Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing

FAC open: Pat O'Keeffe

I have an FAC open for Pat O'Keeffe, a British middleweight champion active 1902–1918. The image review is complete; the nomination is waiting on a content review. If anyone here is able to take a look, or knows an experienced FA reviewer who might be interested in a historical boxing biography, it would be much appreciated. Metalicat (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Kronk Gym

This stub needs some training! Please add additional reliable sources. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Combat Sports Amateur Record Combine

Who do you contact to organize fighters wiki records amateurs or professionals 2bad10000 (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Removal of undercard information from boxing match pages.

An disagreement has arisen between User:LRQ 98 and myself with regards to the inclusion of detailed information about undercard bouts on Derek Chisora vs. Joseph Parker, Anthony Joshua vs. Éric Molina, Dillian Whyte vs. Joseph Parker, Regis Prograis vs. Josh Taylor, Derek Chisora vs. Joseph Parker and Derek Chisora vs. Deontay Wilder.

I strongly believe that on these pages for big PPV events with multiple high profile bouts (some of which were billed as co main events) to remove all information other than the basic undercard box is a bad idea given many of them were a big part of these events.

Can a ruling be made to prevent an edit war continuing, thank you. Sam11333 (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Event pages normally cover the undercard fights in the fight card section with links to the fighters' pages, rather than carrying full write-ups of each bout. Detailed coverage of undercard fights tends to duplicate content that already belongs on the fighters' own pages (or on separate pages if the bout is independently notable).

Keeping the event article concise avoids turning the undercard into a long wall of text & follows the structure used across most boxing event pages.

Happy to hear other views, but this approach is consistent with how similar articles are handled. LRQ 98 (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

If the undercard bouts have significant coverage by RS, then it's reasonable to include a summary of the bout. Some of them in the examples above are too long. What similar articles are you thinking of?--Jahalive (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

When I say similar articles, I mean the vast majority of boxing event pages that follow the standard structure: background, the fight, aftermath, fight card, broadcasting, references. This is the format used across most major events.

In my view, the fighters of note are already linked in the fight card. If readers want more detailed coverage of their respective bouts, that information is (or should be) on the fighters' individual pages. Adding full write-ups of undercard bouts into the event article disrupts the flow & duplicates content that exists elsewhere. Keeping the event page concise avoids overlap & maintains consistency.

The additional undercard/chief support headings, followed by separate fight & aftermath sub-sections, don't seem to add much & tend to make the article less readable - especially when combined with multiple infoboxes & preceded/succeeded boxes mid-page, which are usually placed at the top or bottom.

That's just my perspective, & if other editors feel differently, I'm open to hearing it. I'm interested to know what others think. LRQ 98 (talk) 22:03, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

An example for the Chisora-Parker page. Eubank-Morrison was barely noteworthy. If there was an actual fight on the undercard that was promoted as co-main then fair enough. Maybe less headers? So we have "the fights", then for example Bivol-Richards, should leave it at that and then a brief summary on the fight and aftermath, within a short paragraph or to. Or in some cases, I have written a long piece on this fight via Bivol's page, maybe just add a link to the fight summary on Bivol's page. I don't think we need 'the fight' and 'aftermath' as separate secondary headers. I've even covered Eubank-Morrison in quite some detail via Eubank's page. Mahussain06 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

That's where it becomes a grey area. What actually constitutes a "notable" bout? If an undercard has multiple world-title fights, should one be mentioned on one event page but two or three on another? For example, on Chisora-Parker, would Bivol-Richards be included but not Taylor-Jonas?

That's why I prefer that event pages follow the same structure rather than a case-by-case approach. The fighters are already linked in the fight card, & those links take readers to the detailed coverage on their individual pages. They also include the results & titles on the line.

To me, that's the whole point of linking - so the event article doesn't need to contain information that's better placed (or already exists) elsewhere. Adding bits of information about several different undercard fights disrupts the natural flow of the main-event narrative (background → the fight → aftermath → fight card → broadcasting → references). It breaks the continuity that the structure is designed around.

Including summaries or paragraphs for multiple other fights makes the article less cohesive & less readable, especially when those details are already covered on the fighters' pages.

That's just my view, but I think consistency across event pages is important. LRQ 98 (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the Joshua-Whyte page. Just the headers and titles for the undercard section. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Joshua_vs._Dillian_Whyte&diff=1354268189&oldid=1354144614 take a look. The contents on the left hand side as well as the article itself reads much better in my opinion. Let me know your thoughts. Mahussain06 (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

See, I’m inclined to agree with you — it does read better with fewer headers. But I still can’t help feeling it looks messy, for the same reasons I’ve mentioned.

Once you introduce an undercard section, it turns an event page into a patchwork of mini‑articles that were never meant to be there. Even adding one undercard write‑up tends to lead to another, then someone adds quotes, then rankings, then preceded/succeeded boxes, then purse figures, then round‑by‑round details, etc.

Before you know it, the event page starts to look like a scrapbook rather than a structured article.

