Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO world champions pages

Hello, I was wondering if it would be better to change the column "Date" to "Duration of reign" in the WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO list of world champions' pages, to match the List of IBO world champions page. I find by having only the date of assumption of title (in the WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO examples), instead of the entire reign? gives the mistaken appearance that many of the WBA, WBC, IBF & WBO champions' reigned for only 'one' day. GoodDay (talk) GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Highly agree. Date by itself forces the reader to have to glance up and down constantly to find out the span of the reign from the next titleholder's row. The IBO list has the right format. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
T'would make more sense. Duration of reign seems more relevant than date of win in those lengthy lists. Would it be worth trimming the dates down to just the years, except in the current year or when a reign ended the same year it was won, we can include months? The full dates have always annoyed my eyeballs. – 2.O.Boxing 19:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Not a good idea as they're surely meant to be exhaustive lists. To find out the date when a boxer won a title, a reader shouldn't have to navigate to their corresponding article and scroll down to the succession box. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Sorry eyeballs. – 2.O.Boxing 21:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
To lessen clutter, one can adopt the abbreviation style, for the months. Use (for example) "Feb 7, 2019 – Feb 7, 2021". GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
I do like abbreviated months in tables, but seeing as you've started I'm fine with them spelled out. Saves you going back over the ones you've already done. – 2.O.Boxing 23:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It's going to take a few days to bring'em all in line with the IBO champions page. Indeed the WBA champions page is a nightmare of sorts, due to its history & adoption of having concurrent (i.e Super/Regular) champions in each division. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

It appears that @Blizzythesnowman: opposes my implementation, concerning the 'reign' dates. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: & @Mac Dreamstate:, gonna need your advice here. Shall I continue making the proposed changes or throw in the towel. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Blizzy needs to come here and voice his opposition. The more look at it, this format looks poor. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I have no problems if majority agrees with the new format. It was an old format that I followed when I was editing all of those pages 2 years ago. BlizzyBlizz (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Completed

WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO & Ring Magazine champions lists, are completed. GoodDay (talk) 04:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Exhibition records

It wasn't mentioned in the above RFC but I think it's safe to say the exclusion of upcoming fights extends to exhibition records, per the same rationale; they're not guaranteed to happen and the record table is a record of what has happened, not what might. Pinging @GhaziTwaissi: as we've had a revert or two on the matter. – 2.O.Boxing 12:21, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely that should be the case. Lack of common sense if they think a different guideline applies. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained abbreviation(s)

Not everyone who reads an article about a boxer knows all the abbreviations. For example, in the article on Dmitry Bivol, there is a box column with his fights. A lot of them have "UD" in a column called "type"(a general word that is used with some sort of specific meaning). The article nowhere explains what "UD" means. It should be explained in some way, e.g., in a footnote or maybe a mouse-over. Kdammers (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

MOS:ACRO1STUSE gives two options; link UD on the first occurrence in the record table or spell it out with the acronym in parenthesis in the prose. The latter is something I've done in a bunch of articles (see Jack Catterall), and I think fewer links is better when it comes to tables, so I prefer that option. – 2.O.Boxing 01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Aren't the tooltips sufficient? They begin from the bottom of the table. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
ACRO1STUSE seems to suggest no, To save space in small spaces, acronyms do not need to be written out in full...When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be linked. For usage of the tooltip it says, Upon later re-use in a long article, the template {{abbr}} can be used to provide a mouse-over tooltip. 2.O.Boxing 20:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Then perhaps a key, like they do at F1 articles. Long ago I had one in mind whilst compiling the MOS, but template:abbr was the quickest to implement at the time. Anything to avoid spelling out the result acronyms in the table—I've never liked the MOS:MMA way of doing it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I must say, that's a pretty cool template. Not quite sure about using it for boxing though. I'd prefer to spell it out with the acronym in parenthesis on first use, then use acronyms throughout the article. We'd also keep the tooltips with that option, which I think are handy, even though they don't work on my mobile device. My least preferred option would be linking them in the table. And let's agree to just ignore how MMA do things lol (no offence, folks). – 2.O.Boxing 11:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Another RfC on capitalization of all our articles

