Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:39, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Requested move at Talk:Jack Johnson (boxer)#Requested move 21 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jack Johnson (boxer)#Requested move 21 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

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)