This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Is it possible that a new section would be added? I just find this "In a bout held at Taguig City, Philippines, Pacquiao fought against Fahsan (3K-Battery) Por Thawatchai. Pacquiao sent 3K-Battery to the canvas three times en route to a knockout in the fourth round. A left uppercut to the jaw that lifted the Thai fighter's feet off the canvas ended the fight."statement pointless in its section. Can a Rematch section enough for this statement?
Also, this one "After the Morales bout, Pacquiao was in the limelight again during the first week of February 2006 when a waitress working in a Manila night club claimed that he was the father of her son, born out of a whirlwind affair with the boxer. The boxer, allegedly, was giving the child financial support which was also kept a secret from his wife, Jinkee, until she found out and caused a problem in their marriage, but soon mended." which is in the section of "Newfound Fame", I think that this paragraph doesn't fit fame (scandalous maybe?). Also, a little help with the organization of article might help. Domykneeko1319 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Pacquiao & Mosley done deal
http://boxingcommunity.org/articles/5-news/1286-pacquiao-a-mosley-done-deal.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.181.147 (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I have heard that his first "KO" loss was in fact a clear low blow. I think it's worth mentioning, considering the level of his opponent in this fight. 218.195.21.16 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
False!, He was CLEARLY hit with a shot to the body. I dont know what fight you watched..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.160.42 (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyone has an idea on how to properly divide the article into sections? We can go with:
–Howard the Duck 14:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems to be semi is preferable to the pending revisions options in this case. If the problems continue, semi will be restored. Enigmamsg 05:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Realise that boxing fans are pretty fanatical at times, but you need to have some common sense with a lot of this.
The article was way too long, and has so much useless information that nobody really wants to read. You know, the fact that Pacquiao is PFP number 1, on the web site "about.com" is hardly relevant.
Plus, a lot of printing of rumour. Encyclopedias are supposed to cover what has happened. Not rumour about what might happen.
One thing I removed was a line like "Pacquiao was overheard saying blah blah blah" with the only source being some manilla fan site. You know, stuff like that is unsubstanciated, and doesn't belong on sites like this.
The problem is that 50% of boxing sites, are fan contribution. The articles are written by fans. Amateurs. With no real insight into what's going on.
I think it would be wise to only use information from established professional sports outlets. Like your ESPNs, your Ring Magazine, your Fox Sports and your Sports Illustrateds?
Cjmooney9 (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
THis page is 109 kilobytes long and half of it is extraneous detail and cruft. The blow by blow of contract negotiations and individual fights could go, for instance. Do we really need all this? If you like I will cut it down section by section with edit summaries at every stage. Britmax (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
This page is suffering from fan obsession I feel. Encylopedic articles are supposed to be a general history of a person. They're supposed to be accesible, to the point, and easy to read, for newcomers.
The page is just flooded with endless, pointless information. As in there was a section displaying his endorsements?
Why do people continually add PFP rankings from totally obscure fan sites?
Why is there information on what magazine covers he's been on.
You know, I've been on enough boxing forums to know that Pacquiao fans are occasionally a tad obsessive about this sort of stuff, but this is an encylopedia page. Not a fan shrine.
It's way too long, and still contains huge amounts of useless information, even after taking some of the above out. If people insist on this stuff being here, then I suggest we take it to a higher level, and open it up to administrators/Editors for their view.
This should be a concise, easily readable, generalized re-telling of the guys career. Not a database of useless information
Cjmooney9 (talk) 17:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have realised that there so much bias and un-important facts about pacquiao for instants he is recognised as pound for pound number 1 be about.com, espn.com, yahoo sports these sanctioning bodies are not important, (only Ring Magazine) people are turning this article like its a love fest for pacquiao and finally wiki isnt a up to date newspaper company. Jailbreaker212 (talk) 01:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we PLEASE stop adding all that crap back to the lead - it is very messy to keep having them. What is your rationale for their explicit listing rather than a simple notation that other outlets rate him the same? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with tmorton166 this article is full of crappy information, mostly inserted by tbhotch who is in love with Pacquiao. Jailbreaker212 (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The introduction to this article feels too long and full of unnecessary information. The second paragraph feels bloated, do we really need to list so many boxing websites? Can we instead just provide references for them so they don't clog the introduction?
I'm not sure if we need a whole paragraph describing all the titles Pacquiao used to hold. Could we instead provide that information in the rest of the article, with a possible link in the introduction to it? The fourth and fifth paragraphs feel excessive and just list more achievements he has earned that could be listed in an "Awards and Recognitions" part of the article.
I spent a few minutes editing the introduction myself, and came up with this:
It's not perfect by any means, but I think it's much easier on the eyes and easier to read without being overwhelmed by awards and recognitions. Courier00 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The Format for this kind of page/article should be like the following: Info Box – includes the Name, Nicknames, Weights, Stats and Boxing Records (Total, W, W by KO, L, D)
Introduction – (1st Paragraph) Full Name, Alias, Birth date, Nationality, Profession/Career, Historical Achievements, (2nd) Pound for Pound Rankings - The Ring and other Sports Networks and Magazines, (3rd) Current Titles and Former Titles, (4th) Famous Boxing and Sports Awards like The Ring, BWAA, ESPY Fighter of the Year or Fighter of the Decade, (5th) Other Careers... Boxing Records should be posted on Info box if the boxer is still active. If the boxer will retire then it should be included in the introduction
Personal Life – (1st Paragraph) Birth date, Birth place, Parents, Siblings, (2nd) Wife, Children, Residence, (3rd) Other personal background
Education – (1st) Primary, (2nd) High School, (3rd) College Degree, (4th)Honorary Degree, (5th) Short Courses
Amateur – Short Background, Records, Awards,
Professional – Short Background, then his Weight Divisions are subtopics. Under Weight Divisions, there should also subtopics like his first, second, third titles..., important issues, or the title of the matches.
Boxing Record (Table) – Result, Opponents, Type, In what Round, Date and place of match, and notes (which includes the issues or the titles on the line)
Titles in Boxing – Major, Minor, Lineal, Regional
If there are no comments, reactions, replies, feedbacks, and suggestions to this idea, I will edit this page/article and follow this format. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doughn (talk • contribs) 12:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
doug read tmorton166 what his wrote before reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Balagonj786 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
makes little sense to have a pic of him on a baseball field when he is famous in another sport. please change it to one of the other pics in the article. kthankxbye.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The end of the Flyweight division section under Professional career ends in: "Technically, Pacquiao lost the belt at the scales, as he surpassed the weight limit of 112 pounds.". This seems to me more like an opinion than a statement of fact. I do not think that I can edit this document yet, because I'm rather new to this community. I was thinking that something like: "Pacquiao's opponent was x amount of pounds over the weight limit of 112" would make this article better. If no exact weight is known, this would be speculative and it would be better to remove the sentence altogether. --Jorge[tito984] 21:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Already updated PACMAN'S recognitions and if ever there will be more, I'll be glad to update it... and if there are any mistakes feel free to change it but all of my updates has link to justify everything...
PS... Inform us if there is any revision made...
Best Regards, Rico Sedano — Preceding comment added 09:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
He voluntarily vacated the IBO light welterweight belt last January 15, to pursue the Clottey fight. IBO required that he defends that belt by the end of February.— Preceding unsigned comment added 00:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You should add http://www.mpboxing.com as a reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added 19:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)