Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 3

This page 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.

I made a pretty big addition to this article recently, but it is far from "done". I'd like to advertise it a little, so that any other interested individuals might pick up on the momentum and help flesh it out with more information, more citations, or some-copy edits. All your help is appreciated. - xiliquiern^Talk 17:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

I have been asked to expand the opening paragraph of my Lei tai article to better summarize all of the material cover. However, I'm more interested in digging for the information than I am rewriting the opening paragraph. Could someone on here please take a look at it and try to expand it themself? Other than that, the article looks great and I've added lots of pictures to it. (Ghostexorcist 21:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC))

Besides some well developed articles on various aspects of Japanese martial arts Koryu, Gendai budo, Budo and also specific martial arts such as sumo, aikido, jujutsu, etc. There is no article tying them together in a nice neat package along the lines of Chinese martial arts. Until now Japanese martial arts just redirected to budo and that just wasn't working. I started an article, tossed in a few picis, and really hope a concerted effort can be made to flesh out the article. It really doesn't have to be big but just tie in the history, evolution and modern sporting forms, etc as a hub from where the more detailed articles can be reached. We can worry about merging later.Peter Rehse 06:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to create a "martial art" infobox, containing elements such as:

• logo
• name
• sample picture
• country of origin
• parenthood (like Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu comes from Judo and Jujitsu)
• style (grappling, striking, etc.)
• optional info such as the creator (such as Bruce Lee for Jeet Kun Do), famous practitioners , if it is an olympic sport, etc.

What do you think? - Nmnogueira 19:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Logo should be optional - since only a few articles where is would be appropriate to use the infobox are arts which have a single organization with a logo (eg. What logo would you use for Judo? ) Other than that, pop something together in your User: area and put it up here for comment. -- Medains 10:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I made a scrap of the infobox. You can see it here or an example of application here. Please make suggestions of fields to be added or changes to the template. A possibility would be to add the original spelling of the martial art (Kanji, Hangul, Hanja, etc.) but I think it would be very difficult to generalize the template for this, so maybe it would be better to keep the current layout for that part (e.g. the koreanname infobox) - Nmnogueira 13:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good - Famous practicioners could get crowded, an "Also known as" bit might be useful. But other than that, as long as most of the elements are optional it should look good. I've had a quick check through the highest-rated articles and there is no infobox in use already, so we should be good to go with this. -- Medains 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Template is ready to be used. I've added the "Also know as" field, and some other field to change image size, etc. A small explanation on how to use the template is included too. I placed the template in {{Infobox_martial_art}}. - Nmnogueira 19:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Put into BJJ and JuJitsu filled out as best as I can --Nate1481 20:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And I did Aikido and Judo - it should be noted that the Japanese Koryu arts have their own version.Peter Rehse 01:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason info boxes should be on top of the article. I noticed that the creator Nmnogueira changed the position of the Judo one after I had moved it down slightly to get rid of the extra white space. I've moved it back but if there is a compelling reason please let us know.Peter Rehse 02:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I just did that because of the idea that I have that infoboxes are meant to give quick and resumed information about a particular topic. Therefore it should be in the top of the article, where you don't have to scroll down to see it. This is only my opinion, and I'm not sure there is a rule for that. Anyway, I think the infobox fits well in the place where you placed it (it doesn't force you to scroll down so you can see it). Sorry I changed that, but I did it to see if I could fit the box with the different spellings of the word Judo on the top too, I tried different combinations and when I finally decided that it should be put in the next section, I forgot to change back the position of the infobox. - Nmnogueira 07:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks just checking. I also like the idea of having them as near the top as possible.Peter Rehse 01:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be a good idea to add a field with the date of birth of the martial art. What do you think this should be called? ("Date of creation", "Created", "Creation", "Founded", "Foundation",...) - Nmnogueira 16:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey all. I just noticed this subject and I'd like to ask your opinions on my own previous info-boxes I have added to various articles. Please note, I'm no super-wikipedian and I created the boxes manualy with no templates or such. They are prolly not very effective on top of that. I would like you guys to comment/improve them. But please tell me what you improve so I can learn and implement it in my next box. I put up my very improvised boxes on the following articles: Katori Shinto-ryu, Shinto Muso-ryu, Kashima Shinto-ryu, Yagyu Shinkage-ryu and several other whose names I cant remember. Please dont beat me with pointy sticks, I just tried to help :) Fred26 17:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought they were pretty good - and something to be used specifically for Koryu.Peter Rehse 00:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, much apreciated though there are some quirks to get out and they are not perfect in design. Fred26 09:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I added the template to Goju-Ryu, Fred26, you're box is good and can be usefull for some articles good job :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 17:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

When did these weights first appear. I've read that they were created during the Han Dynasty. But I have also heard the locks were created by Shaolin. I'm sticking with the "Han" idea since it sounds more historically accurate.

