Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Squared.Circle.Boxing (talk | contribs) at 18:57, 11 October 2022 (→Block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Probably won't reply. Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars, especially when you're on the wrong end of an edit war. It's just silly.

DOB source

Hey! Thanks for the inputs. Could you share a link/thread on what all counts as a verifiable dob source? Thanks again! Gobiwankenobi (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Gobiwankenobi: the dob must either be published by multiple WP:Reliable sources (that would usually mean reputable media outlets); revealed by the subject himself, which can include interviews (by reliable sources), posts on a verified social media account (Twitter, Facebook etc), or an official personal website; or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public, which for a boxer would usually be something like a profile on a promoter's or affiliated network's website (Top Rank and ESPN for example). – .O. 08:47, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This helps a lot, thanks a ton! Gobiwankenobi (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Len Johnson record

I was getting ready ready to work on the professional boxing record of Len Johnson (boxer) and noticed that the record has already been done, but on his article, the professional boxing record section instead links to Professional boxing record of Len Johnson. I'm not quite sure how to go about getting rid of the record article and if I take it and paste it over the professional boxing section on the original article, it could just bury the offshoot article into obscurity. How should we go about resolving this oddity? CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I just realized you already know about this as you were involved with it. This record is not the longest record, yet it has split from the original article. There are numerous lengthy records that make 135 bouts pale in comparison. Harry Greb, Maxie Rosenbloom, Jack Britton, Archie Moore, and Ted 'Kid' Lewis are a few, but there are more articles with fighters who had as many fights as these fighters I named, but don't have their records on them (yet). What is the limit for keeping a record merged with the original article and how can we be expected to put in so much more effort to make the hundreds of records consistent with Johnson's record? The the amount of effort that was put into Len's article splitting alone will create so much more room for error and negligence of lesser cared about fighters. If there is a hard line amount of fights that a fighter takes place in before their records are split, couldn't we just instead add the option to collapse or expand the record portion as seen on Gene Tunney and other records with newspaper decisions?CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@CaPslOcksBroKEn: I can't remember having a hand in that one, but looking at the size of the article it'll be hard to argue against WP:TOOBIG. It's more than twice the size of all but one of the ones you mentioned due to its extraordinarily long prose. It should probably be trimmed down even further to be honest. – .O. 19:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing:Trimming down records is a bad path to go down as it severely inhibits the understanding of a record in where the fighter came from, where they went, and how long it took. I am leaving an example of how these large records can be very slightly altered to keep the size from inhibiting readability of articles, while still retaining the record in full. Both versions have the option to be expanded or collapsed, but are initially collapsed when loading a page. This is something that I feel should be implemented for all records, regardless of size, as it would leave no room for debating how many fights a fighter must have before the record needs to be automatically collapsed. I only use Jack Britton as an example because he has the most verified fights of any world champion in history and also has a short article in relation. Benny Leonard is an example of a fighter with a large article who also had a lot of fights where this would benefit those who may not realize they can collapse the unofficial record. Despite the size of an article, I recognize that the size of a record can create an obstacle in accessing the sources and collapsing the professional record section would immediately resolve this.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that you deleted the example because it was lagging you out. I am sorry for that. See the current version of Jack Britton for what I am talking about.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

No worries. I'm on a shitty device so it tends to lag out if there's more than 200k bytes lol

It's the Len Johnson article that needs trimming. 300k bytes is on the verge of ridiculous. I can't see much justification in increasing the size. – .O. 22:33, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why the byte size of an article under or around 300k needs to be trimmed. Based off of https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:LongPages&limit=500&offset=0, with the addition of his boxing record Len Johnson (boxer) would be shorter than 461 other articles. Yes, it is extremely long, but the record would not inhibit the readability for those who can load the website when the section is automatically collapsed.CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Re-reading WP:TOOBIG, the record table should have stayed. Firstly, the size guide only applies to readable prose, not tables (missed that the first time round). Secondly, the table is 30k bytes; removing it barely made a dent. Lastly, The record table causes no issues on my device while the career section lags me out quite bad. Reading that section is annoying, editing it is completely pointless for me (I'm a good test subject: crappy mobile device + not the greatest of internet connection).

