Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

"x-time world champion"

I would like clarification on how we should handle this phrase in lead sections. Let's use Carl Froch as an example: in the current lead he is listed as a three-time world champion, to mean that he had three reigns as champion. However, there is a case to say that he is actually a four-time world champion, since he won four separate titles; his IBF and WBA reigns overlapped. Another example is Timothy Bradley: his lead recently listed him as a four-time world champion, to mean four reigns, but he has won five world titles. I'm torn on which definition we should use—cumulative title reigns or titles alone. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it's most commonly used to quantify every separate reign, regardless of whether they unified several titles. For instance, no one would refer to Andre Ward as a five-time world champion. --Fpwlada (talk) 03:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
That sounds the most logical to me. However, there might be something to be said for also including "has won x world titles" to convey the significance of a single reign comprising multiple championships. Tyson Fury being an example—he only had a single reign, but importantly did win five legitimate world titles in a single sweep. Likewise, Andre Ward has only had two reigns as champion but has amassed eight world titles, something which I made a point of mentioning in his lead section. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I think listing the titles that a fighter has won would be the best option. Pacquiao has a good lead too, I think. It states that Pacquiao "won eleven major world titles". Which is more concise than listing every single belt a fighter won if the list is too long and unwieldy. Fpwlada (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Taking that into account, what I'll do is rewrite some lead sections to read "has won x world championships", wherever a single reign included more than one title; it'll hopefully leave less room for disagreement regarding "x-time world champion". I just did so for Bradley, and will try Froch next. However, "major world championships" may have to be invoked whenever the pesky IBO is present. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Ach, I've run into a snag already. Do we include the lineal championship as a major world title? If we do, then Oscar De La Hoya has actually held fourteen of them, rather than twelve. Alternatively, one could say he has held eleven major world titles as well as three lineal championships. Furthermore, should The Ring be counted amongst them? It's all open to a lot of interpretation. At this time, both lineal and The Ring are indeed listed as major world titles at WP's own list of current world boxing champions, so I'm OK with going with that if it suits everyone else. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd prefer if this was specifically limited to the WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO. Although this may apply to few fighters, there are several points of contention in all world championships lineages, especially if you go back a few decades. For instance, and although they don't seem to update their site that much anymore, Pacquiao himself is considered as the lineal welterweight title by CBZ which is where Wikipedia's own list is partly sourced from. Which is problematic after Horn's controversial win. Perhaps it would be better to tweak the wording to "[fighter] has won x world titles from major organizations" or something of the sort. Of course, excluding the lineal titles wouldn't be the right call either, I just think adding them all up together is too crude. Pacquiao's lead also lists that he's won 5 different lineal titles, I think that's what should be emulated. Fpwlada (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
What if we forget about "x-time world champion" and change to "world champion in x(number) of weight classes." This way we don't worry about reigns or ABC title numbers. During Mayweather-Pacquiao, I heard references to the number of divisions they won titles in much more than how many belts/reigns. If we want to include lineal/Ring (til May 2012)/TBRB (from Oct. 2012), we could have "world champion in x(number) of weight classes and was considered the lineal champ in /list weight(s)/." Thoughts? RonSigPi (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
For multi-weight world champions that sounds OK, but for single-weight world champions I think the way Froch's lead is now worded also works well—rather than saying he was a "three-time world champion" (meaning three reigns; ambiguous), it states right off the bat that he held four world titles. But then, he is an easier example because he only held ABC titles. Super-accomplished boxers like Pacquiao, De La Hoya, Mayweather, and Hopkins are trickier to pin down when it comes to terminology.
Regarding The Ring, are you saying we should not mention them at all if a boxer held them after 2012? Not sure if that will go down well; would need a large-scale consensus. However, I am in favour of considering the lineal title separate from the ABCs. This would then force a change to Floyd Mayweather Jr.'s lead—instead of "fifteen world titles", it would actually be eleven ABCs, four lineals, and four Ring's. Or worded something like: "... has won eleven major world titles, as well as four lineal titles, and four Ring magazine titles." Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, but I think its fine to say Froch is simply a "former world super middleweight world champion." Let someone go into the article to determine belts held and reigns. While Froch is easy, need to figure out what to do with someone like Walter McGowan - lineal champ, never held an ABC belt. He could be left as is, but make his intro more uniform to others. However we define lineal (I gave my own opinion, but whatever is decided), I would think Mayweather's and others would change. So Mayweather would be "world champion in five weight classes and was lineal champ at super featherweight, lightweight, welterweight, and light middleweight." That is based on what his article lists. Let someone go into the article to see what sanctioning bodies, what reigns, how many times, etc. RonSigPi (talk) 21:31, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
That works for me. The only thing I have to add is that lineal and The Ring should be linked, so that readers who aren't versed in the sport best understand the lead. Although, I think that's already the case more often than not.Fpwlada (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it's important to highlight if a boxer has won more than one world title, rather than just "a former [weight class] world champion." That's the reason I went around tacking on "x-time former [weight class] champion" in a bunch of leads a while ago, to emphasise the achievement of multiple titles. I can somewhat see a case for not going into detail about specific ABCs and expanding that for succession boxes, but not mentioning multiple reigns—let alone multi-weight ones—would be a disservice. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Big ugly yellow row

I'm seeing this horrible.. row thing.. creeping into record tables whenever a boxer had an extended period of inactivity:

No. Result Record Opponent Type Round, time Date Location Notes
2 Win 2–0 test test test test test
Example text
1 Win 1–0 test test test test test test

So far it's in the tables for Muhammad Ali, George Foreman, Mike Tyson, and most recently Tommy Morrison. They were briefly in place for Dillian Whyte, Kid Galahad and David Haye, but I'm having none of it without consensus. I absolutely hate the damn thing for several reasons:

  • 1. It looks ugly and intrusive—at least if the colour was grey or something instead of bright yellow.
  • 2. There's already a heapload of trivia not to include in record tables to keep things minimalistic, so I don't see why more trivia such as retirements, imprisonments, inactivities or suspensions need mentioning in a cramped table, when they can be expanded upon in the article body. If a reader is left wondering why there is a substantial gap between fights, they can scroll up to read the prose.
  • 3. Where does it end? Are we going to stick in an explanatory row for a four-year inactivity period? Maybe they got suspended for two years? I dread someone adding it if Ike Ibeabuchi ever returns.
  • 4. MMA records don't use them, nor does kickboxing, or Formula One. I maintain that boxing records shouldn't either. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
And if no feedback in a week, I'll zap 'em all. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
The yellow is definitely unnecessary, but I think it's useful for the reader to be able to see in a quick scan of the record when a boxer has been prevented from competing (Ali, Tyson). I don't like it for temporary retirements.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

They're gone now. A note will be made at MOS:BOXING/RECORD to not insert them in future. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

As discussed above, there is a desire to change criterion #2 of WP:NBOX to the following:

"Has won a regular/full (non-interim) non-world title listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment."

Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment will read:

This page is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject on Boxing and provides a list of men's non-world titles that qualify for the purposes of meeting criterion #2 of WP:NBOX. The list exclusively includes:

Those titles not otherwise listed are considered to confer no presumptive notability for any fighters. Note that female title winners, interim title winners, and title challengers will be given no presumptive notability without winning one of the above titles or meeting another criterion of WP:NBOX. Any change to this list must be discussed and approved by way of consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing.

END TEXT

We already have Bennyaha, PRehse, and me on board for this change (see above - unless they want a wording change somewhere). I agree with PRehse that we need a bit more consensus to make this effective. Reaching out to Mac Dreamstate, Dwanyewest, Caribbean~H.Q., talk - you are active on this talk page and I have seen you opine on various topics. Care to chime in with your yes/no and comments? I would like at least four editors agreeing, but all six would be great (or even more, just reaching out to those that seem active). RonSigPi (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

To clarify: if a boxer has fought for a Commonwealth Boxing Council title, do they gain automatic notability for a new article on those grounds alone? I once had an article AfD-nominated for that. Also, barring the typo in "Has won fought for...", it all looks good to me. No complaints, and it gets my support. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
That was no typo. Winning these secondary non-world titles would confer the presumption of notability. For the big four world titles - fighting for would be enough.PRehse (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Mac Dreamstate, that was no typo. It was a compromise - it seemed better to include more titles, but limit it to winners. It accomplished more goals with WP:BIAS in that Asia gained more representation. Also, I did some informal test cases on some of the titles (e.g., WBO Asia Pacific) and found a lot of good sources on the champions, but not so many on the challengers. To be frank, a lot of the challengers were never heard from again. For the winners, most won the initial fight and had a defense - these usually created two bodies of sources to achieve the multiple source requirement GNG requirement. Those that didn't defend often fought for another secondary title (e.g., BBBofC and then Commonwealth) or had a world title shot (since many organizations favorably rank their own regional title holders). RonSigPi (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, but grammatically "Has won for a..." is a typo; that's what I meant. ;-) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Thanks, missed that one. RonSigPi (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems like we have a green light. Four editors on board and no one has said no. If after 48 hours I don't hear anything to the contrary, then I will make the update. RonSigPi (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC) Update to WP:NBOX made (small change for clarification - instead of "Those titles not otherwise listed are considered to..." it reads "Those non-world titles not otherwise listed are considered to..." since it could be read to conflict with criterion #1.RonSigPi (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I was on a wikibreak so I missed this discussion, but I'd like to thank the involved editors for creating a solid list that removes so much of the guesswork and assumptions about what boxing titles confer notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
What about the Universal Boxing Organization? JMichael22 (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Manual of style: See also

I'd like some clarification over what should be included under the See also section of any given boxer's article. Fpwlada (talk) 03:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I never used to bother with these until I noticed other editors including them. For world champions, the myriad list articles (whichever apply) seem appropriate:
However, I vehemently disagree with the use of these lists, as they are guaranteed to become outdated:
Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
All of those lists will already be linked to in the record section and the succession boxes. There is no need for them to be repeated in a "See also" section.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
That's what I've always thought, but they're in a heapload of articles now—I'm not about to go around deleting them, but I'm no hurry to add a guideline for them to the MOS either. To me many of them are completely redundant when such information is, as you've said, already linked to in the record tables, succession boxes, and categories. However, I do think the ones for List of undefeated boxing world champions and "List of boxing [triple, quadruple, quintuple, sextuple, septuple, or octuple] champions" are useful, and even essential. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, those lists won't necessarily be there in the record or succession boxes but I expect they'd already be linked to in the body of the article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Boxing Record (Type vs. Method)

After looking at the boxing records table I have something I'd like to suggest for change instead of the using Type as the box for how the fight was won how about Method because it is in fact the "method" in which they won rather then the "type" of way they won JMichael22 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Result Record Opponent Method Round, time Date Location Notes
Win 1–0 Canada TBD TKO 7 (12), 2:10 Aug 19, 2017 Canada Powerade Centre, Brampton, Ontario
Whilst MMA wins occur via a method (punches, strikes, submission, GNP, etc.), the term makes little sense in boxing, where there is only one method of winning—by punching. These punches then result in a type of win: KO, TKO, UD, etc. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
true but if you really think about it User:Mac Dreamstate in boxing winning by (KO, TKO, UD, TD and MD) are the methods of victory they are the same as MMA there really is no difference it's the method of victory and "Method" would be best for a box rec instead of type which really doesn't fit I feel JMichael22 (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, I'm not on board with it. Let's see if others are or aren't. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Also not on board. It seems fine the way it is and falls under "if it isn't broke..." Besides, "type" can be considered type of decision such as unanimous, majority, split, majority draw, split draw, or technical decision. The only thing preventing the decision is a knockout (TKO or KO). Maybe look at it as a slot for decision type unless preempted by a TKO/KO such that the type of decision was not reached. Since you only have a type of decision or a KO/TKO, method isn't appropriate. RonSigPi (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Im on Board I think it's the better route JMichael22 (talk) 15:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Money Belt

The Money Belt for the Mayweather vs. McGregor fight is being promoted by the sanctioned World Boxing Council and being promoted as a legitimate Title where does it say that this Belt isn't a real Title as stated by Mac Dreamstate and in which iv heard enough from him and would like to hear from others regarding this matters instead of just him, Wikipedia is a sight where if you have legitimate resources to back up your information it can be placed the President of the WBC has stated this is indeed a legit Title fight but for some reason a Wikipedia editor has taken it upon himself to deem this not a legitimate Title or Title fight. so I'd like to know why is it in the realm of Wikipedia not a Title or Title fight JMichael22 (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm with Mac, it's not a real title. It's a commemorative belt created just for this fight. Will never be defended. Boxrec lists legit titles, whether it be world or regional.Mahussain06 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
User:JMichael22 has "heard enough" from me, yet first posted on my talk page demanding answers and posting nonsensical replies—and now arrives here doing the same, making it appear as though I've made up the definition of what a legit world title fight is. Safe to be said, he's the only one making himself look like a "clewn", as McGregor would put it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
It's already in the article about the fight. Where else do you want it?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
He wants it in the record tables. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Mentioning it in the fight article is fair, but nothing more needs added. Nothing in records table, nothing in sporting positions, etc. A one line mention in the fight article is enough. I don't even think the winner of the fight needs it mentioned in their respective article let alone anywhere more definitive. RonSigPi (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Leonard–Hagler, Gatti–Ward

For those Project members who are adept at creating fight articles, we sorely need one for this all-time massive event. There's enough content at both the Leonard and Hagler articles to form quite a substantial article. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:17, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Likewise the Gatti–Ward trilogy. Maybe such requests for new articles could go on the Project main page, but I'm not sure if anyone actually reads that. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Wayne McCullough Flag

Just noticed that Wayne McCullough is listed with a UK flag on the Naseem Hamed record.

While not wanting to get into the political issue of the flags — being from and having fought for Northern Ireland at the Commonwealth Games, and then fighting for Ireland at the Olympic Games, should his flag not appear as the NI flag as more appropriate for his nationality?

I should add that many other boxers records list it with the Irish flag, which I don't know about either.

Just trying to clarify what it should appear as.

The last time record table flagicons were discussed extensively was via this RfC in December 2015. The WP:NOCONSENSUS outcome essentially meant that flagicons (whether the issue being their inclusion at all, or the use of sovereign/national flags) should stay as they are in articles where they are present, but not to introduce them to articles created without them.
At present, the UK flag appears to take precedence over national flags because professionals box under a British licence.. buuuuut if the UK/ENG/SCO/WAL/NI thing is still a point of contention for some folk, then might as well hash it out now. We have quite a few different editors around than last time, so opinions may vary a lot. Welcome to the Project either way! Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I really didn't want to open a can of worms! That's a fair point on the British Licence, the best thing from it would be consistency, but that may be difficult to get considering what was said in the previous discussion. Thrilho (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah don't worry about letting worms out—I've been biding my time in restarting the topic myself. I probably still won't get my way completely (no flagicons at all), but to have it set in stone as to which flags should be used would go some way to making MOS:BOXING/RECORD a little bit clearer. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at NSPORTS

Hello all. In an effort to finally resolve the never-ending and annoying GNG v SSG issue, I've proposed a revision of the NSPORTS introduction. You are all invited to take part in the discussion. Thank you. Jack | talk page 06:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Jake LaMotta Boxing record

Jake LaMotta I think should have a more convential boxing record template on his page what does everyone else think?Dwanyewest (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, definately. I wouldn't mind, but I have a rather lengthy to do list for some boxers profiles. Mahussain06 (talk) 08:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thai names

I think there needs to be a consensus on what name we use for Thai boxers, the most prominent Thai boxers are listed under their pseudonym but you see some boxers like Wittawas Basapean with their real name and champions at the lowest weights who haven't really fought in the West listed under their birth names as well. Most media publications (especially ones that focus on the region like Rappler or Asian Boxing) refer to Thai boxers by their fighting name and not their birth name, BoxRec is the only source that prefers using their birth names.

I think it's for the best that most of them are moved to their pseudonym. I propose that the only time when we should default to the birth name is when a fighter has fought with 2 or more different names, other than their birth name. Category: Thai male boxers is relatively small so I could do this on my own but I wanted everyone's input.Fpwlada (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with using Thai pseudonyms where WP:COMMONNAME applies. BoxRec has always been a bit weird with their naming formats, such as insisting on using full names for prominent Argentine boxers like Sergio Gabriel Martínez, Lucas Martin Matthysse, or even Paul Malignaggi. I think the current format for Srisaket Sor Rungvisai works best—real name to open the lead (per MOS:LEGALNAME; same as it's done for someone like Dimebag Darrell), followed by his fighting name and all the rest. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

AIBA Pro Boxing

This has probably been raised before, but do we include AIBA Pro Boxing bouts as part of a boxer's professional record? The question sprung to mind as Alberto Melián's "pro debut" is happening this month. The Argentinian commission counts six fights under AIBA Pro Boxing as part of his record. BoxRec is probably not a reliable source in this case as Mathieu Bauderlique's APB fights are included in his record but Tony Yoka's are not. Fpwlada (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Since we don't include Lomachenko's WSB bouts in his record table, I don't have a problem keeping AIBA Pro out of existing records, until further developments are in terms of how they're perceived. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Boxing

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:50, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Super Middleweight

I made an edit recently and once I was finished I saw someone had come in a changed it a bit. I'm curious to know why Wiki chooses to add a – Inbetween Super-Middleweight I feel it doesn't serve any purpose and don't understand why it's needed. If anyone could explain this edit to me I'd greatly appreciate it. Also want to note after doing my research visiting different boxing sites and such I see no one uses the – besides BoxRec for the Inter-Continental other then that no major boxing Organizations use the –. JMichael22 (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It's a British thing I believe. super-middleweight, light-welterweight, super-featherweight and so on. I believe on many British boxing articles, this would be the case. Not for any Americans. --Mahussain06 (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mahussain06 Thank you greatly appreciate the knowledge JMichael22 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Roy Jones Jr. and Location of Foxwoods Resort Casino

After multiple disputes over the location of the Casino with Mac Dreamstate. I provided multiple sources while he provided none and he continued to attempt to argue the facts. So with this talk page I'm going to provide every source I have that states the Foxwoods Resort Casino is located in Mashantucket, CT and Not Ledyard, CT JMichael22 (talk) 03:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Foxwoods Resort Casino Facebook Page

Official Foxwoods Resort Website Casino Contact Information

BoxRec Locations: Foxwoods Resort Casino

UFC visits Foxwoods

Trip Advisor Foxwoods Resort Casino Information

UFC Fight Night Mashantucket

It seems like Mashantucket, CT isn't an official town or subdivision. Fpwlada (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Ledyard, CT official site, showing Mashantucket as an attraction within the city; I repeat, Mashantucket being an area within the city of Ledyard, reservation or otherwise.
"Ledyard CT", according to Foxwoods' own site. Mashantucket is listed as well, but that is within the city of Ledyard.
"Ledyard Center, CT"
"Foxwoods Casino, Ledyard, Connecticut"
"Two Trees Inn at Foxwoods Casino, Ledyard, CT"
"Foxwoods Casino, Ledyard, Conn."
"Ledyard USA"
"Ledyard, Connecticut"
"Ledyard, CT"
.. and I could go on. Unless other Project members agree to a change of this part of MOS:BOXING/RECORD, which would affect 100+ articles (having just checked), it's staying as it is. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate Your two trees in sources doesn't state anything about Ledyard, but does say (you can find many ways to relax after a day of touring Mashantucket and the surrounding area). JMichael22 (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center this source is of the Museum within Mashantucket as some have said Mashantucket isn't a official town it seems one as a official Museum for the town has been established JMichael22 (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Another Source The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation shows the address within the town of Mashantucket JMichael22 (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