Who made and sold the blocks? Did ancient Chinese armies train with these locks? Where these used as weight measures before being adopted for martial arts training? I would especially like to know about the use of these locks during the Song Dynasty (960-1279). Could someone show me actual sourced reference material on this subject. English or Chinese, it doesn't matter.(Ghostexorcist 08:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

The Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu page could do with a clean up by someone familiar with it's history. Currently the Origin and History, General and History all cover the same ground and could do with merging and re-separating in to more sensible divisions, making specific suggestions on talk page. --Nate1481 16:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the page needs a clean up, but you left the page a mess with your last edits. Not only have you switched the headings to a complete mess, but you have also switched the word defense (American English spelling) for defence (British English spelling), which should not be done unless the whole article is written in that particular variety of English (for further information read here). Apart from that keep up the good job. - Nmnogueira 00:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The spelling was a mistake, I have a spell checker that picked it up. The article was already a mess repeating the same thing, or contradicting its self, unfortunately I had to leave mid edit so couldn't finish it. --Nate1481 02:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

done some more but it could use a check over --Nate1481 13:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Images

The article could also do with a few pictures to break up the text can anyone help? --Nate1481 18:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If any of you have came across this article, you'll know what a mess it is. I'd be grateful if anyone with an interest could take a look at the new heading I've added on the talk page today. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

User blanked "in pop culture" section. Should it have been done? [1] --Raijinili 19:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The list itself is debatable, the interwikilinks were DEFINITELY an oversight and/or malice. Generally when someone makes a huge redaction with a reason, check to see how careful they were. The more blatantly innocent stuff that gets caught up in the blanking, the more likely it should be reverted challenged as vandalism (at worst) or detrimental carelessness. On a scale:

1. Interwikilinks are the most "innocent" — Unless they are incorrect or defective, there is absolutely no reason for removing them. Also their location at the end of articels means they usually end up getting caught in careless removals.
2. Categories — Almost exactly the same as interwikilinks, however these may be more subjective then IWLs
3. Images — Removed without reason, a very obvious notice.
4. External links — These vary. If they're obviously legitimate (EG. The official site, if one exists, should always be kept) then they're about equal to the 1st 2. If not, it varies sometimes ending up with ones that are downright SPAM or worse.
5. Genuinely removable content — While it may be disputable whether or not it belongs, it's removal is probably bold/reckless at worst.

Ofcourse, edit summaries are very useful in dealing with this: If someone comments with "Removing linkspam" and manages to wipe out the categories to, it should be reverted to prevent their loss. Also, sometimes doing a load of different things in one edit can be seen as being a little questionable too.

Sorry about the dissertation; given that edit's edit summary of only being about the list and its wiping out of the cats and IWLs says "Revert (and explain) away!" to this (old) vandal-reverter. 68.39.174.238 13:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

He fixed the categories, actually. --Raijinili 09:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I need a bit of help here. Someone just keeps adding tons of specific information about his chosen style - badly written I may add. I created an article for him which he's editing but he still loading his stuff in. Brainless or deranged I don't know which.Peter Rehse 10:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Radical clean-up. List of systems important enough for their own article rather than a list of obscure names.Peter Rehse 08:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone reasonable experience take a look at Wong Shun Leung? A few noninvolved people have commented on the state of the articel, but it badly needs people who know the background to the person and the subject and the articel. 68.39.174.238 13:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... This article is an absolute mess. Terribly POV, poorly written, verbose headings, way too long, lots of non-encyclopedic information. It needs help from some people with some significant time on their hands, as well as a good knowledge of Wong's line of Wing Chun. And as you pointed out in the discussion page, Wong Shun Leung's Profound Knowledge of Fighting is even worse. The title itself is completely POV, and that should probably be deleted outright. —Erik Harris 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk about way too long, that thing is 144 kb!(Ghostexorcist 11:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC))

Worse yet - the person who did it all is still around. I see a thankless task.Peter Rehse 10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've done alot to the headings, and 'trimmed' the text, e.g. references to Wong Shun Leung shortened to Leung or he etc. Removed some editorial sections (the *remarks* at the end of several sections) and odd used of capitals and obsession with using "quotation marks". Still needs alot more work, is it possible for an article to be over referenced? is so this one is, alot also refer to a forum. --Nate1481 14:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Have looked at some of the courses & they don't hold up to wp:v, all (100+) will need at least a brief check, going to make a start but will need help. --Nate1481 22:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added it to the fact check category, in the hope that the fact checking project people might give us a hand. There's a lot here that could be considered original research, or is just information copied from unverifiable websites. -- Medains 09:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that will help some I'm sure, there are a few fact tags still there and i'm keeping an eye on new sources added. I did make a comment on user_talk:Samurai1882 about sources but he doesn't seem to have read it. --Nate1481 11:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts

This is a new article and may have various quality issues. Please review the article and provide your feedback. Shawnc 19:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

See my comment below (Bodhidharma...), comment applies to both articles. -- Medains 09:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Bodhidharma, the martial arts, and the disputed India connection