If WP:TOOBIG was the rationale for splitting then I'd say that was just laziness, because the split had no effect. Due to the fact that somebody boldly made the split and it's stood for a year, I think a merge discussion would be needed. However, I think such a discussion would fail due to the current size. That article really does need trimming or splitting, and there's waaaaaaay too many words for my little brain to tackle. – .O. 09:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, why can’t we split his article? Since there is so much information about his life outside of boxing, this seems like a very similar situation to Boxing career of Muhammad Ali being split from Muhammad Ali and Boxing career of Manny Pacquiao being split to Boxing career of Manny Pacquiao. We have Len Johnson (boxer) now, and it’s already too big without his record so why not split the boxing portion off into Boxing career of Len Johnson? CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

If removing the boxing-related content still leaves a sizeable article at Len Johnson then that sounds like the best idea. I'm not sure of the process though. – .O. 10:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Program / Programme

Hi,

Regarding some of your recent reversions of 203.13.3.104's work, I understand your motivation, but Australian English tends to favour "program" as the standard spelling. See "Logie Awards" for numerous examples. The case in NZ English seems less clear, but "Play School (New Zealand TV series)" now features a mixture of spellings. Standard advice at WP:ENGVAR is to respect local variations.

Best wishes, Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jean-de-Nivelle: Thanks for pointing that out. Feel free to revert any of those that are incorrect. – .O. 15:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

question

why did you remove my logan paul's boxing record edit its a professional fight too FlamemanTN (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

No it wasn't. – .O. 08:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

i have been mistaken i rest my case FlamemanTN (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

after researching ofc FlamemanTN (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Sam Hyde

Hi mate, in order to avoid an edit war here is my reasoning for the Sam Hyde edit:

As I said in the edit comments, Hyde has never personally confirmed his supposed donation. I don't deny that it is possible but it is more likely that the donation was made by a fan. Hyde has a large alt-right following and has been the victim of hoaxes before, so it's a strong possibility that someone from the alt-right making a donation also decided to claim to be Sam. The LA Times article does not provide any evidence for their claim (understandable because it would link to a nazi website). The only information on the original donation website is the name "Sam Hyde" along with a drawn picture. The general reliability of LA Times is not sufficient evidence in this case.

Even with a "generally reliable" source this claim can't be made objectively. CNN is also considered "generally reliable", meanwhile they have falsely reported Sam Hyde as the perpetrator of a school shooting in the past. Obviously it isn't reasonable to accuse him of being a school shooter just because a reliable source once said so.

The reason I initially chose to ask for a better source instead of deleting/changing the statement was to give other editors an opportunity to keep the statement if there was a definitive source to this. As there doesn't seem to be one I suggest rewording the statement and moving it further down the article. The statement itself should be replaced with something more objective. For example:

Hyde is known for his involvement in several public pranks and internet hoaxes. Hyde's transgressive style has also garnered public controversy and he has frequently been associated with the alt-right. Among other examples, his former show "World Peace" was removed from Adult Swim due to alt-right undertones.

It's not objective or in good faith to call a guy a nazi in the opening section of his Misplaced Pages page because of something he probably didn't do.

If I missed something let me know. If you don't give me any reason not to then I will make the edits myself assuming that you have no objections.

Cheers, Au489 (talk) 14:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@AU-489: when Hyde was asked why he made the donation, instead of denying it he gave an affirmative answer as to why he made the donation, For the reason why, you can say I want reporters to know I make more money than them. Unless other reliable sources question the validity of the article, there's nothing for Misplaced Pages to question.

I have no comment on whether or not it belongs in the lead. – .O. 15:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Squared.Circle.Boxing: Sorry about the confusion. I missed the phone interview in the article and understood that he never commented on it based on other sources.

Thanks for the clarification, Au489 (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Block

@El C: that comment was a reply to I'm hurting for you, who must have such hatred in your own heart to feel and believe such things. I share a similar belief (but disagree with the comment made in the RFA), which is firmly rooted in biology. To see a comment suggesting somebody is a hateful person for holding said belief is utterly ridiculous, and ironically rather hateful. That being said, who have I personally attacked or harassed? Where is this long term reoccurring problem? I hope you're not referring to an incorrect block for repeatedly trolling on blocked editors' talk pages and a pblock for a PA. – .O. 16:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose you could launch an unblock appeal that echoes all of that. Including: presenting that transphobic attack at RfA as mere "belief," rather than hate speech; or, your own inflammatory reply (diff again) to the anguish of a trans person as, likewise, innocent and not egregiously inflammatory. Personally, I don't think it's gonna work, but I'm not gonna stop you. El_C 17:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

@El C: I see where you're coming from now. I've re-read TheresNoTime's comment and I selectively read/glossed over and misunderstood. I ended up focusing on the specific sentence my reply was intended for, and ignoring the beginning, To hold such a belief is one thing, but to say it so plain when it did not need to be said...I'm disappointed. I actually couldn't agree more with their comment now I've taken the entire thing on board. I can see and accept my reply was inflammatory.

Despite the views I hold, I do not share the same opinion as what was expressed in the personal attack. I only knew of a single line, quoted in a discussion outside of the RFA. Since my offending comment, I've been made aware of the full content of the personal attack. I can only apologise to those who were offended by my idiocy. – .O. 18:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This initial reply may have a bit more insight in to my thought process at the time. – .O. 18:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)