This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Boxing and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Boxing This page is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BoxingWikipedia:WikiProject BoxingTemplate:WikiProject BoxingBoxing WikiProject Boxing "To Do": edit history watch purge → Help pick the next article for collaboration. FA Noms: Review: New: Expand: Hasim Rahman | Gabriel Elorde | Gerry Peñalosa | Ike Quartey | Joel Casamayor | Jean-Marc Mormeck | Odlanier Solís | Yuriorkis Gamboa Collaborate: Boxing Discuss: Annotate: Muhammad Ali | Sugar Ray Robinson | Oscar De La Hoya | Jack Dempsey | Rocky Marciano | Joe Louis | George Foreman | Roy Jones Jr. | Marvin Hagler | Lennox Lewis | Evander Holyfield | Manny Pacquiao | Érik Morales Assess: Create:

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hey can someone help me update a couple of these as I just dont have the time to maintain them anymore and they are getting neglected.

Andrei Mikhailovich needs his profile to reflected on the fact that he was declared mandatory challenger by IBF, negotiations were lengthy, a lot of post poned fight, eventually got a fight after 1 year hiatus due to waiting for the elimination fight, and then his world title which ended in him losing

Isaac Peach

Jerome Pampellone

Mea Motu needs to be expanded more recent events, especially her fights in 2024 and her being on TV

David Letele for more his community work

David Higgins (event promoter)

Duco Events especially with David Nyika, T20 Black Clash and Synthony events

Lani Daniels espeically expansion of her being on TV

Uila Mau'u

Floyd Masson

Boxing NZ reflecting on leaving IBA and joining World Boxing

Mose Auimatagi Jnr

Junior Fa retiring in his career, leaving the church, big life change and his last loss

Hemi Ahio

any help would be very much appreciated Bennyaha (talk) 22:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241006222700","author":"Bennyaha","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Bennyaha-20241006222700-Help_me_with_expansion_of_NZ_Boxers_especially_Peach_Boxing","replies":[]}}-->

See this recent discussion I had with User:Sam11333. The user appears to be under the impression that there is a consensus here to change "vs" (no dot) in boxing-related articles to "vs." This has resulted in a number of edits and pagemoves which violate WP:RETAIN. Posting here for comment before moving further with dispute resolution. 162 etc. (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241125230200","author":"162 etc.","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-162_etc.-20241125230200-\"Vs.\"_and_\"Vs\"","replies":[]}}-->

So are we using vs. or vs? Mahussain06 (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241230084600","author":"Mahussain06","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mahussain06-20241230084600-\"Vs.\"_and_\"Vs\"","replies":["c-Jahalive-20250122190900-Mahussain06-20241230084600"]}}-->

It depends on the national variety of English used in the article. If it's British use "vs", if it's American use "vs." Read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing/Archive_10#RfC_about_replacing_"vs."_and_"v"_with_"vs"_in_boxing_match_article_titles-- Jahalive (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250122190900","author":"Jahalive","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Jahalive-20250122190900-Mahussain06-20241230084600","replies":[]}}-->

User:Sam11333 has begun making bulk changes to succession boxes by re-labelling the WBA's various secondary titles (Regular/Unified/Undisputed) under the "minor boxing titles" heading – [1] – putting them on par with actual lower-tier organisations such as the IBO, WBF, etc. This, to me, is greatly misleading. We all know the secondary titles tend to be bogus, but they absolutely cannot be compared with the other aforementioned organisations. WBA Regular champions were/are still "major" titleholders.

This urgently needs discussion, because our valued Sam has a habit of really going for it (as he should, because his boxing event articles are great for the most part.. except his devotion to using flags). Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241129192600","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20241129192600-WBA_title_labelling","replies":[]}}-->

As a "title"—they need to go. There's only one IP who seems to love adding these intangible labels (which is what they are), so maybe they're working for them. Either way, start zapping. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241227223600","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20241227223600-TBRB_in_fight_articles","replies":[]}}-->

Folks of the Project, please read—this could be quite important. Is this something we should be doing? I know most other sports on WP use ascending chronological order for tables, but for some reason the major combat sports (boxing, MMA, kickboxing) use descending, so most recent fight on top. For boxing, it seems we've mainly lifted this format from BoxRec. I have no opinion as to which order makes the most sense or looks better, having simply gone with the way I've seen it being done for almost two decades. I invoke neither WP:ILIKEIT nor WP:OTHERSTUFF.

However, I will say that I've found nothing whatsoever in MOS:TABLE or MOS:ACCESS which stipulates that tables must use either ascending or descending order. I also fail to see the merit of making such a trivial change to potentially thousands of articles. Perhaps presumptuously, I would guess most readers of boxing articles on WP are very much used to clicking on the Professional boxing record TOC link to conveniently see the most recent fight on top. I would therefore like to invite User:GhostInTheMachine to discuss this further. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241230191100","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20241230191100-Record_table_sorting,_alignment","replies":["c-Mahussain06-20241231084500-Mac_Dreamstate-20241230191100","c-GhostInTheMachine-20241231182100-Mac_Dreamstate-20241230191100"]}}-->

Hi everyone. i think we should leave it as it is. It's not broken. Let's not fix it. At this point, i'm just so used to seeing the last fight at the top anyway. Is there anyone who wants to make this change? Mahussain06 (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241231084500","author":"Mahussain06","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mahussain06-20241231084500-Mac_Dreamstate-20241230191100","replies":[]}}-->

• There are two independent points here, so I am boldly creating two sections for any further discussions — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241231182100","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20241231182100-Mac_Dreamstate-20241230191100","replies":[]}}-->

I altered the table to use the {{Table alignment}} template. This allows left/right alignment to be defined once for a whole column in a table and removes any need for text-align styling on several cells of every single row of the table. This saves typing and simplifies the table code. This just makes editing easier, both when making the table, and also when maintaining it later.

There is no need to alter all existing tables to use this method, just keep it in mind when creating new articles or when making large changes to existing ones — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241231182900","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20241231182900-Record_table_\u2014_alignment","replies":["c-GhostInTheMachine-20250108123600-GhostInTheMachine-20241231182900"]}}-->

Does the project have a "blank article" used as a template for new articles? If so, best adjust it to use the simpler / cheaper / kinder alignment method — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250108123600","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20250108123600-GhostInTheMachine-20241231182900","replies":[]}}-->

Our English language writing system flows downwards – text starts at the top and works downwards. So, a narrative starts at the top of a page and later events are below that.

A list then follows this basic pattern – it starts at the top with the first item and later items follow below that. Lists of names are sorted into alphabetical order with A at the top and Z at the bottom. Lists of numbers are sorted into numerical order with the lowest number at the top and largest number at the bottom. Lists of dates are sorted into chronological order with the oldest item at the top and the newest at the bottom.

A table is just a "wider" list – each item in the list just has more attributes – displayed conveniently in columns – but it still follows the same basic pattern as a list. So a table of events starts with the oldest item at the top and the newest item at the bottom.

There is no need to alter all existing tables to display in chronological order, but all new articles should do this and existing articles should probably be corrected over time — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241231184600","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20241231184600-Record_table_\u2014_sorting","replies":["c-GhostInTheMachine-20250108123700-GhostInTheMachine-20241231184600"]}}-->

As above – update the new article template to use correct chronological ordering — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 12:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250108123700","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20250108123700-GhostInTheMachine-20241231184600","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250110191900-GhostInTheMachine-20250108123700"]}}-->

Do we have a choice in the matter—RfCs and such? That's kinda how we've always handled major formatting changes on this WikiProject, whilst being mindful of WP's overarching MOS. With that said, I will repeat my request to be pointed to a WP guideline—whether it's at MOS:TABLE, MOS:ACCESS, WP:MOSNUM, etc.—which stipulates that WikiProjects must use a low-to-high numbered format for tables.

You're encountering a decent amount of resistance to your edits simply because boxing record tables have used the format of 'most recent fight on top' for two decades. If we are to make such a significant change to our local style guide (or "MOS", as I affectionately—and sometimes defensively—call it), one which would affect many thousands of articles, I'd like assurance that it really is necessary.

I will say, however, that I have always toyed with the idea of making our tables sortable. I just never bothered with it, as that would likely require a bot to perform thousands of edits. Either way, a sortable table would be useful in that readers could decide for themselves in which order they wish to view them. I believe that would be the best solution going forward. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250110191900","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250110191900-GhostInTheMachine-20250108123700","replies":[]}}-->

Lists (and tables) being sorted alphabetically, numerically or chronologically is so basic that there does not seem to be a specific policy that actually states it. Date sorting is mentioned in a couple of places, such as MOS:SORTLIST, MOS:DATELIST and WP:SALORDER, but again without expanding on the reasons.

Not many projects actually have a style guide of any sort, so you are definitely ahead of the game. Currently, the example table in your MOS does use the inverted order, but does not state any need for it or explain any reason for it. Adding something to your MOS about wanting the fight record table to be listed in date order might need some formal action beyond this talk post. If the project members then chose to retain the inverted date order, then you do need to add something to the MOS to explain why.

The project claims about 18,000 articles and the {{Boxing record summary}} template has a use-count of around 3,800, so I imagine that the number of fight record tables could be anywhere from 4,000 to 9,000. Clearly, fixing all of these is a sizable task, but we do have bots and scripts to help with a fair bit of the work.

If you do move toward adding sorting to the tables, then I strongly suggest that the table header is converted into a template. (Sadly {{Boxing record start}} already exists and does not match the current MOS example. It has only 30 uses, so it could be redefined without much cost.) The new "... start" template could then include the table alignment template and the table holding the key to the abbreviations as well as starting the wiki table and providing the headings. That way you get consistency and several wins for the effort. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 17:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250113175900","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20250113175900-Record_table_\u2014_sorting","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250113210200-GhostInTheMachine-20250113175900"]}}-->

Going forward, adopting the long-forgotten {{Boxing record start}} looks like the ideal solution. Over at MMA articles they've long had the right idea with {{MMA record start}}, although their smaller font size overall could not be implemented for our boxing records due to the small text invariably present in the Notes column. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250113210200","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250113210200-GhostInTheMachine-20250113175900","replies":[]}}-->

Look to reliable sources to see what order they use for boxing records. BoxRec and ESPN both use reverse chronological. I think those are our two best sources for the records. Are there any that use chronological?--Jahalive (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250114205400","author":"Jahalive","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jahalive-20250114205400-Record_table_\u2014_sorting","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250114212100-Jahalive-20250114205400"]}}-->

Besides BoxRec and ESPN, what other sites even deal with records? FightFax is a paysite, so can be discounted. I can't think of a single occasion in which I've used anything other than BoxRec to check a fight record. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250114212100","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250114212100-Jahalive-20250114205400","replies":["c-Jahalive-20250114214100-Mac_Dreamstate-20250114212100"]}}-->

I haven't looked at FightFax in a long time, but I just checked out fightfax.com and they relaunched their site in August. It looks like it's free, so it might be a good source. They also list the records in reverse chronological order.--Jahalive (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250114214100","author":"Jahalive","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Jahalive-20250114214100-Mac_Dreamstate-20250114212100","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250114215700-Jahalive-20250114214100"]}}-->

Not boxing, but Sherdog also uses reverse chronological order for their MMA fight records. There is a prevailing pattern here which appears to make combat sports an anomaly when it comes to sporting records. I wonder if reliably sourced sites for other sports do the same. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250114215700","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250114215700-Jahalive-20250114214100","replies":[]}}-->

Here's something we could add above every record table, alongside Template:BoxingRecordSummary. This way we can ditch the many haphazard instances of {{abbr}} buried deep within the record table, which has tended to confuse readers unfamiliar with boxing terminology.

