Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing

Newspaper decisions

(2021 discussion between CaPslOcksBroKEn and Jahalive)

Having separate tables for official and unofficial results is a very bad idea. Duplication doubles the maintenance. There is no benefit. This example merges the details into a single table by adding one extra column. {{BoxingRecordSummary}} should be amended to enable one table instead of two for the summary.

jnestorius^(talk) 11:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, there are many boxers from that time who's record mainly consists of newspaper decisions, and keeping just the official record makes understanding their record functionally useless. If we have to pick one over the other, it should absolutely be the unofficial record. It is easy enough to ignore all the nws decisions if one choses to when reading thru the record, but the inverse is nowhere near as easy. Also using orange for them on official records is the worst option as there are people who are color blind that see it and see them as red losses. better to keep it neutral gray if we were to go the route of complicating records beyond easy comprehension. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

If we have to pick one over the other—did you look at the example I linked to? Barbados Joe Walcott#Professional boxing record doesn't pick one over the other. It has a separate column for each. people who are color blind already can't tell win lose or draw from the colours; instead they can rely on the text in the Result column being different. The same is true for newspaper decisions. The colours match those in the summary table; I don't care which colour values are used as long as they match. (I did mistakenly change the 3 non-newspaper ND/NC results from grey to orange; I've fixed that now. ) The colour code is a minor issue in any case; what concerns me is having two tables when there should be only one. jnestorius^(talk) 11:23, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah i looked i just missed it. It works well enough, I guess. Anyways, people who are color blind don't mix up red and green like that. They are not shades of the same color like orange and red it. I was told this was a problem for another editor to read, who is color blind, hence my thinking of this. Anyways, this is an issue with the wiki table. I've not known how to change it, but I've been hoping someone else would. These fights are officially no decisions, so therefore the color should be the same gray as every other non newspaper no decision. CaPslOcksBroKEn (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Rather than modify the existing tables, would having a separate table for newspaper results be helpful? The section could be titled [Professional] Boxing record (newspaper decisions) or something like that. The record for Walcott looks fine as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

This would be much more unhelpful than helpful. If a reader for some reason particularly wants to exclude the newspaper results, they can sort the table by the Type and/or Result columns. The vast majority of readers will not want to exclude them altogether as long as they are distinguishable. If you copy-paste the newspaper results out of the main table, that is unnecessary duplication. If you cut-paste the out, that is pointless segregation—you might as well have separate tables for wins and losses. All fights happened the same way regardless of the result or lack thereof. jnestorius^(talk) 08:55, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Request: The Sweet Science (book) Page review

The article The Sweet Science is currently being considered for deletion. Since it concerns boxing literature and history, editors familiar with the subject may be interested or able to assess the available sourcing and review it before its deletion. Unfortunately I've been temporarily blocked and can't correct it by myself, but if someone is interested in doing it I think it would preserve an historical peace of literature of this sport.

Thank you Kaspar-trout (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Review and suggestions

Hi! I just drafted this article and would appreciate any reviews or suggestions from fellow boxing editors. Many thanks! Kaspar-trout (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Akaash Bhatia

The article Akaash Bhatia has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Tagged for notability concerns for over 8 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Poorly sourced BLP.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion based on established criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you may request undeletion of the article at any time. Bearian (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Hello

I am a new member here, just wanting to say hello! QuickPilot23 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2026 (UTC)