It says "Ledyard, CT" in the title of the Two Trees link; not sure why it's different on the live page itself. It might be browser-dependent, but Ctrl+U in Firefox brings up the page source, and there it is. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Address on the Google Map listed as "Ledyard, CT"
Museum listed under "Connecticut > Ledyard" Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate the title of the article indeed says Ledyard in it but reading the article it states nothing of Ledyard and only mentions Mashantucket JMichael22 (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Google maps over the official site really? JMichael22 (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

"Really." Which is exactly what your BoxRec source uses. Museum also listed under "Connecticut > Ledyard". All of this supports my claims that Mashantucket is an area—reservation, whatever—within Ledyard. They are not a town/city by themselves, just a self-governing area. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Here it is the official confirmed Twitter account of Foxwoods casino they set the location on the confirmed account Foxwoods Twitter Account can't dispute this source it's as official as it gets JMichael22 (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
"Ledyard CT", for a third time, according to Foxwoods' own site. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
it's says it as a GPS Address but also states Mashantucket as the address JMichael22 (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
And Mashantucket is a location within Ledyard, whether they want to make that clear or not. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Where is a source that states Mashantucket is not a town and is just something in Ledyard? JMichael22 (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's list of towns and cities in New London County Fpwlada (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate Finally I have found a very great and supporting source which comes straight from the horses mouth here is the official video from Foxwoods Resort Casino 25th Anniversary Video Celebrating The Casino Listen very carefully they state Mashantucket not Ledyard JMichael22 (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Fourth time, from the horse's website, "Ledyard CT"—that's Foxwoods themselves, no matter how many alternatives you bring up, plus all my third-party sources above. Can you find sources that state Mashantucket to be a town/city by itself, outside of Ledyard? In its current edition, the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe article states "The Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation is a land base held in trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in Ledyard, Connecticut." Not my words. Likewise Indian reservation makes no mention of tribal entities being towns/cities—they are land bases within them. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Mac Dreamstate every source I've provided are official links from creditable Foxwoods Resort accounts and website which all state Mashantucket, CT not Ledyard, CT. looking at a map I see them both separate from each other and even pointed out one of your sources which has Ledyard as the title and Mashantucket in the article stating the surrounding area of Mashantucket not the surrounding area of Ledyard. at this point I don't know what more I can do to support my claim. I even gave a official very strongly creditable video from there website where they state Mashantucket. Now I don't know if a consensus will be reached JMichael22 (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

You sound exasperated. I can assure you—you're not the only one. I won't parrot myself by linking to my Foxwoods source for a fifth time, as it should be clear by now the point I'm making. However many times you link to other sources that don't mention Ledyard, I can simply bring up Foxwoods themselves stating it as an address on their own website. No need to go around circles. Also, per WP:PRIMARY, we shouldn't be relying exclusively on their material if third-party sites contradict or supplement what they say, which I've demonstrated in multiple sources above.
From an NY Times article about Ledyard: "Nowadays, the Pequot bingo games are just about the only attraction in town. ... casino on the reservation of the Mashantucket Pequot Indians in Ledyard, Conn." That's as clear an acknowledgement as any that Mashantucket is in Ledyard. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm looking at this map of New London County and Mashantucket is shown clearly within the boundaries of Ledyard. Just because someone says Mashantucket in a video doesnt't mean that's the location we should list. It'd be analogous to listing Midtown Manhattan for MSG.Fpwlada (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Per Hartford Courant, "the award-winning Mashantucket Pequot Museum and Research Center in Ledyard". Again, acknowledging that Mashantucket is an area within Ledyard—and I don't mean to downplay the concept of Native American reservations, just to make that clear. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Likewise NY Times again, "the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation in Ledyard". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
And according to The Day, "the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe owns several lots in the area", meaning Ledyard. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate I'm going to make this final statement and be done with it. According to the official Twiiter Account, Facebook Page and Website along with the other links ive provided. Are you here by saying all of them which hold Mashantucket, CT as their location wrong? Are you stateing that the official creditable accounts from Foxwoods Resort Casino are placing incorrect locations on their site and accounts? Regardless of anything they are the most credible official sites coming straight from the horses mouth your basing yours on articles I'm gathering official accounts from Foxwoods as well as articles. At this point are you saying the official account are reporting false location information? If so I will no longer discuss the situation and Ledyard will go on as the Foxwoods Casino location JMichael22 (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
As I said above, WP:PRIMARY stipulates that self-published sources—which you are relying heavily upon—are not always credible, and that we should accept third-party material if something is to the contrary. In this case, if Foxwoods themselves want to downplay their location as simply Mashantucket and nothing else, that's their prerogative. However, there are numerous independent sources—as I've listed—which correctly acknowledge them to be in Ledyard, therefore I'm going by WP's guidelines regarding WP:RS and taking into account those third-party sources. That's not to say Foxwoods are lying or deliberately placing incorrect information. I've never said or implied that. It is what it is.
My last sources on the matter, including one by Natives themselves: "Foxwoods Resort Casino on the Mashantucket Pequot Indian Reservation in Ledyard, Connecticut"; "land belonging to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation in Ledyard". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate if the land belonging to the Tribe is in Ledyard and it is indeed the tribes land if they choose to refer to their land as Mashantucket, CT and the resort sits on the land they own that means the Foxwoods Resort Casino is indeed in Mashantucket, CT as the government as no control over what native Americans can do with their land it seems as if it is an unofficial town within the United States. They tax them for the Indian gaming laws but have no control over the name of the town they choose to have. That's why they say the Foxwoods Casino is in Mashantucket, CT because no one can legally tell them otherwise JMichael22 (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I've provided six sources stating that they are not a town—they simply own land within the town of Ledyard. They can display their location however they want, but multiple sources say otherwise. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate no source stating they are in Ledyard can be used a creditable as they are their own tribe who are located on their own land according to Native American self-determination refers to the social movements, legislation, and beliefs by which the tribes in the United States exercise self-governance and decision making on issues that affect their own people. they have chosen to name their land Mashantucket, CT according to all the official legitimate straight from the horses mouth sources Twitter, Facebook, Website... Etc. Foxwoods sits on the land Named Mashantucket, CT that is where it is located the land is within Ledyard, CT but Foxwoods technically does not sit on Ledyard, CT land it sits on the tribal land within the unofficial town of Mashantucket, CT JMichael22 (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thought you said you were done on the matter. I've laid out my sources, and pointed out WP:PRIMARY. What more do you want? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate I said I'm done if you called the official sites wrong. The tribe owns the land which is within the town of Ledyard, CT and they refer to the land as Mashantucket, CT the Foxwoods Resort sits on Mashantucket Tribe owned and controlled land. any news or map source can say whatever they want, but facts are the casino sits on Tribe land located on the Mashantucket, CT named land JMichael22 (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
And Mashantucket sits within Ledyard, which is supported by all the sources I listed, including one published by Native Americans. What now? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate And Mashantucket is the name of the tribal land which is supported by every source. So if the casino was part of Ledyard, CT then the tribe wouldn't own the land it stands. and according to Native American self-determination the tribe doesn't answer to the town of Ledyard. The Casino is owned and controlled by the Mashantucket tribe and sits on there owned land which is 100% completely different from it residing in Ledyard, CT JMichael22 (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Alrighty. Next stop, WP:DRN. You in? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate I'm all in, But before we get that party started you might wanna take a look at this Connecticut Indian Land Claims Settlement read very carefully JMichael22 (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Pff, "party".. sure.
I read it. What we have is simply a labelling issue. Do you want to file the DRN notice, or me? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave it up to you to as you feel it necessary to bring it to the WP:DRN JMichael22 (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Well it is necessary since discussion here has reached a stalemate, having been here all day. I'll get on it and rescind the earlier WP:EWN report, but only if you agree to refrain from making further edits regarding the Mashantucket/Ledyard element in other articles until there's a result at WP:DRN. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate Absolutely agree I have stopped editing anything referring to the topic of discussion JMichael22 (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
That's been started at WP:DRN now. I've kept everything neutral tone-wise, so all we can do is wait. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
User:Mac Dreamstate I'm happy we're finally getting this resolved JMichael22 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Foxwoods Resort Casino Location Discussion Part 2

