Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject Boxing: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:57, 27 August 2024 editZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators30,224 edits →Good article reassessment for Rocky Balboa (film): new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:57, 14 January 2025 edit undoMac Dreamstate (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers77,121 edits →Record table — sorting 
(45 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
{{Archives |bot=MiszaBot II |age=90 |search=yes }} {{Archives |bot=MiszaBot II |age=90 |search=yes }}


== Help me with expansion of NZ Boxers especially Peach Boxing ==
== ] ==


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.
Hey Can someone help me out please? I am not sure what to do next. I am pretty sure I am done. If i need to do more I can but I want to see if this is ready to be publish and how do i do that with this. for context here is this . ] (]) 21:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


] 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
== Deletion of a group of articles ==


]
I've recently stumbled across a group of British boxers who I don't think are notable enough for Misplaced Pages pages, including ], ], ], and a few other related fighters. Anyone have differing opinions on any of these fighters? I'd feel a bit bad going on deletion spree without some input. Most of these are out of date/don't follow the MOS so I'll try to update any we choose to keep around. ] (]) 06:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


]
:<s>Norman (challenged for a British title) and Essomba (won a European title) would fulfil notability, but not Maphosa as he doesn't appear to have challenged for any titles.</s> Stratch that, I was going by an old edition of ]. I would still say Essomba is worth keeping, because the European title is the highest regional achievement on the continent. ] (]) 18:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
::Appreciate the input! Essomba was the main one I was debating with myself. I'm traveling for the next couple days but when I'm back home I'll update his article and nominate the others for deletion. ] (]) 17:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


] needs to be expanded more recent events, especially her fights in 2024 and her being on TV
== 2024 Olympics ==


] for more his community work
For anyone in an article-creating mood, the ] starts in 10 days and there are a number qualified boxers still missing articles, many of whom are likely notable. See ]: 52 men's boxers and 39 women's boxers missing articles. ] (]) 18:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


]
== Revisiting rankings ==


] especially with David Nyika, T20 Black Clash and Synthony events
In multiple boxer articles across Misplaced Pages, I have noticed and removed the "dynamic" listings of rankings in the lead of their respective articles because a) they are often not regularly updated and more importantly (b) they are not cited to independent reliable sources outside of the ranking organisations themselves which causes ] and ] concerns. ]s are supposed to be summaries about major parts of the article. There was a previous discussion at WP:BOXING about the rankings where there didn't seem to be consensus about their inclusion in the lead. I believe that if dynamic rankings are to be included anywhere, they should be in the infoboxes. Should there be a RfC about this to gain wider feedback outside the Wikiproject? ] (]) 01:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)


] espeically expansion of her being on TV
:As far as divisional and all-time rankings go, I'd like to see the back of them. I particularly dislike BoxRec's "all-time greatest" dynamic rankings peppered everywhere. I've said it before that they're a chore to go around updating, and User:Morbidthoughts presents a good point with regards to ]. Which are more credible—myriad outlets such as ''The Ring'', TBRB, BoxRec, or ESPN; or the sanctioning bodies themselves? I think neither, really. I also would not mind getting rid of pound for pound rankings, although ''The Ring''{{'}}s rankings tend to get significant coverage whenever there's a clear world's number one. However, when it comes to TBRB and all the others being shoehorned into lead sections—who cares? ] (]) 23:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)


]
== ] ==


]
There are currently two RFCs at ]. Interested editors are invited to participate at ] and ]. '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)


] reflecting on leaving IBA and joining World Boxing
== Good article reassessment for ] ==

] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 20:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
]

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

]

any help would be very much appreciated ] (]) 22:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

== "Vs." and "Vs" ==

See I had with ]. 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 ]. Posting here for comment before moving further with dispute resolution. ] (]) 23:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

So are we using vs. or vs? ] (]) 08:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

== WBA title labelling ==

] 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 – – 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). ] (]) 19:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

== TBRB in fight articles ==

As a —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. ] (]) 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

== Record table sorting, alignment ==

Folks of the Project, please read—this could be quite important. Is 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 ]. 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 ] nor ].

However, I will say that I've found nothing whatsoever in ] or ] 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 ] to discuss this further. ] (]) 19:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

: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? ] (]) 08:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

* There are two independent points here, so I am boldly creating two sections for any further discussions — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

== Record table — alignment ==

I altered the table to use the {{TLX|Table alignment}} template. This allows left/right alignment to be defined once for a whole column in a table and removes any need for {{TQ|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 — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

: 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 — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

== Record table — sorting ==

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 — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

: As above – update the new article template to use correct chronological ordering — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::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 ], ], ], 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 "]", 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. ] (]) 19:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

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 ], ] and ], 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 {{TLX|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 {{TLX|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. — ] <sup>]</sup> 17:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
:Going forward, adopting the long-forgotten {{tl|Boxing record start}} looks like the ideal solution. Over at MMA articles they've long had the right idea with {{tl|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. ] (]) 21:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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?--] (]) 20:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

: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. ] (]) 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
::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.--] (]) 21:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
:::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 ] sites for other sports do the same. ] (]) 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

== Result type key table ==

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

{| style="margin-right:0; font-size:100%" class="wikitable"
! colspan=2 | Key
|-
! Abbreviation !! Result
|-
| UD || Unanimous decision/unanimous draw
|-
| SD || Split decision/split draw
|-
| MD || Majority decision/majority draw
|-
| TD || Technical decision/technical draw
|-
| PTS || Points decision
|-
| KO || Knockout
|-
| TKO || Technical knockout
|-
| RTD || Corner retirement
|-
| DQ || Disqualification
|-
| NC || No contest
|}

How does this look to everyone? ] (]) 15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

: 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
: {| style="font-size:85%" class="wikitable"
|+ 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 — ] <sup>]</sup> 18:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
<div class="afd-notice">
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0;">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ] is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].

The article will be discussed at ''']''' 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.<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 17:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:57, 14 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Boxing and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBoxing
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Boxing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Boxing on Misplaced Pages. 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":

→ Help pick the next article for collaboration.


Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 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.

Help me with expansion of NZ Boxers especially Peach Boxing

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)

"Vs." and "Vs"

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)

So are we using vs. or vs? Mahussain06 (talk) 08:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

WBA title labelling

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 – – 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)

TBRB in fight articles

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)

Record table sorting, alignment

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)

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)

Record table — alignment

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 18:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

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 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Record table — sorting

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 18:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As above – update the new article template to use correct chronological ordering — GhostInTheMachine 12:37, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
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)

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 17:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

Result type key table

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.

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

How does this look to everyone? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

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 18:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Tyson Fury vs. Anthony Joshua for deletion

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

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages: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)

Categories: