Talk:List of Chess boxing champions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge between it's sanctioning bodies as appropriate?[edit]

With Chessboxing still very new, this list may stand better if merged into its relevant organisation whether the WCBO or WCBA. One of the issues with this article at the moment is the lead section. If we merge this list with its other pages this won't be a problem anymore as it'll be within its context already.Jkmaskell (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Chess boxing champions. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gimmick[edit]

If we had a category below "Articles of low importance" this article would be right for it. The subject is a miserable PR-gimmick of no inherent notability. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]