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC on readding upcoming fights in professional boxing record tables

I understand this change was caused by the adding of fights with no official announcements, however it is misleading and has lead to actual fight articles being poor in quality. For example, Spence vs Crawford was one of the most anticipated fights of this generation and the quality of the article was appalling. In some instances, some important fight articles, like Fulton vs Inoue, haven’t been made due to fight articles typically being accessed and created through the record table. Moreso, it is misleading because it leads people reading Wikipedia to believe that said fighter has no upcoming fight. BoxRec displays this well and it is one of the main authorities of boxing record-keeping. Therefore, I request a discussion to add back upcoming fights to record tables. As per, choices are to Support or Oppose. Cheers. Faren29 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment – Wikipedia is not BoxRec or a news ticker; it's an encyclopaedia. Opening a new RfC just months after a clear consensus on the previous one is in very bad faith: WP:CCC, "proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive." Quite frankly this is an insult after all the effort it took. You had all the time in the world to participate in the original RfC but you ignored it. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Spare the dramatics. Opening a new RfC shortly after the previous one has closed is only bad faith if it’s quite clearly just a desperate attempt to revert a change that one doesn’t like. This has caused a serious issue and needs to be rectified. My take in the original discussion would’ve had no bearing on the verdict because a consensus was already pretty clear. Faren29 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Well there's an admission of futility if anything. "Spare the dramatics" – way to deflect. "quite clearly just a desperate attempt to revert a change that one doesn’t like" – which is what this is. "My take in the original discussion would’ve had no bearing on the verdict because a consensus was already pretty clear" – way to prove my point. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
(Here from a notification at WP:NOT) Can I just say you question reads like the start of a discussion, rather than an RFC question. It's certainly not WP:RFCBRIEF. Maybe discussing this with other editors will come to a satisfactory compromise, rather than jumping to the RFC stage. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • The clear answer is no, per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and WP:NOT#DATABASE and WP:NOT#SOCIAL. WP does not try to predict the future, and is not a ticket-sales or event-planning venue, nor a social-networking site for listing upcoming (you hope) events.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong no per WP:CRYSTALBALL, Wikipedia is not meant to predict events/outcomes that may or may not occur in the future. I disagree with the statement that "[w]hen Fury vs Usyk inevitably happens and the fight article is poor because the fight isn't displayed on the table, that's going to be a very poor look". There is nothing stopping an editor from adding it in after the event in question has taken place, once a WP:RELIABLE source provides coverage of it. It is arguably an even worse look for Wikipedia if the information is added to the article, and the event doesn't happen. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 01:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Comment – "It is arguably an even worse look for Wikipedia if the information is added to the article, and the event doesn't happen"; this was exactly the case prior to the previous RfC. Fights were being added to record tables often with just a speculative month, or a "confirmed" date by all manner of interested parties (boxers themselves, promoters, TV networks, venue organisers, etc.), only to fall apart because of routine injuries or financial terms unable to be hashed out.
A sporting record, in the encyclopaedic sense, is a collection of information which has been verified to have taken place. I said it in the first RfC that it makes a mockery of WP, particularly the tenets WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL, to include upcoming information on a record table pertaining to such a volatile and shambolic sport as professional boxing. It is a stark outlier to all other major sports where world-famous scheduled events rarely go awry. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment – It appears your problem here is more to do with the quality of fight articles, rather than the actual topic at hand. An issue that needs to be resolved, yes, but starting an RfC to revert a valid change is not the way to go. There are other ways around the problem. Quettagon (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
If the RfC starter is so concerned about the quality of boxing event articles, they seem to be forgetting or are unaware that they're welcome to start those articles themselves. I did just that with Froch–Groves and Froch–Groves II after becoming a bit frustrated about the lack of coverage for those two events. And it had nothing to do with record tables. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Boxing/Archive_11&oldid=1205845848"