How does this look to everyone? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250111155200","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250111155200-Result_type_key_table","replies":["c-GhostInTheMachine-20250113181700-Mac_Dreamstate-20250111155200"]}}-->

I would adjust the table a bit to:

• reduce the text size
• use a table title instead of an extra table row
• move "Abbreviation" into the title to reduce the width of the first column:
• drop the table headings – the title now says enough

Key to abbreviations of results

DQ	Disqualification
KO	Knockout
MD	Majority decision / majority draw
NC	No contest
PTS	Points decision
RTD	Corner retirement
SD	Split decision / split draw
TD	Technical decision / technical draw
TKO	Technical knockout
UD	Unanimous decision / unanimous draw

This is smaller and so less in the way — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 18:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250113181700","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20250113181700-Mac_Dreamstate-20250111155200","replies":["c-Jahalive-20250115175100-GhostInTheMachine-20250113181700"]}}-->

I guess we should have a key. I don't like how big it is. GhostInTheMachine's version is a little less intrusive, so better. It's probably not practical to only include the results that are actually in each fighter's record. Almost no one has PTS or TD. It's possible a bot could do that, but I don't know how.--Jahalive (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250115175100","author":"Jahalive","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Jahalive-20250115175100-GhostInTheMachine-20250113181700","replies":["c-GhostInTheMachine-20250118103800-Jahalive-20250115175100"]}}-->

The key would be above a table that is generally quite wide, so the key could be even shorter by converting to 2 columns (luckily 10 is an even number):

Key to abbreviations used for results

DQ	Disqualification	RTD	Corner retirement
KO	Knockout	SD	Split decision / split draw
MD	Majority decision / majority draw	TD	Technical decision / technical draw
NC	No contest	TKO	Technical knockout
PTS	Points decision	UD	Unanimous decision / unanimous draw

Being selective about which abbreviations to include is certainly possible, but that would add a huge layer of complexity. Using one, centrally defined, key would make life a lot simpler — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 10:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250118103800","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20250118103800-Jahalive-20250115175100","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250118164000-GhostInTheMachine-20250118103800"]}}-->

I'm liking it more and more. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250118164000","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250118164000-GhostInTheMachine-20250118103800","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250122192300-Mac_Dreamstate-20250118164000"]}}-->

Ghost, I've rearranged the columns of {{Boxing record start}} to match those used in our MOS. Could you assist in getting your two-column abbreviation key shunted into the template, as well as making it sortable? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250122192300","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250122192300-Mac_Dreamstate-20250118164000","replies":["c-GhostInTheMachine-20250124221300-Mac_Dreamstate-20250122192300"]}}-->

Working on it ... Question: As policy should all boxing record tables have one column: Round(s), time or two columns: Round(s) and time? Articles have both versions. Your MOS currently specifies one combined column. Should it be two columns? Should it allow both versions? — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250124221300","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20250124221300-Mac_Dreamstate-20250122192300","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126130900-GhostInTheMachine-20250124221300"]}}-->

One column only for "Round(s), time", please. This is simply to avoid a clunky-looking, half-empty column of "?" or "N/A" where fights went to a decision. Most new record tables (likely numbering in the high hundreds, or thousands) have used the single-column format since 2015. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250126130900","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126130900-GhostInTheMachine-20250124221300","replies":["c-GhostInTheMachine-20250126205400-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126130900"]}}-->

The single column is the default in the template, with the split being available if really necessary. (I think 28 of the 30 articles I changed did use the split format.) The {{Boxing record start}} template could be made to track use of the switch and so be a TO DO list for altering older articles to use the preferred style. — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250126205400","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20250126205400-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126130900","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126214600-GhostInTheMachine-20250126205400"]}}-->

Going forward, are there bots available to convert existing tables (e.g., Daniel Dubois, where all this first came to light) to {{Boxing record start}}? I haven't the faintest idea of how bots work, other than their usefulness for performing bulk tasks. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250126214600","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126214600-GhostInTheMachine-20250126205400","replies":[]}}-->

In the end, I created 3 templates, along with documentation, sandboxes and tests:

• {{Boxing record key}} — this is the table from above that shows the abbreviations used.
• {{Boxing record header}} — this is the header for the table. It includes an option to create a 9-column table or a 10-column table. The MOS specifies the 9-column version, but some articles do use the 10-column version. The template handles both.
• {{Boxing record start}} — this is the template that should be used in the articles. It calls the other two and accepts a parameter. The plain version generates the 9-column table, but using {{Boxing record start|round-time-split=y}} generates the 10-column version.