Here is a new source I have found regarding Foxwoods being located in Mashantucket, CT The Fox Tower @ Foxwoods Resort Casino JMichael22 (talk) 00:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Another source here 10 Day Weather Forecast for Mashantucket, CT shows the "Unofficial" Town has its own weather forecast from The Weather Channel JMichael22 (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Another Source here Mashantucket, CT Population and Races Article JMichael22 (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Another source here Lion Fight Announces Lion Fight 15 JMichael22 (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Another Source Tanger Outlets One of the locations is at Foxwoods and it provides the address JMichael22 (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You can throw up as many as you want—none of those invalidate my sources stating Ledyard as the location, or that it is acceptable to state Mashantucket as being within Ledyard. This is simply a support/oppose decision to be made, and us two alone cannot agree on it, so what we'll do next is try to form a consensus with other editors on the Project. I will contact as many active Project members as I can, using a neutrally-worded talk message. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Definitive location of Foxwoods in record tables

Should the location of Foxwoods Resort Casino be changed to Mashantucket, Connecticut; or remain as Ledyard, Connecticut?

Based on the above sets of discussion and multitude of sources provided by User:JMichael22 and myself, it can be considered acceptable to list the location of Foxwoods both ways, according to mainstream media. If going by the sources, neither location is wrong; therefore this is simply a labelling issue that needs a multi-editor consensus. Please read both viewpoints carefully, as well as the sources.

Before posting your messages of Support change or Oppose change, consider whether or not it is warranted that Foxwoods should be an exception from the standard format of "[city/town], [state]" for U.S. locations, per the current edition of MOS:BOXING/RECORD. If the location is changed to Mashantucket, this will need to be reflected in the MOS, and will affect about 120 articles. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I need to post both these sources here Foxwoods Commercial Foxwoods Commercial 2 Foxwoods Commercial 3 three legitimate commercials from the official Foxwoods Resort stating three live shows at the Casino Located in Mashantucket, CT at this point if people can argue with these even more credible sources then people need to study the state of CT and the Mashantucket tribe to learn Mashantucket is its own town JMichael22 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Comiconn 2018 Mashantucket, CT another source to show Mashantucket is separate from Ledyard if the casino was in Ledyard why wouldn't they promote it in Ledyard? why are all of these sources promoting it in Mashantucket? JMichael22 (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, seriously—how many times do I have to repeat myself? I've provided plenty of sources (including from the casino themselves) stating that Ledyard can be considered acceptable for the location of Foxwoods, and you've so far had no support amongst the Project to change it to Mashantucket. This is looking like WP:DEADHORSE material. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
I will post these sources and then I'm done—I will not post a single response to you unless other editors come forward to support the change. Then, after maybe a week, it will be clear as to whether there is or is not a consensus to change it:
"Foxwoods in Ledyard"
"Foxwoods in Ledyard"
"Foxwoods in Ledyard"
"Foxwoods in Ledyard"
"Foxwoods in Ledyard"
"Foxwoods in Ledyard"
"Foxwoods casino in Ledyard".
"Foxwoods Resort Casino in Ledyard"
"Foxwoods Resort Casino in Ledyard"
.....and thousands more from simple Google searches. Right, I'm out. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. People here should read New England town to understand why the town is not necessarily the proper location. Also, what's the official USPS mailing address? That seems to be something no one has actually supplied yet, and might be useful. I have no dog in this fight, so I have no firm opinion, but I felt like an understanding of local government divisions in the area might be benificial to the discussion. oknazevad (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
For consistency, the Location field in MOS:BOXING/RECORD has long used city/town/municipality/commune as the first level after venue, not areas within them, because a wikitable does not need to be a travel brochure or geography lesson—brevity works. So in the case of Connecticut, Ledyard as a town should suffice, per the abovementioned New England town article.
Therefore, going by the sources below it is perfectly acceptable and accurate to use Ledyard, being that it is the town in which Foxwoods is situated. Furthermore, it is a fact that Mashantucket, and thereby Foxwoods, is considered geographically and politically part of and not just within the town of Ledyard:
I must emphasise that the point of the MOS is not to diminish the existence of Mashantucket, its native sovereignty, or the various issues they've had with Ledyard and Connecticut. It is not the task of this Project to deal with politics—this is about labelling for a wikitable. Likewise if Foxwoods and Mashantucket choose not to publicise much, or any, connection to Ledyard (since they have not exactly seen eye-to-eye over time), that does not invalidate a good number of third-party sources stating otherwise. This is basic stuff covered in WP:PRIMARY.
Nonetheless, it's been a week, and after a lot of bludgeoning as well as a fruitless WP:DRN discussion, there has been no consensus by the Project to change this element of the MOS. It will stay as it is, and I will revert Roy Jones Jr.'s record to how it was before this came up. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pat O'Keefe#Request edit on 5 January 2018

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pat O'Keefe#Request edit on 5 January 2018. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Susi Kentikian nominated for featured article review

I have nominated Susi Kentikian for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Lizard (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Minor tweak to Titles in boxing

At MOS:BOXING/TITLES, for the "Stripped" parameter after the date range, Stripped (title lost on the scales) is now simply Stripped. The reason for this is because, within the cramped table, we already don't state the myriad other reasons a boxer may have been stripped (inactivity, sanctioning bodies being shady, etc.) Brevity is key. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

More like a small update, so that editors won't be confused and wonder when/why it started, and to encourage them to do the same at other articles they see fit. I'll try and do the same for any other changes along the way. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Locations of Hard Rock casinos

In fight records, please go ahead and change Seminole Hard Rock Hotel & Casino Hollywood to Hard Rock Live, and Hard Rock Hotel and Casino (Las Vegas) to The Joint, as those are the arenas in which boxing takes place. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. Why not? They have their own articles anyway. --Mahussain06 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Names of weight classes, revisited

Our current format of weight classes was agreed upon via consensus in November 2015, and put into practice at MOS:BOXING/WEIGHT. I would say it's worked OK since then, at least insofar as eliminating the hideous use of proper nouns ("Light Heavyweight") and determining when hyphens are used (US/"light heavyweight"; UK/"light-heavyweight"), but one thing with which I've never been truly happy are the varying names as it relates to sanctioning bodies.

The system we currently have in place gets especially irksome when a boxer, having first won (e.g.) the WBC "super lightweight" title, later unifies and wins the WBO "junior welterweight" title. I know I'm not the only who finds it silly to then have to retroactively change it to "light welterweight". Picking hairs. It is also not feasible to favour either "super lightweight" or "junior welterweight", because WP:COMMONNAME falls flat: "super lightweight" is used by the WBA, WBC, and BoxRec; "junior welterweight" is used by the IBF, WBO, and The Ring.

After nearly three years and a shitload of having to explain things to confused new editors, I propose we ditch this clunky element of MOS:BOXING and use WP's own neutral article titles—especially light welterweight and light middleweight—and apply them to the entirety of all professional boxing articles, except for the champions lists (WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, The Ring, etc.)

How it would look in practice: no longer would we refer to any WBO cruiserweight champion as a "junior heavyweight" champion—screw it, gone. Likewise no more "junior lightweight" for Vasyl Lomachenko (he's a super featherweight; easy), or "junior welterweight" for Mikey Garcia (he's a light welterweight; easy).

Let's have some Support or Oppose below. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment. When we're discussing an individual title, we should use the actual name of the title used by the sanctioning body. Happy to go with standardised naming outside of that. --Michig (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'd like to get away from. In theory, a lead with "[Professional boxer] has held the WBC super lightweight title" works in isolation, but as soon as a differently-named title enters the picture, the need to change it to "[Professional boxer] has held the WBC and WBO light welterweight titles" becomes very cumbersome. I've disliked doing that since the beginning, and I'm sure others have too. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Support. Thank you for bringing this up. Having Oleksandr Usyk labelled as WBO junior heavyweight is so lame. I'm all for this. Don't like 'junior' anywhere. Mahussain06 (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
That's the name of the WBO title. If you don't like it, take it up with the WBO. --Michig (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Hulu Theater at Madison Square Garden

Hulu Buys Rights - What are we doing in regards to this on a boxers record table? I'm assuming as the time they hold the rights, we should be writing this as The Hulu Theater? Or the The Hulu Theater at Madison Square Garden? --Mahussain06 (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The full title, Hulu Theater at Madison Square Garden, is fine. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Annual Reviews on Boxing Notability especially in ways of Regional Titles

As discussed here on passed discussion [1] I would like to open the floor to do the annual review on boxing notability in their regional titles or even for other stuff.

  • 1st I want to look into adding female regional titles as being part of notability
  • 2nd adding Pan Asian Boxing Association as its long history in the sport as a title his quite notable and historic
  • 3rd Adding IBO World title as a notable title
  • 4th add the Australasian title to notable titles list
  • 5th add New Zealand Professional Boxing Association title as part of the title list as its one of the oldest commissioning body of NEw Zealand history
  • 6th change top 10 rankings notability rule to top 15
  • 7th having discussion about having boxers that dont meet the notability but could be notable under a new rule that would have a certain amount of wins that makes them notable *like a boxer that has not win a regional title but have 25 or more wins
  • 8th having a top 10 or top 15 boxer on the Boxrec rankings marked as notable

I would like to invite :RonSigPi :PRehse to be part of this discussion as they were part of the original discussion about the notability changing

tell me what you think --Bennyaha (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

slightly in the “other stuff” category.

According to criterion #2 of WP:NBOX only British Boxing champions from 1929 onwards are defined as notable. Only the British Boxing Board of Control is listed here as an authority for the Brit’s. Yet BoxRec recognises National Sporting Club (NSC) sanctioned title fights between 1891-1929 as legitimate British championship fights too. I recommend the NSC (1891-1929) is added to the list of authorities. Okeeffemarc (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Generally in favour of all of the above, with the exception of the 7th one - with so many boxers these days getting padded records by beating a string of journeymen, or have a large number of fights without fighting at a high professional level, just having a certain number of wins wouldn't necessarily be meaningful for notability. The IBO titles don't have the same status as WBA/WBC/IBF/WBO titles but have reached a stage now where an IBO world champion is going to be notable enough for inclusion. There was a seamless transition in terms of titles in the UK between the NSC from 1909 to the BBBofC in 1929, so certainly from 1909 onwards the NSC English titles (equivalent to BBBofC British titles) should have the same status. Prior to 1909 I'm not sure - weights were not standardised, and my impression is that people were 'declared' champions at various poundages, sometimes with disputes over who was champion, and in some cases may not have really had the same status that champions had once recognised weights were brought in, but obviously boxing was massively popular before 1909 and there were many boxers from that early era who should be considered notable, so we should be open to defining some criteria. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Would not want to increase top 10 to to 15 there is no point to that. I thought PABA was already included and have no opinion on IBO (not against). Sorry but can't see the importance of the New Zealand title.PRehse (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts

  • 1st - Just not seeing it. World titles get some coverage, but I have not seen it across the board for female regional titles. Plus, with the combo of classic female tiles, such as International Female Boxers Association, and the men's sanctioning bodies now handing out female world titles, such as the World Boxing Council, we have a decent cross-section. Maybe shore up the list of female world titles.
  • 2nd - If memory serves me, it was removed because is disassociated with the WBA. People mentioned capping the year to when it was affiliated with the WBA. However, due to history, can we establish the presumption considering a lot may be non-Internet sources. Between the Asian Boxing Council, International Boxing Federation Pan Pacific, Oriental and Pacific Boxing Federation, World Boxing Association Oceania, World Boxing Organization Asia Pacific, and World Boxing Organization Oriental titles its not like there is a big gap in Asia at least for relatively modern fighters.
  • 3rd - There were concerns about the first decade of IBO champions. Has anyone resolved that? I think IBO may be notable enough, but would like to see that resolved.
  • 4th and 5th - For Australasian and NZ titles, since those are English can we do some case studies. As a start, what about John Hopoate (AUS, HW), Roberto Lerio (AUS, 126), Asher Derbyshire (NZ, 200), and Ricky Murphy (NZ, 154). I just went through boxrec and picked fighters in a cross-section of weights that fought in the last 10 years (so Internet sources shouldn't be too hard to find), didn't appear to reach notability through another title (some guys later won the OPBF title, and had two or three fights (idea behind "win" requirement is fought and defended). Bennyaha, feel free to do searches on these and see what comes up - its a good start.
  • 6th and 8th - I'm good with both as top-15 are eligible to fight for titles and therefore have coverage generated from potential title fights. That said, don't know how much is slipping through, but I am good with it (and since many organizations rank different fighters, boxrec top 15 is a pretty good standard). Maybe add TBRB and Ring Magazine top-10 too.
  • 7th - no for a lot of reasons. The biggest may be that fighters of years past (and not even that long ago) and fighters from less regulated countries have a high fight count and in turn a high win count. Who wants to argue that Tommy Abobo here is notable - http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/41053.