The standard structure (background → the fight → aftermath → fight card → broadcasting → references) is designed to keep the event page focused on the main event. & as I’ve said, the fight card already links to the fighters’ pages, where the detailed coverage naturally belongs.

That’s why I prefer sticking to the standard structure without undercard prose — it keeps things consistent & avoids the clutter that builds up over time.

That’s just my view, but I think consistency across event pages is important. LRQ 98 (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Unless we move the whole undercard section at the bottom, after Broadcasting or Aftermath.. again, just a suggestion. Let's see what other posters say. hopefully we get a few responses on here. For me, i'm not for it, not against it, but I will always look at it from all views and help improve these articles. Mahussain06 (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The problem with that idea is that it breaks the chronological flow of the The fights section where it mirrors the actual event. Sam11333 (talk) 12:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I get the point about chronology, but that’s really part of the issue for me. Once an undercard section exists, the article has to start accommodating multiple bouts, each with their own timelines, details, & context — & that’s what makes the page feel messy.

My view is that the event page shouldn’t be trying to narrate the whole card chronologically. The standard structure (background → the fight → aftermath → fight card → broadcasting → references) keeps the focus on the main event, & the fight card already links out to the individual fighters’ pages where the detailed coverage belongs.

If we avoid undercard prose altogether, the chronology question disappears — the event page stays clean, consistent, & centred on the main event, & the undercard information sits where it naturally fits on the fighters’ own pages.

That’s just my perspective, but I think keeping event pages consistent across the board is the best approach. LRQ 98 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I strongly believe that misses the main point, that these pages are not just about one fight but a whole event, and purging that information, especially when most of those bouts are independently notable in and of themselves, doesn't improve the articles. Sam11333 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The issue here isn't whether these bouts are "notable." Notability determines whether a topic can have its own article - it does not determine whether full fight coverage belongs on an event page. Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE, event pages provide concise overviews, with detailed write-ups placed on the fighters' pages or on standalone bout articles where appropriate.

Multiple editors have already noted that the current level of detail breaks the standard structure used across the majority of boxing event pages. The goal is consistency with established practice, not creating exceptions based on individual preference.

If you believe these pages should deviate from the long-standing structure used across similar articles, the burden is on you to provide a policy-based rationale & gain consensus for that change. Until then, the stable, policy-aligned format should remain in place. LRQ 98 (talk) 14:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:AVOIDSPLIT content for other notable fights would be best placed within the main article rather than creating separate pages for each one. Wikipedia:UNDUE doesn't seem relevant as I don't think bouts on a card qualify as "minority views or aspects".

Indeed as per Wikipedia:PROPORTION we should "treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." In my eyes including the breakdown of the other bouts fits this as most news articles about a boxing event include coverage of the other bout not just the main event. Sam11333 (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

AVOIDSPLIT prevents unnecessary forks, but it does not require detailed coverage of every notable bout to be placed inside an event page. In this case, the detailed material already belongs on the fighters' pages, which is exactly where it is normally covered across boxing articles. That is fully consistent with AVOIDSPLIT.

UNDUE is relevant because the question is not whether the bouts occurred, but how much weight they should receive within the scope of an article whose primary subject is the main event. Event pages summarise the card in the Fight card section; they do not replicate full bout coverage for every fight.

PROPORTION applies to aspects within the scope of the article's topic. The topic of these pages is the main event, not the entire card. Event-level notability is driven by the headliner, & Wikipedia reflects that distinction through summary style rather than full-length coverage of each bout.

This is why the long-standing structure across boxing event pages uses concise undercard summaries linking to detailed coverage on the fighters' pages or standalone bout articles. That approach follows SUMMARY, UNDUE, PROPORTION, & AVOIDSPLIT together. LRQ 98 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY applies to this issue. "Sections of long articles [the fight sections in the boxers articles] should be spun off into their own articles [the event articles], leaving summaries in their place." Detailed coverage of bouts belong on the event pages.--Jahalive (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The event page is an overview of the main event & follows the following format: Background, Fight details, Aftermath, Fight card, Broadcasting & References. It’s not the place for full write-ups of every or certain bouts deemed “notable”. The detailed material for individual fights already sits on the fighters' pages, which is where that level of depth is normally handled across boxing articles.

Spinning off long sections doesn't mean moving all that detail upward into the event page - it means giving each topic its own space when needed, while keeping the event page focused on the main event & a summary of the rest of the card in the fight card section: fighters, results, titles on the line, etc.

This is the same structure used across boxing & other combat-sports event pages, where the undercard is summarised & the detailed coverage stays with the fighters or, if necessary, in separate bout articles. Expanding the event page with full bout write-ups would go against that established layout. As I keep saying, there should be consistency across pages. LRQ 98 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

The boxer articles are the parent articles and the event articles are the child articles as described in WP:SUMMARY. Detail is supposed to be moved down to the child articles. That is how boxing articles are structured.--Jahalive (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

You’re treating the boxer articles & the event articles as if they're part of a single hierarchy - like one is the "main" article & the other is a "sub-article.

