Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 7

Undisputed women's champion
I've noticed on the page for Cecilia Brækhus, she is listed as undisputed women's champion for holding the WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO (IBO not mentioned) belts. But my question is—is this a fair and accurate assertion? Based on WikiProject Boxing's own Notability criteria, we see the listing for: "International Female Boxers Association, International Women's Boxing Federation, Women's International Boxing Association, or Women's International Boxing Federation" for women. The organizations which pioneered women's boxing in the 90s.

From what I've gathered, including through a search on Boxrec: the organizations introduced their women's titles in the following order:

(# of title bouts recorded by Boxrec; may not be 100% accurate but still..)


 * WIBA - 1993 November (226)
 * WIBF - 1995 April (318)
 * IWBF - 1997 October (55)
 * IFBA - 1997 August (134)
 * WBA - 2004 April 8 (292)
 * IBO - 2004 April 10 (30)
 * WBC - 2005 May (339)
 * WBO - 2009 October (189)
 * IBF - 2010 November (131)

We clearly have organizations with title lineages predating others' by one and two decades. With the WBA and IBO being the first of the men's orgs introducing their female titles in April 2004. At the very least, I see regarding someone holding the WBO/IBF/WBC/WBA belts and not the others as "undisputed" as being WP:POV. Those who have followed women's boxing, a rather niche sport as is, would possibly consider the first four orgs founded in the 90s and who still continue to sanction bout to this day, as some sort of authority, of which one of their champions could theoretically "dispute" the champion of the latter bodies. This is confusing only because we seem to be applying the men's standard of "undisputed champion" to that of women, whose sport holds a vastly different history to that of men's.

This needs to seriously be looked at. I don't think an "undisputed" champion in women's boxing can be established, with any popular opinion merely possibly being POV among other POVs. At the most, we can call Cecilia Brækhus a "unified champion", now that is something that isn't of dispute. What are your thoughts? -DA1 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Good points. I must've been looking at it from a male-centric perspective (ooooh, cue the howls of feminism..) and not stopped to consider the other organisations. If one were to find a certain amount of sources that label her as an undisputed champion, would it then be acceptable to retain the definition? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've considered that and there are certainly sources that do label her as such. Which is why its my concern that its all POV among POVs.† As these are mens boxing centric outlets themselves. I think its important to establish authorities of women's boxing,† which I'm not sure if there really is one the same way we treat the conglomeration of TBRB, The Ring and IBHOF as being for men's. Its these three collectively having a "Big Four" that we kind of accept as being the criteria for "undisputed" (WP:DUEWEIGHT). With regards to women's boxing, I think its wise for us to refrain from using that terminology until that debate itself is brought up in public media and discussed enough that we can establish similar WP:DUEWEIGHT. Right now, we just need to treat it all as WP:POV. I think that is the best course of action. – DA1 (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * †For example: if a scholarly source were to claim the earth is round, but a hundred blogs claimed its flat. We won't go with the numbers, we go with what is deemed as an authority. Then if other authorities disagree with it, we present the differing viewpoints per WP:NPOV. In Wikipedia terms, its a little tricky since we don't have WP:SCHOLARSHIP for boxing, we just tend to go by WP:NEWSORG which, as the page states, contains opinions and errors. I would disagree with any mens-boxing-centric news outlet as being an authority for womens boxing. – DA1 (talk) 23:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Compelling points again. "Unified" might indeed be our only option, for now, if we are to maintain standards of NPOV. It will then mean quite a few articles in need of retroactive edits, largely due to me being overeager with spreading the "undisputed" tidbit around so much. From what I remember, said articles include Terence Crawford, Riddick Bowe, undisputed champion, list of undisputed boxing champions, and possibly Bernard Hopkins and Jermain Taylor—all of which mention Brækhus as being an undisputed champion. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The lead of undisputed champion says "there are no officially declared necessary conditions needed to become an undisputed champion". Several credible sources such as CNN state she is undisputed and no source has claimed she is not and to do so would be WP:OR. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Its possible, we can go with whatever the consensus here is regarding this topic (I'm not stuck about it). But CNN is not a credible source on the subject of Boxing. Nor do I consider any men's boxing outlet to be an authority on women's boxing either. Also, per some of the pages I noted above: Namely WP:NEWSORG,
 * A news site claiming something doesn't make it fact. Is this WP:OR? I don't think so, because I'm not including an edit saying "She's not the undisputed champ" or "Someone else is disputing her" per se. I'm proposing we should leave the terminology open ended. That is not "Original Research". OR is when you make your own conclusions/findings and present that in an article. The absence of using specific politicized terminology is not that. DA1 (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * A news site claiming something doesn't make it fact. Is this WP:OR? I don't think so, because I'm not including an edit saying "She's not the undisputed champ" or "Someone else is disputing her" per se. I'm proposing we should leave the terminology open ended. That is not "Original Research". OR is when you make your own conclusions/findings and present that in an article. The absence of using specific politicized terminology is not that. DA1 (talk) 09:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact that you deem the word politicized and to remove it is what makes it WP:OR. The CNN article is not an editorial or op-ed and in the absence of these authority on women's boxing sources that state the criteria to be undisputed or that she is not then to call her undisputed is acceptable. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * One thing that should be considered with any of these sources is WP:WEIGHT, along with my perhaps unfortunate mistake of labelling her as "undisputed" across so many WP articles. I would hazard a guess that a certain portion of lower-level or tabloid'y media outlets have looked at her WP article and latched onto that, without thought given to User:DA1's abovementioned points. If we can gather enough sources that do label her as an undisputed champion, I won't have a problem with it, but we shouldn't be too hasty to perpetuate a misnomer if they've only caught onto it within the past year or so when I first edited her article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * She was called undisputed on her page back in 2014 and many media outlets at the time proclaimed her the new undisputed champion even articles before it said she will become undisputed with the win so nothing to do with Wikipedia. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for clarifying. I wasn't sure of it, but I had an unpleasant feeling it might've been. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You claim my using "politicized" while describing my perspective in a Talk Page is OR, then ended your own statement with OR yourself. I'm not hung up about this either way, and brought it to Talk to discuss consensus. On a sidenote: I've gathered that out of the 4 women's bodies mentioned in WP:NBOX, only 3 are particularly active currently (IFBA, WIBA and WIBF), but specifically the WIBF and WIBA. The WIBF's equivalent welterweight champ is Layla McCarter for anyone curious. DA1 (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It's OR as you are saying it's politicized as the means to remove sourced information with nothing to back up the claim but your own research. I didn't use OR I'm saying you can't claim to need a woman's boxing authority source when it doesn't exist and several sources claim she is undisputed. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As I said I haven't removed or made any edit there, and I'm willing to go with whichever position on this that users agree with. (Cont.) DA1 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

List of current female world boxing champions

 * (...Cont.) That being said, there is something I do feel strongly about. And that's removing content or selectively blocking content that is mentioned on WP:NBOXING. Que and . Is there a reason why we're witholding WIBF from List of current female world boxing champions (and corresponding Template:WBCstartfem)? Neither of you left a WP:ES while reverting mine.
 * WIBF is among the oldest and currently-active boxing bodies that regulate female boxing. They should be on that article/list. DA1 (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC on SNG criterion 3 change
Should criterion #3 read "Has been ranked in the world top fifteen of any weight class by the IBF, WBA, WBC, WBO, BoxRec, TBRB, or The Ring magazine."? RonSigPi (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So I think I am allowed to comment on my own request to comment. To get up to speed, it appears that a concern is that recent examples are being supplied to support the criterion change and that would lead to WP:RECENTISM.  However, I think this is unfounded on logic alone on two levels.  First, right now we have four major sanctioning bodies, one Internet database, and two media groups and these seven rank boxers in 17 weight classes.  17*15*7=1,785 if everyone ranked everything differently (a drastic hypothetical, but used for argument sake).  The most recent request was to show that fighters in 1923 would meet the metric.  In 1923, there was no Internet (so no Boxrec), no TBRB, no IBF, and no WBO.  Plus, there were only about 8 weight classes. 8*15*3=360.  So the criteria gets drastically more selective the further back you go.  Additionally, it is well documented that boxing used to be one of the Big 3 sports with baseball and horse racing - as examples, see  and .  So if boxing was as big as football in the 1920s (or 30s, 40s, 50s, etc.), then clearly 1/6th of the grouping of fighters can be presumed notable.  More reason why this change just makes sense in view of the challenge that has already and clearly been passed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). RonSigPi (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Again it was clearly passed by recent fighters in the section you link to but what we want to know is do older boxers pass it. The whole purpose of NSPORTS is to help us assume an athlete meets GNG especially back when there was no internet so its harder to do. But in order for us to be able to make that educated assumption we do need to see some of those Athletes passing GNG so that we can be sure our assumption is correct. We can't just assume based on a guess of oh things were important back then so they must have been covered. Remember that newspapers etc back then had far less room in them to cover topics. So its often less likely that older athletes (in any sport) were covered as much as current ones when we have unlimited room on the internet. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose, contrary to presumptuous statement Notability not demonstrated, and dead silence to Djsasso's points.—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Interim titles / categories
I consider it an insult and a display of arrogance that I had to start this discussion, despite multiple invitations to this IP (and his 46.211.xxx socks) to begin one here, but someone had to do it since he's not in the mood to do things the proper way.

The IP insists on including Oleksandr Gvozdyk, the WBC interim light heavyweight champion, under Category:World light-heavyweight boxing champions and Category:World Boxing Council champions. When did this become a thing? Where he's got the idea that interim champions are equivalent to full world champions is unknown to me, but his rationale makes no sense. So what if it applies to other fields? Boxing is unique in that nobody with credibility goes around calling an interim champion a world champion, the latter of which is the purpose of the categories. The various sanctioning list articles (e.g.; list of WBA world champions) also make no mention of interim champions unless a full champion was promoted or demoted.

If we change this, and include it as part of MOS:BOXING, it'll affect many hundreds of articles. Therefore we need to be absolutely sure it's the right thing to do. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. All interim champions are champions also. They all are listed in the List of current world boxing champions and should be included in the world champions categories. All acting presidents are included into presidents categories. All caretaker (interim) sports managers are included into sports manager categories. As of now, all interim world boxing champions already included into related world champions categories (not by me!). Try to check: Arsen Goulamirian (included!), José Uzcátegui (included!), Regis Prograis (included!), Moises Flores (included!), Reymart Gaballo (included!), Jesús Rojas (Puerto Rican boxer), and so on! 46.211.156.81 (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose what? Where are the WP guidelines that state interim [anything] is the equivalent of a full [anything]? In boxing it certainly isn't. Your content won't stay at the article until you gain consensus here first, amongst other Project members, so quit edit warring. You added the categories first, but their inclusion is disputed, so the issue should be dicussed here before adding them back. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose to your edits. You removed the categories from some articles, but their removing is disputed, so the issue should be dicussed here before removing them back. 46.211.156.81 (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Your added content has been disputed from the start, with no prior consensus from the Project, so I'm also notifying WP:EWN. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Project members, this needs consensus. The simple question goes, do we include interim world champions in these categories:

Bear in mind, if we are to start adding interim champions to those categories, a great number of articles will be affected—possibly hundreds. That also coincides with a gaping inconsistency regarding our current sanctioning body champions lists (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO). Observe that no interim champions are mentioned in those lists (a practice with which I actually disagree), except when a full champion is promoted or demoted; however, interim champions are mentioned at the list of current world boxing champions. We need to set in stone how this is handled. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't believe an interim title should be considered the equivalent of a full world title. I've seen organizations with up to 6 or 7 "world champions" in a single weight division and I believe some boxing organizations hand these titles out like candy.  The term "interim" indicates  the real title hasn't yet been earned. Papaursa (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Honorary/commemorative titles
After the recent Pacquiao fight, these urgently need a tweak. One way we could tackle it is by ditching the meaningless 'award' titles such as WBO Super, WBC Diamond, etc., and possibly WBC Emeritus. All the while we retain certain 'actual' titles which can become real ones, such as 'Champion in recess'. Regardless, having this many WBO trinkets is ridiculous. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If no feedback on this, I'll just remove them myself soon. I was actually the one who originally added the WBO Super title to the succession boxes, after an IP made this edit to Bernard Hopkins. At the time it intrigued me enough to do some digging into the WBO's rankings archives, which indeed proved that it was a 'title' bestowed upon certain boxers. In practice, however, it looks clunky (especially with the "non-transferable title" disclaimer) and only adds to the confusion alongside the WBA's Super titles. The latter can at least be won or lost in (or outside) the ring, but the WBO Super title is just a silly, intangible trinket that a boxer gains or loses at random, even across weight classes.


 * I propose that only "Champion in recess" titles belong in the Honorary boxing titles section—they are a type of interim title that a boxer can eventually be stripped of, or use as a shot to regain their original title. WBC Emeritus does not work in the same way, as we don't see Vitali Klitschko being listed on the WBC's current champions list; in contrast, the current WBA rankings indeed list Lebedev as some kind of champion (which we all know is bullshit, but that's not the point). WBC Diamond can also fuck off. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Freddie Mills
I have given the Freddie Mills article a considerable revamp, including trawling through decades of newspaper articles. I have still have three biographies of Mills to read through, which may allow some areas to be expanded further, but in the meantime I would be grateful for any feedback on what may need to be improved in the article. I think there's potential for a GA/FA here. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 12:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You mention his height in the Lead as well as in the Infobox, would you want it in both?


 * In any instances where you have used an imperial weight measurement, for instance stone, I would suggest having the metric conversion in brackets, using the undefined undefined template.
 * When was Bavin published? is it recent enough to have an ISBN?
 * Have corrected any small errors i could see.
 * Very enjoyable read, this guy was a real hard as nails warrior!
 * Honeymooning with his new wife at her ex husbands residence got a laugh out of me, what sort of mate does that?


 * kind regards Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Height was there in the lede before I started - not sure it's really needed there. Yes, will look at using convert. ISBN of the Bavin book is included in Sources section. Two more biographies to read through yet, and another that I might get if I can find it. May also get his (probably ghost-written) autobiography from the early 50s, and I think he did a second one at a later date. I haven't even started on Google searches yet. --Michig (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Lonsdale belt FA Nomination
I have been working on this article on and off for the last few months. It's been considerably expanded and has already undergone a successful GA review before a copy edit by the GOCE team was made. Any general comments, suggestions or criticisms here, or at FAC would be much appreciated, as would any edits to the article it self.

kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. One observation - back in 1909 I think it would have been the English title rather than British? --Michig (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I think that everyone called Britain England in those days, even the press most of the time, so it may have been referred to as that a lot, but i can't find a source that specifically or officially calls the Challenge Belt (as it was then known) as the English Title (Even though the belt only had the English rose at the time, it did have the British crown too). I know it was certainly the English title before the introduction of the belt.
 * The NSC officially billed it as the British Title: | Scale for British Titles - 12 February 1909 Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Tyson Fury lineal status RfC
I have started a RfC regarding the current status of the lineal heavyweight championship at Talk:Tyson Fury. Naue7 (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Help expanding an important article
I feel that Boxing in the United States is an underdeveloped article any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Golden Gloves champions
Is being the national Golden Gloves champion enough to show notability? I was looking at the article on Ples Gilmore and I don't see anything else that shows notability.Sandals1 (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Never has been.PRehse (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Non-compromised Pendulum
I have made meaningful changes in the article Draft:Non-compromised Pendulum. However, it can moved back to mainspace only by user with sysop rights. I kindly ask administrators to review the article for the possibility of moving it to main space. Aspireforintelligence (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury fight card section
Feel free to answer the fight card question at Talk:Deontay Wilder vs. Tyson Fury. Naue7 (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources?
I see a lot of sources being cited in boxing articles that have (in my view) dubious reliability. I thought it would be useful to have a discussion of whether we believe the following satisfy WP:RS or whether they are really just glorified fansites that should not be cited:
 * https://www.badlefthook.com
 * http://www.boxing.com
 * https://www.boxing247.com
 * https://www.boxinginsider.com
 * https://www.boxingnews24.com
 * https://www.boxingscene.com
 * http://cyberboxingzone.com
 * https://fightnews.com
 * http://www.saddoboxing.com
 * https://www.worldboxingnews.net

There are probably several similar sites that I haven't listed. These seem on a par with the many music webzines that we generally don't accept as reliable sources. The fact that they may list 'staff' isn't enough in itself. If any of these genuinely satisfy WP:RS, all well and good, we can all use them, if not, they need to be removed. I also believe we need to consider again whether Boxrec.com is treated as a reliable source suitable to be cited. It is often cited, and while it's certainly a useful site (and convenient when other sources can't be found), it is essentially community-produced content and often contains errors. --Michig (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think nothing is wrong using articles and journals from those sites as long as they're not opinion-based articles such as editorials, commentary or analysis/predictions or whatever articles not fact-based. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, the issue is whether these are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". See also Biographies_of_living_persons given that most boxing articles are BLPs, particularly the section on avoiding using self-published sources - if any of these are just fans writing articles on their websites, they would fall into this category. --Michig (talk) 12:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Editing task: weight class / world champion categories
Wherever a category of is accompanied by, please remove the latter; it is redundant, and included within the former. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Amateur weights in categories
Currently in MOS:BOXING, we include categories for weight classes in which a boxer competed as an amateur. I'm a bit torn on this. On one hand, it makes sense to categorise Lennox Lewis or Anthony Joshua under Category:Super-heavyweight boxers because they won their Olympic medals at that weight. However, categorising Roy Jones Jr. under Category:Light-welterweight boxers for winning a Golden Gloves tournament, or Callum Smith under Category:Welterweight boxers for silver at the Commonwealth Games seems weird. Perhaps they could be limited to the most major international amateur tournaments only, or we could do away with including amateur weights completely. Suggestions? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Boxing records for professional fighters
I apologize if this question has been asked before but does anyone thing all professional boxers should have to have boxing records on display. It seems only after Jake LaMotta died he got a proper professional fighter record. It seems that many early 20th Century boxers such as Jack Kid Berg, Randolph Turpin, Dick Turpin (boxer) don't have fight records. Does anyone think it be mandatory that all professional boxers should have fight records on display? Dwanyewest (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It has been asked before, but about two years ago perhaps—so it's not a recent question. They aren't currently mandatory, but to qualify for a good article, a boxer's professional record absolutely should be displayed. To build an encyclopaedia, we need all the details of a boxer's career. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It can take quite a bit of effort to add a full record, particularly for boxers from the first half of the 20th century who had hundreds of professional fights, so no, it can't be mandatory to include them in articles, or we would get very few articles created. --Michig (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think prioritizing Hall-of-Famers and world champions would suffice. But for boxers with more than a certain number of fights, non-title fights prior to his first title fight can be "omitted" in the meantime. It's execution needs to be discussed, if any. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Tyson Fury Propagandists
It seems that there are lots of IP-only Tyson Fury propagandists vandalizing some related pages, particularly Lineal championship and List of lineal boxing world champions pages. Some of them are promoting the website LBC.com. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No worries. Just keep reverting 'til the cows go home. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Lineal titles
This bullshit has spread out across many articles following Álvarez, Fury and Mikey Garcia's recent fights, so it's time for centralised discussion to be held here. The lineal championship, as currently described on WP, cannot be allowed to remain on record tables, succession boxes, and lead sections. This is because the list article's primary sources are CBZ and the TBRB, both of which contradict each other regularly, leading to myriad interpretations by every man and their dog. In particular, the credibility of CBZ should be in serious question due to how they've handled the Pacquiao/lineal welterweight situation post-Bradley III. The notion that Horn, and thereby Crawford, is the current lineal welterweight champion is laughable. But again, that's just an interpretation.

The lack of unanimity regarding "who is the lineal champion" means that the entire premise of these intangible, pseudo titles on WP fails WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:V. At the most, lineal titles could be mentioned in the article body along with detailed and well-sourced rationales from boxing media outlets (e.g., "considered by some sources to be the lineal champion of his division; other sources disagree"), but I maintain that they absolutely should not be anywhere stat-based sections such the abovementioned record tables, succession boxes and lead. The [insert sanctioning body] champion in a given weight class is set in stone—lineal champions are not, and never will be.

The question goes:

Should lineal titles be removed from record tables, succession boxes, and lead sections? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Remove it from everywhere. It's not a real title. --Michig (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Has to stay everywhere for me. It is the oldest title in existance, you could actually argue that it is infact the most prestigious title along with The Ring. Just because you don't get a belt from a corrupt sanctioning body it doesn't mean that it is not real. Before the sanctioning bodies came along we only had the world (lineal) title from the 1880s and then The Ring title came along in the 1920s, we didn't see the alphabet titles until the 1960s and the lineal championship was still called the world championship up until that time, are you saying all the guys that held the title before this didn't hold a real title and therefore were not champions? How can it not be real when it would been either one of two championships or indeed the only championship title you could fight for until the 60s? The problem today is we have too many sanctioning bodies with too many different titles and therefore too many champions in each division, being a champion doesn't necessarily mean you're the best or that you've even fought any of the best anymore. These days you have hold multiple titles to be considered the best and a real champion and even then when a division doesn't have a lineal or The Ring champion it means that the true number 1 in the division is unknown. Today The Ring and lineal titles being vacant for a fight means the determined top two in a division are fighting to determine who is the best so it is actually very significant also because if a fighter holds both those titles they are without question the no1 in their division. Meanwhile its possible to fight for and therefore possible to win an alphabet title and not even be the 10th best fighter at the weight. The lineal championship represents a time when there was one world title and therefore one world champion so it showed who the best was and who was a real champion and it still does that today. Personally I do not think it is too difficult to discern who the lineal champion is in each division (if there is one) and on the occasions when it is in question then I'm sure it won't too hard for us to reach a conclusion. Lorenzo9378 (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That simply isn't true. As far back as the 1930s the major world titles were sanctioned by bodies such as the NYSAC and the NBAA, often with different boxers recognised as world champions at the same weight, and also sometimes other boxers recognised as world champions in Europe. The Ring title held little importance until recently, and the 'lineal title' isn't officially determined by anyone, nor was it discussed much for most of the modern (post-1900) history of boxing. --Michig (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – "Has to stay everywhere" is non-negotiable, and I'm going by the hard-and-fast WP rules listed above—WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:V. "We" aren't making this up. Because there are so many interpretations of who a lineal champion is, such material simply cannot be included in tables, etc. Granted, I see no reason why the lineal championship article itself cannot stay, as long as it is made up solely of prose, with a variety of reliable sources discussing the discrepancies and disagreements that the so-called "title" has faced over the decades.


 * However, the inclusion of them in list- or stat-related sections cannot and will not stay for much longer, and that ambiguous table in the aforementioned article will be gone very soon—it goes against the entire ethos of WP. It would be utterly ridiculous to put something like this in Fury's record table: "Defending lineal heavyweight title according to [insert opinion/agenda here]; not defending lineal heavyweight according to TBRB and CBZ." That stuff can be hashed out in the prose, where it belongs. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * In its current revision, even the lineal championship article itself acknowledges the failings of such an intangible concept: "Since the modern lineal championship is merely a notional title tracked by fans, there is no money or organization to arrange a box-off to fill a vacant title, and there may not be consensus on who the top contenders are". To reiterate: we cannot include within tables and succession boxes something that does not even exist. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - Yes they may been sanctioned by bodies such as those you mention at the time but the sanctioning bodies were still of no real significance until the 60s when the WBA and WBC came along, (in fact the NBA became WBA for instance) and as I said, it was was still called the 'world' championship/title until that time no matter who sanctioned it. The 'lineal' title wasn't discussed much back then for the same reason, it was still called the 'world' title. As for the Fury lineal champion thing, we already discussed it on his talk page and reached a conclusion. Obviously it would be ridiculous to have that in Fury's record table as you would never put that anyway because either they are the champion or they aren't but as we agreed he cannot still be the lineal champ after two and half years out. However, if you try and remove the lineal status from a legitimate lineal champion like Usyk for example then I think you will encounter problems (and I don't mean from me). But if you're thinking removing all traces of the lineal title will solve any edit warring issues, then think again. Michig has already tried to remove the only mention of the lineal title from the Wilder-Fury article, despite the fact I did say former champion not current, and was countered by a user who regularly updates various fighters articles. It seems the three of us are the only ones discussing it here, but if you try and make this change without consulting any of the users who reguarly update various figthers and fight pages, then good luck I guess. Lorenzo9378 (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There were multiple world champions at the same weight before the WBA and WBC came along because different sanctioning bodies recognized different champions - I've read plenty of newspaper articles from the era which discuss this. When I removed 'lineal' from the Wilder-Fury article it stated that Fury was the current lineal champion, not former - here's the diff. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC) One example I came across recently was from 1942 when the NYSAC agreed to recognize the winner of the Jackie Paterson-Peter Kane fight as the world flyweight champion, while the NBA(A) stuck with Little Dado as world champion. Another was when Freddie Mills beat Len Harvey - Harvey was at the time recognized by the BBBofC as world champion, but Mills didn't value the title as he regarded Gus Lesnovich as the genuine world champion. There was certainly one widely-recognized world champion most of the time, but there were still multiple world champions, and often dispute as to who should be considered world champion. --Michig (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "[I]f you try and remove the lineal status from a legitimate lineal champion like Usyk"'—Usyk, Fury, Ali, Stevenson.. doesn't matter. Their lineal statuses (or lack thereof; see Pacquiao in 2016–2017) can be explained in the lead or article body where they belong, with multiple refs explaining who considers them lineal champion, and by what definition.


 * "[I]f you're thinking removing all traces of the lineal title"—Not all traces; just from the stat-based sections like record tables and succession boxes. For Fury's current status, it can worded something like how I suggested at the top of this discussion: "Fury is considered by some sources to be the reigning lineal heavyweight champion based on his victory over Klitschko; however, his two-year period of inactivity and sporadic announcements of retirement have caused debate over his status as lineal champion."


 * ..There ya go. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like you've softened your position on removing any mention of lineal titles from the lead. Including it in the lead shouldn't be automatic just because CBZ or someone else called them the lineal champion, but it belongs there in some articles (for example: Michael Spinks and George Foreman).--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about titles from the early days of boxing, but it looks like The Ring's champions are as good as any, from when they started. I'm open to discussion about what we could do to recognize world champions before 1922.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support removing it from record tables and succession boxes. It's an opinion, not a fact.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Michig "One recognised world champion", there you said it yourself. There may have occasionally been other champions in other insignificant sanctioning bodies but the lineal/world title represents the line of succession from this one recognised world champion you mention. And okay, you removed the only mention of the lineal title instead of changing it back from 'former' to 'current' even though the conclusion we reached was that he is not the current lineal champion, not to remove all mention of it. You can also see I called him the former champion and a random IP changed it to current.
 * @Mac I simply don't agree with removing it from the lead sections or record tables and succession boxes and I know I'll be far from the only one. To take it out of the record table implies it's not on the line even when it unquestionably is, like in Usyk-Gassiev or Klitschko-Fury for instance and to say the lineal title wasn't on the line in those fights would just be plain wrong in my opinion. To say it is not a real title when many people and media involved in the sport are mentioning it on a daily basis makes no sense. I actually stumbled across a new source for the lineal title here (https://www.linealboxingchampion.com/) which looks a good website but considers Fury to still be the current lineal champion on the basis you cannot be stripped of or vacate the title unless you retire or move to another weight class. Fury by his own admission did retire but changed his mind, so does that mean his retirement was never official therefore he didn't vacate the title? By their admission the answer is yes but by their policy you could just as easily say the title is vacant until the no1 and no2 fight for it which is the conclusion we reached, I think it just depends whether or not you consider Fury's 30 month lay off as a retirement. Either way I recommend having a look at their policy for the lineal championship because other than that I can't argue with any of it and it's defintely worth a look I'd be interested to see what you think. Lorenzo9378 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like a website/blog set up by a fan to me, with no evidence of satisfying WP:RS, and this is the real problem here, there is no official body that decides who the lineal champion is, so it is impossible for us to state that someone is the lineal champion without qualifying it with according to  x. We would need a governing body awarding the title and reliable sources to state that someone is the lineal champion. --Michig (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Lorenzo, you've highlighted exactly what I've been talking about since I opened this thread—complete lack of agreement across mainstream media and boxing publications. "Fury is! Isn't! Is! Isn't! Is! Isn't! Is! Isn't! Is!".. Please see some sense and realise that such a shaky premise fails WP:OR automatically, and thus means there is no place for lineal titles in factual sections such as the record tables and succession boxes. There's no way around it.
 * WP core policy—that being reliable sources in agreement of a fact—isn't going to change just because some boxing fans are debating a pseudo title. If Fury's disputed lineal status means it cannot be included in the aforementioned sections, that it can only mean it needs to be zapped from all other boxers' articles for consistency. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that LBC website is no worse of a source for the lineal title than TBRB or CBZ, and I don't think it matters that they are not sanctioning bodies, the problem is that they don't always agree. So in the case of disputed lineal status, we can reach an agreement on here. The lineal championship decides itself, whether there is a source for it or not. It is either the man who beat the man or the winner of a fight between the no1 and no2 to become the man. I think I highlighted the lack of agreement only on the Fury lineal situation not the lineal championship as a whole, and don't get me wrong I can see the point both of you are making, but you can also understand the Fury lineal situation is pretty much unique. I previously stated that I don't think it is difficult to discern who the lineal champion is (if any) in each division is and I stand by that even if you exclude the Fury case, but we reached a conclusion on that and I stand by that too. Either a fighter is the lineal champion or they're not, we agreed Fury can no longer be classed lineal champ after that length lay off so at this point the lineal title would only be mentioned in his record table for the Klitschko fight, I don't see why it should be removed for that fight so obviously don't see why it should be zapped from all relevant record tables and succession boxes either. Removing the lineal title from the record tables would mean removing the world heavyweight title from any record tables prior to the 60s, and this is something I just cannot agree to. Lorenzo9378 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * World titles prior to the 1960s were awarded by recognized sanctioning bodies. They are not in any way similar to the putative lineal title. It isn't up to editors to reach a consensus on what the truth is, we need to reflect facts cited to reliable sources. Personally, I wouldn't give any weight to the TBRB or the CBZ either. --Michig (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Listing the lineal championships, I believe, is an important information because it identifies a division's one true champion. I also noticed that one of the main cause of this issue is the difference between the main sources namely CBZ and TBRB as they listed differently these past 2 years. I learned that the reason, according to Tracy Callis, whom I inquired to last March, why CBZ's list has been outdated is because the person "keeping up" the list "has departed" and that no one "inherited" the task. But just recently, the list is now updated and recognizes TBRB champions and their previous abdications.


 * Here are the recent updates from CBZ. The update includes the following:
 * Heavyweight: Fury's reign now reflects that of TBRB's.
 * Cruiserweight: Usyk is added.
 * Light Hevyweight: Gvozdyk is added, Stevenson's reign is updated as well.
 * Super Middleweight: Ward's reign now reflects that of TBRB's.
 * Middleweight: Alvarez's reign now reflects that of TBRB's (his abdication in 2017 and recapturing this year).
 * Welterweight: Pacquiao's reign is updated and now reflects that of TBRB's (he retired).
 * Junior Welterweight: Crawford and Mikey Garcia are added.
 * Junior Bantamweight: Sor Rungvisai is added.
 * Flyweight: Gonzalez's reign now reflects that of TBRB's.


 * I also believe that Fury's recent claim just adds to the confusion and is a distraction. The fact that he announced abdication, whether he retracted or not, is an statement of abdication. As per the traditional rule, once a boxer vacates and returns he has to fight his way back to the top contention and fight the other top contender. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Ongoing edit wars at the list of lineal boxing world champions prove my point, yet again. "Lineal titles" need to vanish from all record tables and succession boxes, and new guidelines formed on how to handle them in lead sections. We now have clear agendas being demonstrated by certain editors, and no clarity whatsoever in determining reliable sources—whether it's CBZ, TBRB, or this linealboxingchampion.com site. As far as I'm concerned, they're all dubious in their credibility, because the "lineal title" is a dubious concept in itself—an intangible, subjective, pseudo championship. The way this is being handled is unacceptable, and not how WP works. If sources pertaining to content are in dispute, then said content should not be present at all until there is clarity. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That LBC.com site is clearly a fan-made blog site. Just from the looks of it's homepage. Seems to be created to add more confusion (a pseudo main source) that Tyson Fury is still the lineal champion. Those who points out that Fury is still the LC disregards the fact that he announced retirement and clearly violated the traditional rule of gaining back a championship. To make it worse, Fury self-proclaims that he's still as such. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The Ring kept Fury as their Champion in 2016/17
Why didn't The Ring make their title vacant in 2016 or 2017?

...Fury vacated his ABC belts in 2016, but at no point did he ever formally retire or vacate the real world championship. The Ring didn't view the "Twitter retirement" as an official retirement.

This is surely very credible evidence that he never retired as Lineal Champion.

Anthony Williams Boxing (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not possible to retire as lineal champion because it isn't a real title. --Michig (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The point is he announced retirement, whether it's formal, informal, official or not. That's how the traditional lineal championship system works. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Didn't Fury's "Twitter retirement" in 2016 last 3 hours?! ...a little different to Marciano's, Jeffries' and Lennox's retirements... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Williams Boxing (talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, different time frame but still a retirement. It's not a question of how long he stayed retired, the question is if he announced retirement in any form. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Tyson Fury is the lineal champion until beaten in the ring
Very simple. The lineal champion owns the lineage when he beats the man that beat the man and the lineage is not subject to other people's views. Fury says he's the lineal champion. He doesn't say that he vacated the lineal title. Never did. He vacated the belts. Not the lineal title. Until he actually gets beaten IN THE RING and/or OFFICIALLY retires from the sport, he will always be the lineal champion. Clearly, he's never been beaten. And clearly HE'S BACK. Now, if in his absence, the consensus #1 and #2 fighters fought to replace him, there could be an argument and the winner could be shown to have replaced him, but the lineage would STILL be his when he came back. Just like when Muhammad Ali was suspended in 1967 and Joe Frazier fought the #2 guy to replace Ali. In the ensuing Fight Of The Century, Ali was STILL referred to as the lineal champion because he had never been beaten in the ring. When you keep it simple, there really is no confusion. Tyson Fury owns the lineage until he's beaten or he says otherwise. If you want to control the lineage, YOU GET IN THE RING AND YOU BEAT HIM. Otherwise, it's not yours to control. Davidjohnadams (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

False information on the lineal page
Mohammed Ali never vacated his lineal title and Tyson Fury never vacated his lineal title. The lineage page has been sabotaged by people who either don't understand the simple concept behind the lineage, or worse, have a political agenda or personal bias. You either beat the man who beat the man or you retire from boxing FOR GOOD, and a new lineage is created when there is a winner between the consensus #1 and #2 in the division.

Mohammed Ali was lineal champion until beaten by Joe Frazier. He was banned from boxing. He was stripped of his titles. But he was STILL considered the lineal champion until the Fight of the Century.

Wladimir Klitschko was lineal champion ONLY after defeating the #2 fighter at the time, Alexander Povetkin. Wladimir never fought his brother, #2 ranked Vitali, so the lineage was vacant until Vitali retired. Vitali was still around when Wladimir won the RING belt against #3 Ruslan Chagaev.

Tyson Fury is still the lineal champion today, having defended his lineage three times since beating Wladimir Klitschko.

Manny Pacquiao has NEVER been the welterweight lineal champion, having lost to Floyd Mayweather. When Manny Pacquiao fought Timothy Bradley in early 2016, he was ranked #2 and Timothy Bradley was ranked #4 (Kell Brook was #1). Keith Thurman was ranked #2 at the end of 2016. Floyd Mayweather has yet to officially retire from the sport of boxing, having defended his lineage against Manny Pacquiao, Andre Berto and Conor McGregor. Davidjohnadams (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

WP 1.0 Bot Beta
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Infobox boxer: BoxRec field
For infoboxes, please add  (plus the boxer's corresponding ID) below the   field. It'll create a ref-link to their record, without the need to scroll to the bottom of the article for it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

JaRico O'Quinn
Boxer JaRico O'Quinn is listed as champion on List of United States national amateur boxing bantamweight champions but it seems to me that he competed in Featherweight class (56kg)? Champion in the 52kg division would be Malik Jackson then. Maybe I'm missing something, though, that's why I wanted to inquire here first. -- Fallen Sheep (talk) 10:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Accessibility / record table size
Per this edit at George Foreman, it's likely that most record tables do not currently adhere to MOS:ACCESS (particularly MOS:FONTSIZE) due to the numerous instances of small for round-end times. The next large-scale editing task (which could possibly be done by a bot?) should be to remove the  parameter in the tables. Therefore we need to go from this..

to this..

Let's get to it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Amateur career record
Right now we have different amateur career record for any given person. See for example:
 * Igor_Vysotsky
 * Anthony_Joshua
 * Lennox_Lewis

What about to unify it somehow for universal use, by devising a bottom-to-top table-template, or familytree-alike top-to-bottom template, or something of the sort to credit the most remarkable/notable highlights of the one's career as an amateur:

Such table could Thank you for your time, ВоенТех (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
 * resemble an average professional boxing/MMA record;
 * be hidden by default until the reader pushes the "[show]" button, so it won't be annoying for the readers even if the boxer they read about had 300+ bouts in his amateur career;
 * become very useful, especially for articles about the Cold War era boxers from the Communist countries, where they did the same pro boxing, without headgear, without belt or groin protection equipment, but limited to 3 rounds and wearing a singlet-type sleeveless vest instead of bare-chest fighting, boxing at the same famous arenas (MSG, Caesar's, etc.,) except for build-up press-conferences and million-dollar prizes, which, of course, they didn't have, because in the Communist countries people don't box for money, they do it just for "thank you."
 * put an end to the lack of consistency in the articles about boxers.

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability / Regional titles
All, with regards to WP:NBOXING, WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment specifies bodies that bestow titles that are deemed notable. Is there consensus if this applies only to national or top-level titles, such as British Boxing Board of Control Championship, or if this indeed includes all titles, including regional level, e.g. "Midlands Area". pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is only the top title. No interim and no lower-level. RonSigPi (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Interim Champions
How about making a separate category for Interim World Champions? And then a list page? PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * List page sure, or incorporate them into the sanctioning body lists (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO), but not categories—they'd have to be updated and/or replaced every time they win a full world title. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right, a list page is fine. Would be better if we separate them to the full world champions. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I created a page for the list. I hope someone can double-check, especially the flags since I'm not familiar on how to know if the flag is correct at the time they won. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Unless anyone takes up the task, I'll try to create/edit links to them from bio articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The page has been moved to this draftspace by a certain user. I already fixed things inside and is just waiting for the review. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep us informed. Such lists are more important than ever before, due to the (unfortunate) prevalence of such titles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Uniform format for champions list
I think the list of champions format for each organizations (lineal, Ring and interim not included) should be uniform, as well as for the per division list. As well as a separate champions list for women's boxing. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 09:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Are they not pretty much uniform already? WBA, WBC, IBF and WBO look the same to me since the last time I rearranged the weight classes from highest to lowest. Or do you mean the current champions article? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I mean, each of the lists' table are not uniform. WBA and WBC are quite identical, so as IBF and WBO, but both of the two groupings are not. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Offer of English translation of articles about duels
Hello colleagues! I am the editor of the Russian Wikipedia, just like you write articles about boxing fights. There are many interesting articles on this topic in the English Wikipedia. However, it should also clarify that neither the Russian nor the English sections can not fully sanctify this topic at the moment. I want to bring to your attention a few articles about boxing fights, which are in the Russian section, but not in English.--Пппзз (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Диего_Корралес_—_Хосе_Луис_Кастильо_II
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Владимир_Кличко_—_Росс_Пьюритти
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Владимир_Кличко_—_Лаймон_Брюстер_II
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Владимир_Кличко_—_Лаймон_Брюстер
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Владимир_Кличко_—_Корри_Сандерс
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Виталий_Кличко_—_Корри_Сандерс
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Александр_Усик_—_Мурат_Гассиев
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Адонис_Стивенсон_—_Александр_Гвоздик
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Энтони_Джошуа_—_Александр_Поветкин
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Владимир_Кличко_—_Сэмюэл_Питер
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Владимир_Кличко_—_Кельвин_Брок
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Крис_Бёрд_—_Владимир_Кличко_II
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Херби_Хайд_—_Виталий_Кличко
 * https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Александр_Усик_—_Майрис_Бриедис

More 'lineal' disruption
Various editors continue to add nonsense about Tyson Fury holding the 'lineal' heavyweight title, despite the fact that the CBZ and TBRB, the only sites that declare lineal titles, both consider Fury to have vacated the title in 2016. There is not a single recognised sanctioning body in the world that recognises lineal champions, and continuing to add lineal titles is pure disruption and makes the boxing articles in the encyclopedia look like the work of fanboys. --Michig (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Those editors are fans of Fury who became his fellow propagandists of the fake news that he's still the true champion. Just revert whatever false information they try to add. They often plague the page a week before, during, and after Fury fights. PinoyBoxing11 (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

IBO titles
This parasitic "fifth world title"... ugh. I propose that, when referring to the big four (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO), the IBO be ignored altogether. Current and recent big-name holders include Ruiz, Fury, Joshua, Klitschko. Mainstream media is intent on treating it as a world title when we all know it's not, but there are also numerous references from knowledgeable boxing scribes that could be dug up in favour of rejecting it as such; whether it becomes a WP:WEIGHT issue remains to be seen.

Mainly it's lead sections I'm concerned with, and how to handle different combinations of titleholders if the IBO is present. I'm strongly, strongly against calling any boxer a "unified" world champion if they hold a single big-four title and an IBO title. "Unified" should only describe WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO, never IBO. Let's discuss. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think we can ignore the IBO entirely. We could agree that if the boxer has won a major title we should leave the IBO out of the lead, since it is not as significant. I support that.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with mentioning an IBO title in an article, but a boxer needs more than that to show notability. Being old school, I believe a unified title means being recognized by all of the major boxing organizations, not just some of them. Papaursa (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Undisputed = recognized by all the major sanctioning bodies. We have 'unified' these days for a champion recognized by more than one major sanctioning body, because undisputed doesn't happen very often any more. --Michig (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * A wotld title these days is, unfortunately, any title with 'world' in its name. The IBO world title may not be the most highly regarded, but in my mind neither is the WBO. An IBO world title is more worthy of mention that the multitude of international/intercontinental/gold/silver/etc. meaningless titles proliferated by the WBA and WBC. --Michig (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly! I remember a time when the IBF was carrying more prestige & weight for a lot in the boxing world, but to me with the National Boxing Association, which in 1962 changed to the WBA, being founded first, back in 1921, I thought it should always carry the highest prestige & weight. But the IBO is an unnecessary addition, like 4 major boxing organizations isn’t already too many. Unctarheel4ever (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Unbiased Heavyweight Lineage
Based on what actually happened in the ring: when the title changed hands and when the lineal champion actually retired from the sport, or was able to come back and defend his title. From: List of lineal boxing world champions

Nice, clean list & very easy to follow as well as read. Great Job & Thanks 4 Sharing Lineage List Unctarheel4ever (talk) 10:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. There's too much unnecessary confusion about what has already been settled in the ring. There's not much to it: the lineal champion remains the champion until he's beaten in the ring or retires for good. In the 134-year history of the heavyweight lineage, there have only been three champions who have actually retired without coming back: Gene Tunney, Rocky Marciano and Lennox Lewis. Others like Jim Jefferies, Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali and Tyson Fury, all came back to defend their title and they were all considered the lineal champion when they came back. So why complicate the lineage with brief retirement stints, non-relevant matchups and temporary bans? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjohnadams (talk • contribs) 17:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Boxing styles and technique
I don't know anything about boxing but I noticed recently an IP adding in the name of a red-linked boxer 'Chancellor Pharaoh Rogers' to this article. After a bit of googling, I couldn't find evidence they even exist, let alone are notable! After I removed it, an IP came back and added them back in... I've reverted it again, but I could use some extra eyes because I suspect they'll be back at it in short order.

The whole article is a bit of a mess in that regard, it's been kind of a free for all with people adding in boxers without citations. It may make sense to delete the list of boxers in each section and restrict it to one or two examples when talking about boxers who use that particular style. Mvolz (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added it to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it. I'm happy to protect it or deal with individual editors if the disruption continues. --Michig (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - back at it here too: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jack_Johnson_(boxer)&diff=prev&oldid=907039844&diffmode=source Mvolz (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

What about Dashon Johnson?
Is Dashon Johnson a notable boxer to deserve a Wikipedia article? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

former vs. retired boxer
Wiki-editors often refer to retired boxers as to "former professional boxers," which is incorrect especially for those personalities, who announced their retirement publicly.
 * While a "former professional boxer" would be a term suitable for those, who quit from boxing either voluntarily, in pursuit of certain other professional activities (stage performance and politics are the activities chosen most often by the pro boxing celebrities); or involuntarily (being jailed, cured, or otherwise physically restrained from competition.)
 * Whereas a "retired professional boxer" is a term suitable for the athletes, who quit for natural professionally-related reasons, such as injuries, age, etc., which made it difficult to compete at the previously maintained level, or other reasons of subjective nature, such as reaching the peak of one's career and desiring to leave in a blaze of glory.

Perhaps, the most cogent explanation I've seen is: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-an-ex-officer-and-a-retired-officer

Which could be summarized briefly as follows: A retired professional boxer is still a professional boxer with all his regalia and accomplishments, and rank, still being accounted for in boxing-related rosters, ratings and rankings, while a former professional boxer is already a person of other profession or occupation, being accounted for in other respective professional spheres of activity.

One might argue that professional boxers do not have a government-backed retirement plan, but that doesn't undermine the point.

One other thing is that boxers aren't sent to reformatory institutions to become a "former professional boxer."

Neither status is permanent. Sugar Ray Leonard, who announced his retirement and then came out from retirement countless times, could be possibly the best example of a retired professional boxer. On the other side, Ike Ibeabuchi, who has been jailed over and over again, and was refused parole, is probably the most widely known example of a former professional boxer. 93.74.129.41 (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"If a boxer is no longer active, list the year ranges when they competed: ... competed from 1998 to 2005. Use former professional boxer instead of retired professional boxer, as a retired athlete may still be in some form of employment regardless of their age."

The MOS is pretty clear. I presume this post is concerning your edit on Cotto? Isn’t he a boxing promoter now? 2 . O . Boxing 12:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, the Cotto issue is just the latest one. 93.74.129.41 (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. And btw thanks for bringing it up, for it only further proves my point. 93.74.129.41 (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no input to offer at this time, but will observe discussion if there's any change that could be made to the MOS. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is already. In its present edition it contradicts other WP governance regulations (let alone common sense,) RETIRED for instance. Put "boxer" instead of "user," and here you have it:
 * "Use retired professional boxer instead of former professional boxer, as a boxer who have retired may return at any point." 93.74.129.41 (talk) 10:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Given the mentioned WP regulations, one can be referred to as "semi-retired" if no clear information on the one's career perspectives is available at the moment (for the regulations provide such a term, as well as the English language does.) Try and use a "semi-former professional boxer" for a change ))) 93.74.129.41 (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary's definition of retired is "Having left one's job and ceased to work ."

By that definition, there is a case for referring to some boxers as retired, but for the likes of Cotto, Malignaggi, Lennox Lewis, Sugar Ray...it would still be former, as they still work in some form or another. Using semi as a prefix for either word implies they still box on occasion.

I think former is the right choice for the vast majority. 2 . O . Boxing 11:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionary's definition mentioned above in no way contradicts with that the one could still resume his/her job and get back to work at any given time, and be no longer retired. But to be "no longer former" is something beyond my imagination. 93.74.129.41 (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Why does the Professional Boxing Record table go in reverse chronological order?
The table starts with most recent fights first and oldest fights last. Why? Jason Quinn (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Copying Boxrec? --Michig (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Use WP:SORT, add "data-sort-type=date" to the date column, that'll solve the problem. 93.74.129.41 (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant to add wikitable-sortable to the MOS many years ago, but after several hundred record table overhauls.. I forgot. Perhaps a bot/script could do it? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure it could, no need to do it manually page by page. 93.74.129.41 (talk) 08:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Dereck Chisora
From reading the guidelines on lead sections and viewing the examples provided, I wish to change the lead section of Dereck Chisora in order to make it more consistent with other pages, however, another edit war arose from my edit. I wish to change it from to.

As you can see, very minor changes but it makes the section more consistent with others. Thoughts? 2 . O . Boxing 20:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:NBOX
I came across this when creating Seniesa Estrada. I think the women's title list should be changed in WP:NBOX. While someone can argue, women's boxing has grown a lot in the last few years. Specifically, Claressa Shields and Katie Taylor have become household names in the fight world. Well, the classic men's sanctioning bodies have taken notice and are now awarding titles. Shields nor Taylor have ever fought for one of the titles listed in WP:NBOX. Nor has Nicola Adams. Nor has Amanda Serrano. Nor has Heather Hardy.

I think we should make a cutoff of 2017 - 5 years after boxing became part of the Olympics and after 2 Olympic cycles as well as the year Shields and Taylor fought for titles.

It should be noted this is not as much adding as it is correcting. It represents the men's organizations superseding the old women's - so just as important is adding is putting a stop to the old ones.

A boxer is presumed notable if they:
 * 1) Have fought for a world title (e.g. super, regular/full, interim) for one of the following current or historical major sanctioning bodies:
 * Men: International Boxing Federation (IBF), World Boxing Association (WBA) (and its predecessor the NBA), World Boxing Council (WBC), World Boxing Organization (WBO), or NYSAC
 * Women (fights pre-2017): International Female Boxers Association, International Women's Boxing Federation, Women's International Boxing Association, or Women's International Boxing Federation
 * Women (fights 2017-present): IBF, WBA, WBC, and WBO.

If this seems workable I will submit to WP:NSPORT. RonSigPi (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The (original) IBU should be added to the men's list, and we should have national champions from major boxing countries, continental and commonwealth champions, etc. in the list. At the moment the boxing notability guideline is only really useful to people who like to delete articles for fun as it sets a ridiculously high bar. --Michig (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems like a logical addition. As does Michig's suggestion of national, continental and commonwealth champions. 2 . O . Boxing 01:56, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Michig and 2 . O, I added this proposal to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports).  I think the other things you mentioned should be addressed on their own. RonSigPi (talk) 00:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Round, time in the record table
When listing the exact time a fight is stopped, do we list the time shown on the clock or the amount of time that has passed? — 2 . O . Boxing  20:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Time elapsed, like BoxRec uses; onscreen graphics usually show the time remaining, which we don't want. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

British Area titles
Can I gain some consensus on British Area titles relating to a needless dispute on the Sam Sexton page?

I changed "Southern Area title" to "British Southern Area title" and one person seems to think this was incorrect and decided to engage in a pointless edit war. My reasoning behind the edit is the fact that the guidelines surrounding titles state that British Boxing Board of Control and BBBoC should be simplified as British. BBBoC Southern Area title -> British Southern Area title. Also, anybody that is not a hardcore boxing fan, especially one from outside Britain, would have no clue where/who sanctions a Southern Area title. 2 . O . Boxing 19:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a slightly problematic element of the MOS I've considered changing for a while, and that includes European titles. Currently it's worded like this, at MOS:BOXING:

"Exceptions include European instead of European Boxing Union or EBU; British instead of British Boxing Board of Control or BBBofC; and Commonwealth instead of Commonwealth Boxing Council or CBC."


 * It's a shame that an edit war had to happen over it, but that's how most of the MOS got put together in 2015–2016, because of edit wars (and flame wars..) over consistency and terminology. I can see the logic in using BBBofC in front of "British [region] [weight class] title", and EBU in front of "European [weight class] title", as it would match the format used for world titles; e.g. "WBC [weight class] title". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)


 * There's only one Southern Area Title (and Central, Northern, Midlands, etc.) so do we really need to prefix it with 'BBBofC' or 'British' at all? There's also only one British title, so there's no need to keep adding BBBofC every time it's mentioned. --Michig (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC).

I think British over BBBoC would be a better choice of the two, but I do believe a prefix is needed for the Area titles. We may know of the Area titles, but not everybody will. It makes it clear for anybody that glances over a record table of who sanctions the title. The WBC is the only world title that has a 'Silver' title, we all know this, but we don’t remove WBC. Discounting the WBO version as that’s just a rarely mentioned honorary title, the WBA (Super) is the only world title that uses '(Super)', but we don’t remove WBA. 2 . O . Boxing 22:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the WBC Silver and WBA Super titles are always referred to in sources as the WBC Silver and WBA Super titles, and not the Silver and Super titles, while the Southern Area Title is always referred to as the Southern Area Title, not the British Southern Area Title or similar. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC) Sticking 'British' in front of every BBBofC title is also problematic when it comes to English, Scottish, and Celtic titles - 'British Scottish Title' doesn't really read well. Another thing to note is that 'WBC Silver Title' is the correct name of the title, while 'British Southern Area Title' is not. --Michig (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC) If anyone feels that readers might be confused, there's an easy solution which is to link the titles to articles giving more details, as we commonly do with links in articles, rather than spelling out a full explanation every time a term is used. --Michig (talk) 09:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Admittedly, it does look very clunky for Carl Frampton; i.e., "British Celtic super-bantamweight champion". The reason I worded it like that was to include the BBBofC as a sanctioning body, without actually using their (IMO slightly odd-looking) acronym. To reiterate, I am in favour of retaining the existing format of "British [weight class] champion" as it relates to full titles, whilst dropping "British" from the Area titles; e.g., "Southern Area [weight class] champion". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


 * So no prefix before Area titles and set the links as Southern Area title, or link without 'Councils'? And what about EBU European? There’s more than one European title these days.  2 . O . Boxing  01:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Link to "[Area] title", etc. looks good. As for the EBU, that poses its own anomalies. Mainstream media tends to use "European [weight class] champion" rather than "EBU European [weight class] champion", but for their semi-sub-regional titles we do see "EBU-EU" and whatnot. Not sure what to do with those, other than keep it as it is currently; e.g., "European Union [weight class] champion", unless that bugs anyone as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The EBU European title is the European title that everyone recognizes. Always prefixing it with 'EBU' could risk making it look like it's one of several legitimate European titles, and could cause confusion among readers who may think the EBU and IBU European titles are separate things. The EBU's EU title is a very minor one (not fussed whether we call this the EBU-EU or EU title), as is the 'WBO Europe Title' (name as used on the WBO website, although they also laughably call holders 'European Champion'). Given the way titles are proliferating, there may be other European titles since I last looked, but none that anyone really cares about. --Michig (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I’ll be sure to make the changes as and when I come across them. 2 . O . Boxing  12:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS - boxers with significant amateur and pro careers
The MOS suggests using 'professional boxer' or 'former professional boxer' to describe subjects in the opening sentence of the lede. Given that some boxers have significant career as both amateurs and professionals, with their amateur career sometimes more significant (Nicola Adams, Audley Harrison for example), once retired, I would suggest that simply describing them as 'former boxer' is more appropriate. It would also make sense to mention their most significant achievement first, whether or not this is as an amateur or as a pro - the MOS seems to be interpreted by some as mentioning pro career first and then amateur. In the examples I gave above, their amateur achievements are more significant and it would be better to mention these first - this would also put things in a more logical chronological order. Maybe the MOS isn't intended to be as prescriptive as some editors are interpreting it, but if it's going to be interpreted that way, better to change it. --Michig (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * That indeed makes sense. If a boxer was better known for their amateur career but did also have a few professional fights (like Adams), "former boxer" is fine. However, in the case of amateur stars like Lomachenko and Rigondeaux who also achieved professional accolades, I would still prefer "professional boxer" first to signify their current occupation, then however many sentences to expand on their former amateur career. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

In fact it would probably make more sense, and be more consistent with everything else in Wikipedia, if the first sentence or two stated the main reason for notability, and the rest of the lede (for longer articles) summarized the key points of the article in chronological order. --Michig (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:TV
You are invited to join the discussion at WT:TV. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sports reviewing idea
I've floated some ideas in the hope of increasing participation for FAC reviews of sports related articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports if anyone is interested in the idea or has a better one. Kosack (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)