Talk:Pound for pound

message: Manny Pacqiuao.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.190.115.142 (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  define pound for pound 

message: Hello, Sazorek.  If you're still around, welcome to Wikipedia.
I'm not sure you understand how wiki articles work, but there are multiple authors for this and all, unless their brand-new, articles.  This is a collaborative online encyclopedia: some of us are here to help, some aren't (unfortunately).  However, one of the big things here is verifying and citing sources.  If you or anyone could do this without using original research, the article's quality will likely increase.  
Personally, I don't know much about "pound for pound" and I don't follow boxing much, but someone must some articles from boxing commentators about how PBF (i.e. Floyd Mayweather) stands as a boxer.  Maybe they could be helpful for building this article's quality, but the article must maintain neutrality and remain encyclopedic.
Oh, and please sign comments when using talk pages and keep a cool head while performing work in articles so we can build a better Wikipedia. I'm a relative newbie here so I may have stumbled here and there while making this message, but let's help each other, okay?
Thanks for stopping by. -- CRiyl 18:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: A biased article 

message: I deleted the entire application section as it was pure OR. Quadzilla99 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: This is an entirely necessary article, as the term "pound for pound" is often used in boxing articles, and may be unfamiliar to the general public. There is certainly not enough information to create new articles (i.e. "pound for pound boxing", "pound for pound martial arts", ect.), and such new articles would almost certainly be merged here. Perhaps a better idea would be to merge Ring Magazine pound for pound here. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect 

message: Also, in line with User:Teapeat's suggestion, perhaps this article should be titled "Pound for pound (sport)", which would differentiate it from a common adjective. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead moved the page, which should alleviate concerns about "having articles about adjectives". I also removed the information that wasn't specifically germane to sport. What is left is a stub-class, but necessary, article. "Pound for pound" is absolutely necessary for comparing unbeaten champion boxers such as Ricardo Lopez (105 lbs.) and Rocky Marciano (more than twice that). It is not simply a dictionary definition, but a complex concept. This referenced article needs improvement and expansion rather than simple redirection. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't what I suggested in any way, I suggested not having an article at all, since it didn't do anything other than define the term exactly like a dictionary would. The title 'pound for pound' is an adjective, as in 'pound for pound cost' where cost is the noun. Sticking '(sport)' on the end doesn't make it not an adjective, it's still an adjective, and in this context it just means 'best' or 'favorite' which we don't have articles for either in that sense (we don't have articles for adjectives in Wikipedia). It's essentially just a slang phrase which is covered by dictionaries perfectly well.Teapeat (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is. You said in your edit summary, "Wikipedia does not have articles about adjectives. it would have to be pound for pound best boxer or something". I made it "pound for pound (sport)" instead of "pound for pound (boxing)" because there certainly isn't enough information to have separate articles such as "pound for pound (mixed martial arts)", "pound for pound (Greco-Roman wrestling)", ect. They would wind up being merged into one article. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

text: You can turn it into a disambiguation page if you want, but it's certainly not an encyclopedia article, I don't even think there's anything much to link to.Teapeat (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "slang phrase", it's a nuanced concept used to compare boxers in a multitude of ways. As noted in the article, The Ring magazine-universally recognized alongside the alphabet organizations as a world championship-recognizes a "pound for pound" champion that ostensibly supercedes the various weight classes. There is plenty to link to, although I did suggest that perhaps The Ring Pound for Pound article may be best if merged here. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

text: No do not merge. This is a separate article on a separate subject. --Wonkey Donkey (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible page move 

message: There would be less of an argument here if the article was expanded to include controversies about the comparison, what is looked for, etc.  There definately is room for that.Peter Rehse (talk) 04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not exactly. The nominator was simply trolling me the whole way. No matter what I did to the article, he pretended that wasn't what he asked for. But in theory I agree with you. It looks like it's going to be kept, and I look forward to collaborating with others to improve it. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: I'd like to note that I'm open to different titles for this article. I just feel consensus should be achieved first, either here or through a formal move request. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just feel that it shouldn't be a fucking adjective! Is that too much to ask? There aren't ANY adjective titles in Wikipedia; they are ALL disambiguation pages. I made it into a disambiguation page, and moved it to a reasonable title, and you got an admin to delete it? Like WTF?Teapeat (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:STICK. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Not per policy, per guidelines. Your opinion has been made crystal clear. How about letting others weigh in here? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You only have opinions, but that's a direct quote from the Wikipedia:Article titles policy.Teapeat (talk) 22:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pound for pound. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100423000351/http://www.fightersonlymagazine.co.uk/features/viewarticle.php?id=4258 to http://www.fightersonlymagazine.co.uk/features/viewarticle.php?id=4258
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Battling Nelson 1906 pound for pound. A Dane not American. Poor research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.101.119.149 (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battling Nelson 1906  

message: Shouldn't this, and its associated articles, be hyphenated?; i.e., pound-for-pound. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been changing instances of "[...] the best pound for pound boxer" for years. It's nonsensical to refer to the concept as a noun. How I tend to word it, albeit in a long-winded way, is to write "[...] is ranked by [magazine] as the world's best boxer, pound for pound." Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphens