (basically serves as secondary world title)
 * Commonwealth Boxing Council (not listed on WBC's page, but is on WBC link Bennyaha provided, so I put here)
 * Due to the history of the WBC, and my basic knowledge of the sport, I would also include:
 * African Boxing Union
 * Asian Boxing Council

So that would be my list. Obviously, once/if a list is finalized, I would make the format much prettier. Not thrilled that there is no South American title, but I am not comfortable with any to give the presumption.
 * WBA-based - this is more of regional area model (as opposed to independent-ish associations with the WBC). Due to this, I would be comfortable with the following:
 * WBA EUROPE
 * WBA FEDELATIN
 * North American Boxing Association
 * IBF-based - A newer organization, but have not seen much outside of the US based regional title:
 * USBA
 * WBO-based - Strong European ties, so I would include:
 * WBO European
 * WBO Inter-Continental
 * North American Boxing Organization
 * National - So these are nations that based on my experience the champions meet the metric (note some are sub of above - such as the Irish Union being under the European Boxing Union). These are all English-language based, so it has been a lot easier to find sources.
 * Australian National Boxing Federation
 * Boxing Union of Ireland

Anyone feel free to comment, suggest addition, suggest removal, etc. RonSigPi (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I like to think WBC Silver title is WBC version of a Intercontinental title Anyway I would like to add IBO World title but not their regional titles add PABA under WBA with a note states before June 2017 WBA Asia title which funny enough use to be WBC EPBC New Zealand Professional Boxing Association under national also add the NZPBA/ANBF Australasian title because thats been dated back since 1909 and lots of credible history and credible champions, but boxrec doesnt have a title area yet but I am planning on making a Wiki list eventually for that anyway we can set it up as simple as


 * National
 * BBBoC (British Boxing Board of Control)
 * Australian National Boxing Federation
 * New Zealand Professional Boxing Association


 * Regional
 * ANBF/NZPBA Australasian
 * Commonwealth Boxing Council


 * World Boxing Association
 * EBA (European Boxing Association)
 * NABA (North American Boxing Association)
 * WBA Asia
 * WBA Continental Americas
 * WBA FEDEBOL (Bolivarian Boxing Federation)
 * WBA FEDECARIBE
 * WBA FEDECENTRO (Central America Boxing Federation)
 * WBA FEDELATIN (Latin American Boxing Federation)
 * WBA Inter-Continental
 * WBA International
 * WBA Oceania
 * WBA Pan African
 * WBA Regular World
 * WBA Super World
 * PABA (conceded before June 2017)


 * World Boxing Council
 * ABCO Asian Boxing Council
 * ABO (American Boxing Organization)
 * ABU (African Boxing Union)
 * ABU Female
 * BBBofC British Boxing Board of Control
 * CABOFE (Caribbean Boxing Federation)
 * CISBB (CIS and Slovenian Boxing Bureau)
 * COMM (Commonwealth Boxing Council)
 * EBU (European Boxing Union)
 * FECARBOX (Central American Boxing Federation)
 * FESUBOX (South American Boxing Federation)
 * NABF (North American Boxing Federation)
 * OPBF (Oriental and Pacific Boxing Federation)
 * WBC Baltic
 * WBC Continental Americas
 * WBC FECOMBOX
 * WBC International
 * WBC International Silver
 * WBC Latino
 * WBC Mediterranean
 * WBC Mundo Hispano
 * WBC UNSBC (United States Boxing Council)
 * WBC World Youth
 * WBC Youth International
 * WBC EPBC (conceded before February 2017)
 * WBC Silver
 * WBC World


 * International Boxing Federation
 * IBF Australasian
 * IBF Continental Africa
 * IBF East/West Europe
 * IBF Inter-Continental
 * IBF International
 * IBF Latino
 * IBF Mediterranean
 * IBF Pan Pacific
 * IBF Pan Pacific Youth
 * IBF Youth
 * United States Boxing Association (USBA)
 * IBF World


 * World Boxing Organization
 * WBO Africa
 * WBO Asia-Pacific
 * WBO Asia-Pacific Youth
 * WBO China Zone
 * WBO European
 * WBO Inter-Continental
 * WBO International
 * WBO Latino (Central and South America)
 * WBO NABO (North American Boxing Organization)
 * WBO NABO Youth
 * WBO Oriental
 * WBO Youth Inter-Continental
 * WBO World


 * International Boxing Organisation
 * IBO World
 * WIBO World (Women)

--Bennyaha (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

There are some pretty obscure titles there even under the big four.PRehse (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I have not even heard of a number of those titles. For example, per BoxRec, WBO China Zone has only had 15 bouts and since being from 2009 that is less than 2 bouts per year.  I don't think we can presume any notability for that title.  I would suggest basing off the list I made.  PRehse, any comments on the list I made?  Bennyaha, I assume you are fine with the list I made since all the titles were included in your list, but wanted to see what you thought of the list I made. RonSigPi (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally I have no strong feelings against any that are on your list although my personal feeling is that boxing is too title heavy and would also be happy with no regional titles. That probably is a bit extreme and since what this list really is is a presumption of notability I think it probably reflects actual coverage.PRehse (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

RonSigPi personally I am mostly happy with your list but I would like WBO Asia Pacific, WBO Oriental, WBA Oceania, IBF Pan Pacific and IBF Australasia as they are the major four best titles in the Asia Pacific regional, not including the WBC titles since your already added them. Also WBO China zone is actually WBO China National title, practically the WBO Asia Pacific main rep made a title in china to get more activity in the region. Also maybe add youth world titles too. --Bennyaha (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * For sure not the Youth titles - some discretion is necessary.PRehse (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bennyaha - I did a spot check for the titles you listed. I was pleased with what I found for all the winners except the IBF Australasia.  I see the IBF Australasia as more of a national title and didn't see enough to be comfortable with and I agree youth titles are just not enough.  I would am fine with accepting the other four you listed.  However, I am not as confident in the notability of the losers of those titles (and that may even extend outside the four you listed to my list).  Would you be ok if we added those four and changed criterion #2 to
 * "Has won for a regular/full (non-interim) non-world title listed at WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment."
 * PRehse, I thought leaving it just to the winners would address some of the concerns you raised as well. Do both you agree? RonSigPi (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That would go a long way. I hope some of the other boxing contributors will weigh in.  I feel if we are going to make a list it will need more input then three.PRehse (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * RonSigPi I agree with you and I love the writing that you create

I also want to add that titles get reviewee annually to see what needs to be added or reviewed --Bennyaha (talk) 02:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

David Pearce (boxer)
Looks like there's lots of issues with this... inappropriate tone, possible vandalism, fanboy material, WP:COATRACK issues. Can one of you experts please take a look? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

U.S. national Golden Gloves list articles
I am in the process of adding at least a ref from the official site to all the list articles in Category:Golden Gloves. However, they are very long and undoubtedly contain some unchecked vandalism, namely false names. Would anyone like to team up and check them as I do the lead cleanup? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Horn / Pacquiao decision
Discussion needed at Talk:Jeff Horn regarding the wording of the lead section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Bare-knuckle boxing lists
Hey, new user. If I may interject, I think Wikipedia could really use a list of bare-knuckle boxing champions. There's currently a list of lightweight champions but it seems incomplete. I'd like to consolidate it along with a list of heavyweight champions in an article styled like the lineal champions list but I figured I should probably ask here first. Other divisions didn't seem to exist as such in the bare-knuckle era but I may be mistaken. Ruzap (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)Ruzap

New category task
A request to WikiProject members: please add as many full British champions as possible to Category:British Boxing Board of Control champions. The ones already there are on my watchlist, but there's likely a hundred or so more in need of adding. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)