I have updated all 30 of the articles that used the old version of the template. See a couple of examples:

• Daniel Škvor for the 9-column table.
• Errol Christie and Dewey Cooper for the 10-column table (with differing colour styles).

As a side-effect of all this, the tables no longer need to include style="text-align:left;" all over the place — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 22:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250125224800","author":"GhostInTheMachine","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-GhostInTheMachine-20250125224800-Result_type_key_table","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126131100-GhostInTheMachine-20250125224800"]}}-->

Love it, love it! Can't wait to start using it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250126131100","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126131100-GhostInTheMachine-20250125224800","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126225200-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126131100"]}}-->

Which columns should be aligned left/centre/right?

Based on this (albeit not yet using {{Boxing record start}}), I think the Date column should be centre-aligned, and possibly even use {{nowrap}}. All other columns look fine as they are. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250126225200","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126225200-Mac_Dreamstate-20250126131100","replies":[]}}-->

Sorry I didn't think of this earlier, but what should we do for newspaper decisions (NWS)?--Jahalive (talk) 03:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250127032500","author":"Jahalive","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Jahalive-20250127032500-Result_type_key_table","replies":[]}}-->

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tyson Fury vs. Anthony Joshua is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyson Fury vs. Anthony Joshua until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

162 etc. (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250113173600","author":"162 etc.","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-162_etc.-20250113173600-Nomination_of_Tyson_Fury_vs._Anthony_Joshua_for_deletion","replies":[]}}-->

Recent edit warring at Conor Benn highlighted a disagreement on how weight classes are listed in the infobox. Specifically, if a boxer has only competed in a division a handful of non-notable times, and for no regional/minor/world titles. Common examples:

• Canelo Álvarez had a grand total of two fights at light welterweight. According to a single-edit account, his infobox should therefore him list him as a light welterweight boxer. I strongly disagree because he is not notable for those fights or that weight class, and the opponents were nobodies.
• Manny Pacquiao had five fights at light flyweight. Like Álvarez, he did nothing notable in that division, and the opponents were likewise non-notable.
• Roy Jones Jr. had two fights at light middleweight, making no waves whatsoever in that division, against nobody opponents.

Back to the present, Benn has had two throwaway fights at light middleweight, for no titles. We shouldn't even have to discuss the inclusion of middleweight, since that (re)'scheduled' fight has not taken place yet. Until he regularly starts fighting at light middleweight, I maintain it should be left off his infobox. MOS:BOXING/INFOBOX/weight has handled this criteria for almost a decade. Surely it doesn't need changing now? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250121202500","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250121202500-Infobox_weight_classes","replies":["c-Jahalive-20250121204000-Mac_Dreamstate-20250121202500"]}}-->

Roy won an Olympic silver medal at light middleweight. That makes a pretty good argument for including it. I agree on the others.-- Jahalive (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250121204000","author":"Jahalive","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Jahalive-20250121204000-Mac_Dreamstate-20250121202500","replies":["c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250121204300-Jahalive-20250121204000"]}}-->

Medals are already in their own section, though. The main weight classes on the top I've always deemed to be professional ones. It would look really, really weird if we were to list Callum Smith as a welterweight because of his Commonwealth Games medal. Likewise Usyk as a middleweight. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20250121204300","author":"Mac Dreamstate","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Mac_Dreamstate-20250121204300-Jahalive-20250121204000","replies":[]}}-->