And regarding Okeeffemarc, I think the NSC title starting in 1909 is fine to add. RonSigPi (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • 1st point - As a layman on the topic of female boxing, i have to say i've never noticed a regional female boxing bout, but is that due to my ignorance, or general lack of popularity? Does it have to be notable to the general public, or to those interested in the sport?
  • 3rd point - Anthony Joshua currently holds the IBO heavyweight title. It's certainly notable in my view.
  • Generally agree with the rest apart from point 7, I agree with RonSigPi although it could be argued Tommy Abobo deserves recognition for astounding perseverance!
  • I concur with Michig and RonSigPi regards NSC Titles being Notable from 1909 onwards, as this is when weight class regulations were introduced, along with the Lonsdale Belt. Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

RonSigPi Okeeffemarc With women boxing starting really kick off over last 2 years, more titles are being fought for both in regionals and world title. WBC have been very serious about the female division and been active with their titles. The other couple of sanctioning bodies last year only started to catch up. Even in Boxrec with their own version of wikipedia they list the current world champions in the sanctioning bodies [2]. My change with criterion #2 of WP:NBOX is to remove the note that states "Note that female title winners... ...will be given no presumptive notability without winning one of the above titles or meeting another criterion of WP:NBOX", just the female part. Then Again I really only noticed WBO Asia Pacific (ignore boxrec as they only added it to boxrec recently and need to catch up on editing the champions in), WBC OPBF, WBA Oceania (again Boxrec needs to catch up on their edits) and WBC ABCO, which means asia pacific regions are being pro active with the regional titles. --Bennyaha (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Take a vote

After reading through the comments I have put these together one proposed changes. Any further comments or discussions feel free to add above. Please comment under each change if you oppose or support as listed below I invite all members to vote including the following people who contributed to the discussion

RonSigPi :PRehse :Michig :Okeeffemarc

--Bennyaha (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

  • 1. All Regional titles under citation 2 are considered notable for both Female and Male

vote here

No RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
No Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 2. WBC, WBA, WBO and IBF are added to the female section of Citation 1

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 3. IBO World title is add to Citation 1 in the mens section

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

vote here

No RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
No Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 5. Citation 3 to include boxrec rankings

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • 6. Citation 3 to increase to top 15

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment As suggested by Michig, would recommend National Sporting Club from 1909-1929 as 1909 is the point that British Boxing was properly regulated regards weight classes, and was the year the Lonsdale belt was introduced as the British Title belt for all classes. the NSC had exclusive rights to sanction the awarding of the British Title (lonsdale belt) up until 1929, then the BBBofC took over, and have been the authority ever since. The lonsdale belt is still awarded to British champions today. Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes (from 1909) Michig (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

vote here

Yes RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment I didn't vote on 9 yet. Why are we adding that? Isn't that already covered by BBBofC and National Sporting Club (1891-1929)? RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment See my remark in vote 7. Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I will give votes an extra 48 hours to come in and make changes accordingly but looks good --Bennyaha (talk) 07:54, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Changes will be made now to the votes that were unanimously voted yes. Voting has now closed --Bennyaha (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Lonsdale Belt GA Nomination

Been working on the Lonsdale Belt article recently and have nominated it for GA, please take a look. Feel free to make changes or even review it. Anyone can review an article for GA. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WBC International Silver

I would like to point this out to the regular editors of the boxing articles so we can all be on the same page. I've noticed a lot of articles mention a Silver International title. Which doesn't exist. It should actually state "International Silver" title. Its the fourth-tier belt in the WBC's hierarchy: World~~Silver~~International~~International Silver.

This is the official page of the WBC International Committee [3] Its headed by Mauro Betti, who's also the WBC Vice-President. A link to that website is also included in the main WBC site (see bottom-right panel, right below Muay Thai) in case anyone suspects its a fake. Here is the list of current International and Int'l Silver champions per the site [4] (right column). Click on the names for a list of past champs of the division. A directory with a few PDF newsletters from the Int'l Committee [5] (the ones with "Mauro" on the title) on the WBC site for anyone curious. DA1 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Good to know. I think I originally started using "WBC Silver International" because of the ease of linking to "WBC Silver", with "International" tacked on at the end. Now that you've pointed it out in detail, it does look inaccurate per their official sources. Let's use this format from now on: "WBC International Silver"; [[World Boxing Council|WBC]] International [[WBC Silver|Silver]] Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Mac Dreamstate I think that is a fair option. On a separate note, I am putting forth a recommendation to specify WBA Continental titles as WBA Continental (Europe) title for {{Vague}} and {{Clarify}} purposes. The WBA Continental title refers to the continent of Europe and is awarded by WBA Europe. This is its page on the WBA website [6]. Note the rankings titled "Continental Ranking" under the page header "Europe Ranking". I'm sure this is something that confuses many readers as well and is best to be disambiguated. DA1 (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Also noted. The proposed format – WBA Continental (Europe) – looks fine to me. Does that mean their Inter-Continental titles are meant to signify outside-of-Europe? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Inter-Continental is the 2nd-tier belt of the WBA, IBF, WBO and IBO, equivalent to the WBC's Silver (although Silver does have the larger recognition due to its marketing); note that the WBC doesn't have an IC belt. The WBA's Contintental belt is equivalent to the WBO and IBF's own European belts, each intended to be a competitor to the EBU belt. DA1 (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Bare Knuckle Boxing Hall of Fame Class Change

Hello. The page Bare Knuckle Boxing Hall of Fame was recently expanded significantly and a passing editor saw fit to remove its {{boxing-stub}} template, as it has surpassed the quality of a stub-class article. However, its class from this project on its talk page remains stub, and it has not been assigned any other class. As someone with little knowledge of boxing or classes in general I do not know what class to reassign the page to, so could someone from this project please visit the page and change it? Thanks :) GeorgmentO (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