But that relationship doesn't exist.

A boxer article covers the fighter's entire career. An event article covers one specific show. They are different topics, not parent & child.

A boxer page isn't "above" an event page, & an event page isn't "below" a boxer page. They sit side-by-side, each covering their own subject.

Because the articles aren't in a hierarchy, you don't "move detail down" from a boxer page into an event page. That would mix two unrelated scopes:

The fighter page is about the fighter. The event page is about the event.

Putting full bout write-ups into the event page would just bloat it & duplicate material that already has a proper home. LRQ 98 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

A boxer article covers the fighter's entire career, which is a series of boxing events. The events are child articles of the boxer articles as defined in WP:SUMMARY.--Jahalive (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Once again, the boxer articles & the event articles aren't in a hierarchy. They cover different subjects: one is about a fighter's whole career, the other is about a single show.

Treating one as "above" the other doesn't reflect how these pages are actually structured.

& if we followed the logic you're

suggesting, the next step would be to start copying & pasting large chunks of content from fighter pages into event pages, creating endless headings, sub-headings & sub-sub-headings just to house it all. Why stop at a few "notable bouts"? We might as well do it for the entire card - full write-ups, individual infoboxes, before/after fight boxes, the lot.

That would turn event pages into sprawling collections of bout recaps instead of overviews. The established structure across boxing & other combat-sports pages avoids exactly that: the event page summarises the other bouts in the fight card section, & the detailed coverage stays with the fighters or, when needed, in separate bout articles.

That layout keeps things readable, avoids duplication, & maintains consistency across pages - which is the whole point of having a structure in the first place. LRQ 98 (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with User:LRQ 98, TO AN EXTENT. The way User:Sam11333 does it, I'm not in complete agreement with. It is generally unsourced, adds unnecessary clutter and generally looks a bit sloppy. "The fights" section should 100% be removed. That being said, if it is a particularly notable undercard fight, or a "co-main event", then I'm OK with it adding it, as long as it is sourced and neatly under it's own header, such as Johnny Bumphus vs. Gene Hatcher, which won The Ring magazine's upset of the year award and was the featured undercard bout at the Ray Mancini vs. Livingstone Bramble event. Beast from da East (talk) 06:25, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Section headings

Just stopping by to remind everyone that basic MOS should be followed for section headings. See MOS:AT—"Do not use articles (a, an, or the) as the first word". Therefore "The fight" should not be used for headers; it should be "Fight details". Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Updated the aforementioned pages to meet said criteria. LRQ 98 (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

KO Magazine and other 80s magazines published by Stanley Weston

Many of these magazines are public domain will anyone who has copies of magazines published by Weston (Before March 1989) please scan and upload them so we can see the photos in them 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Particularly I would like to see the March 1988 issue of Boxing 88 magazine, it has one of the most iconic photo of Mike Tyson (this one, you can see it here on page 42 of the magazine) but I have not been able to verify whether it has a valid copyright notice on it or not

There are multiple people selling this issue on ebay can someone ask any of the sellers to show the full table of contents page of the issue 999REAL 💬 ⬆ 02:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Article request McKinley Fulton

Hello WikiProject Boxing editors. I'm reaching out on behalf of McKinley Fulton, a Baltimore amateur boxer who trained at the Upton Boxing Center under Coach Calvin Ford alongside Gervonta 'Tank' Davis. He was featured in The New York Times on February 24, 2017, won Silver Gloves titles representing Upton (documented as early as 2009), and has published an autobiography. I believe he meets Wp GNG with 5 independent sources. Would any editors be willing to review a draft and help create the article? Happy to share the draft and sources. Thank you. FrankHarris101 (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Gerald Nobles

This article, which I found patrolling the older notability concerns categories, has multiple issues. Is he really notable? Why is the formatting so messed us? Why is there still only one source after 10 years? Please help us fix this. Bearian (talk) 09:30, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

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: COI edit review needed at Talk:Kronk Gym

Hello, I am posting on behalf of User:DetroitBoxingHistory (Paul Bhatti, CEO and majority owner of KRONK Gym Detroit) to request that a neutral editor review the COI edit requests on Talk:Kronk Gym.

A comprehensive set of proposals has been submitted covering a significant expansion of the article, which is currently rated Start-class and lacks a History section, infobox, and biographical content on key figures. The proposals include:

• A full History section covering 1921 founding, the Emanuel Steward era (1971–2012), post-Steward closure, and the current revival
• An updated infobox
• A world champions table (30+ fighters)
• An Olympic history table
• Subsections on Thomas Hearns and Johnathon Banks
• A Emanuel Steward biography section
• An External links section with cited press sources
• Inline citations for the reopening section (Detroit Free Press, Michigan Chronicle, Crain's Detroit Business, The Detroit News, Fight Matrix, The Irish Times)

All proposals are properly sourced and formatted as wikitext ready to implement. The COI is fully disclosed on each post. Any review or implementation would be greatly appreciated. ~2026-33747-15 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)