WBA Policy of having Undisputed, Super, Unified and Regular champions

I was editing some of the WBA lineages as they were seeming rather ambiguos to me. The WBA policy of having multiple champions at one weight class at the same time and each one of them being referred to differently is even more perplexing to normal readers. Yes, they may have a “Super champion” or “Unified champion” but having two champions at the same time is just obsolete. They don’t even have a rigid criteria which explicitly explains when a champion can be referred to as “Super”. E.g last week Gervonta Davis won the “Super title” at the super featherweight division although there was already a “regular” champion (Alberto Machado). Last year such was the case with the super middleweight division where there was a champion already (Tyron Zeuge), but George Groves and Fedor Chudinov fought for the "Super title". And while the "Super-Regular" case may not be that hard to understand, here comes the "Unified title" and even "Undisputed". You know what, I am okay, provided there is strict criteria which says e.g "A champion with two major titles is 'Unified', a champion with three major titles is 'Super' and a champion with all four major titles is 'Undisputed'". But the case is different. It is as if they call their champions however they like. And thus it becomes even more complicated to trace the "true" lineage of the title. The "Super" has its own lineage, the "regular" has its own. But do "Unified" and "Undisputed" also have different lineages? It is truly complex to comprehend.

As far as I am concerned, the "special" titles should have only one lineage, judging by the fact they all offer the same priviliges to the respective champions (except maybe for the mandatory defence period, but I am not sure) and they only differ in name. Additionally, I believe if there are to remain all these different titles, at least we should maybe have a more clear criteria which correctly explains why and how a boxer can receive one of the "special" titles. Because when you see Sergey Kovalev (who held the WBA, IBF and WBO titles before his losses against Andre Ward, whilst the WBC was in possesion of Adonis Stevenson) being referred to as "Undisputed" by the WBA and then you see Terence Crawford (who held the WBC, WBA, IBF and WBO in addition to The Ring and Lineal titles in 2017 before vacating them) being referred to as "Super" by the WBA, you witness a pretty good example of sheer inadequacy.

After all, perhaps it would be best if the WBA had only one champion, being referred to as, simply, "champion" which is the case with the other major organizations. Or they may create a kind of honorary title, similarly to WBO, to award boxers who have accomplished resounding success. Dabo2000 (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a personal commentary for the sake of it, or you want to implement some sort of edit on Wikipedia itself. I will say this, there is absolutely no consistency in logic between the WBA's various use of title prefix/suffixes. Initially, Super intended to be anyone who held a second belt alongside the WBA (namely WBC, IBF, WBO). However, I 'think' they changed it to where even if you defend your Regular belt 5 times, you can be promoted to Super. As for Unified and Undisputed, they usually award those when they end up having 2 regular champs. Meaning they can't award Super to someone (since they don't have a second belt) so they slap the Undisputed label so another guy can carry the Regular belt. This was the case with Juan Carlos Payano (and his successor Raushee Warren) and Jamie McDonell, the former (Payano/Warren) had the IBO belt so they made him WBA Undisputed, and McDonnell stayed Regular just so they could have two champions rather than two Regular champions or award Super to someone who hadn't won a WBC/WBO/IBF. As for why certain fighters are called Unified or Undisputed despite holding a WBC/WBO/IBF belt instead of "Super", that is anybody's guess. Even the WBA won't be able to tell you, because there's no logic to it. DA1 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm working on writing up a response, and my original rationale for how I've been formatting them, but haven't had the time recently. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Here's one example of my thought process for when I tried labelling some of the Super/Regular/neither/interim title lineages:

When David Haye held the WBA heavyweight title, no Super or Regular version had yet existed at heavyweight. When he lost it to Wladimir Klitschko, there is an argument to be made that it 'became' the Super title (more on that below). In Haye's succession box, I've gone back and forth between labelling either Klitschko as the successor (Champion → Super champion), or having the title vacant and next held by Alexander Povetkin (Champion → Regular champion). However, each path has its own problems.

  • If we go by the absolute purest line of succession, in that the one-and-only "WBA heavyweight title" became vacant after Haye lost, then technically nobody has since held that specific title. Instead, we've only had Super and Regular champions, including after Povetkin lost his Regular title in that farce of a 'unification' against Klitschko. As we know, the WBA simply creates it again every time. Ruslan Chagaev won it next, and the Regular title currently held by Manuel Charr can essentially trace its lineage back to Haye.. or not.
  • If we go by a different type of succession, it was Povetkin who ended up winning the non-Super title last held by Haye, whilst Klitschko continued to hold the Super title (the same one now in the possession of Anthony Joshua). We would then have to decide whether the current Regular title is the same, or distinct, from the one Haye lost.
  • If we go by yet another type of succession (the format I've been using so far), it was Klitschko who usurped the WBA title as a whole by defeating Haye. This is currently reflected in Klitschko's succession box, in that {{s-new}}} is not being invoked for the then-newly created Super title.

Fucking hell, I'm only confusing myself now.. ;-) Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What is consensus on this on Wikipedia? --Mahussain06 (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If we are going by TBRB's version of the Lineal title, at the very least it should be referred to as "Lineal (TBRB)" on the List of current boxing champions page and where relevant. DA1 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
I concur with DA per having it as Lineal (acronym), I think this should also include the Ring as "Lineal (The Ring), whether there are any other apart from those two with any acceptance to the point of inclusion remains unclear. Yousou (Complain) 11:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Reckless WP:PROD Nominations

PRehse, I am unsure why Pavel Malikov was tagged citing WP:NBOX, when he satisfies NBOX per rule #3 and rule #2. Having held both the WBC ABCO title (indicated in the article) and the WBA Asia title (#2), and being ranked in the world's Top 10 by one of the four major bodies (#3). A few days ago, you did the same to Isa Chaniev (also ranked in the Top 5).

Pavel is currently ranked #6 by the IBF [7]. The article was already tagged with {{BLP Sources}}, I don't see why an additional {{Proposed deletion}} nomination is necessary citing WP:NBOX, which it already satisfies. –DA1 (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

DA1 It would have helped if the article itself had stated the rankings and hence how he was notable. The article must make some indication of notability - it could have been speed deleted the way it stands - the Prod gives it some time to be fixed.PRehse (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
PRehse, Thanks for pointing that out. I've never edited that article and it seems outdated, but I presumed the article including mention of the ABCO title should have been a deterrent. I think {{BLP Sources}} is appropriate enough. DA1 (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I've noticed the OC has a number of articles that's been deleted recently, but I wouldn't want to see this one WP:PROD'ed when it clearly satisfies notability. DA1 (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can remove the Prod notice for any reason. Please feel free - its kinda the point behind them.PRehse (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing/Archive_6&oldid=1140545261"