This is a new article and may have various quality issues. Please review the article and provide your feedback. _{Freedom skies| talk}  19:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst the content of this article is useful, it would be better suited to be included in articles about martial arts which have disputed origins (which is most of them, but not all include bodhidharma or foreign sources). There are plenty of references, but the few I clicked are of doubtful veracity - and I'd cut entirely the "argument from authority" that various prominent martial artists and media outlets have supported the claims. (This comment also applies to the Foreign influence on Chinese martial arts article) -- Medains 09:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Combining both articles under a title like "Chinese MA History Disputes" would be the best plan. both cover very similar territory & merging them (keeping the majority of the content of both would be easiest for readers; most people don't want to read to articles to get the full picture on what is essentially one subject. --Nate1481 10:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan - individual MA's mentioned should of course have the specific information within their own articles, but a link to the broader subject would improve content overall. -- Medains 10:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the "Conventions" subsection: Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts#Japanese names, participants are first directed to follow all of the guidelines at WP:MOS-JP, but in the next sentence they are told to omit macrons in an article title, even if macrons would otherwise be properly included for that word if it appeared in the body of an article. This is contrary to WP:MOS-JP#Article titles, which clearly states that if a macron would be proper for a word in the body of an article, a macron should be used if that word is the title of an article. Is this contradiction and departure from the wikimanual intentional? If not, the "Conventions" section should probably be amended so as to be consistent with the manual. Bradford44 16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I'm going to expand the "Japanese names" subsection, under "Conventions" on this project page to do two things. One, to be fully consistent with WP:MOS-JP, and to expand it with some other useful guidelines from the wikimanuals that tend to come up frequently in martial arts articles. Bradford44 00:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the policy on articles that are written almost entirely by the person in question (autobiographical) (Donald Munro or where the subject (I am not sure they started it) becomes the major editor. Are there appropriate tags, actions, etc. I know wikipedia doesn't like original research WP:OR or vanity pages but it gets cloudy when the person might actually have some note.Peter Rehse 05:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So long as the sources are secondary, I don't see an issue. If he's using it to publish original research or only references primary sources then it's a problem. Leave him a message about ensuring that he's sourcing from appropriate places to avoid original research and give him a chance to improve the page (if he's notable enough he's probably got a bio in a magazine at least). If nothing happens, then the page should be pruned down to remove any original research - if that leaves nothing then it's a candidate for deletion on verifiable notability grounds. -- Medains 10:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a template for saying an article has been edited by the subject, saw on ashida kim page; template:Notable Wikipedian--Nate1481 18:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Dose anyone know where on the site this info about notable judoka was added from? If so can it be referenced because it's like an advert at the moment. --Nate1481 14:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. Recently I've become rather uncertain about what constitutes correct naming of the various "Ryu". In the majority of my articles I've used, as an example "Shinto Muso-ryu". But I have also seen "Shinto Muso Ryu" being used here and there. I can't seem to find any uniform way of naming a ryu. What is the correct way of referring to a ryu? Is it XXXX-ryu or XXXX Ryu? Or is it a gray area with no yay or nays? I think that if one of the two ways of naming is preferred to another we should implement it as a standard for new articles. Fred26 09:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Check out the subsection on "Japanese names", under "Conventions", on the project page. It clearly and for some time has instructed that the name of a ryū should be written with "-ryū" on the end, after the proper name part. So it would be "Shintō Musō-ryū", not "Shintō Musō Ryū", and not "Shintō Musōryū". Articles that do not conform to this should be fixed and/or moved. Note also that this is not a case of "correct" vs. "incorrect." Strictly speaking, in Japanese it would be written "shintōmusōryū" → しんとうむそうりゅう (because Japanese does not contain spaces, dashes, or anything equivalent to capital letters). This is a convention agreed to by consensus for this project, for the sake of consistency, clarity, and ease of reading in English. Bradford44 16:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Allright. I guess I'll keep doing what I've been doing then. Thanks. Fred26 18:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point - watching for it myself.Peter Rehse 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If you do a search on English wikipedia using the keywords uncategorized martial you get about 154 hits - I am going to slowly go through them making some attermpt to categorize, rate, clean-up and delete where necessary. Could do with a bit of help.Peter Rehse 05:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally got through the lot. I figure it will take a week or so before the search engine catches up.Peter Rehse 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling we are dealing with a crazy man here but this article is just crying out for help.Peter Rehse 01:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

It's horrific, I don't even know where to begin. I added a couple more maintenance tags; we can pray someone is interested in extensively overhauling this article. Bradford44 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I was brutal on the talk page - I am not even sure it is notable. Hard to tell from the article and not so clear from ghitsPeter Rehse 03:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

On the main page we have the MA box for improvements. On the talk page we have Articles in need of improvement in the ToDo box. Do we need both, should they be merged?Peter Rehse 06:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the RedundancyPeter Rehse 08:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an on going discussion on talk:grappling on this, could someone else have a look as I don't have the time or an extensive enough back ground knowledge to go into it, User:Penciljunk has a specific POV, that I dissagree with, that wrestling covers all forms of unarmed no striking combat I seem to have tied myself up in the argument so 3rd 4th & 5th opinions would be welcome. p.s. it didn't go down to well on the wrestling page either. --Nate1481 16:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at either article to see how they're written, but while there's a lot of crossover, grappling isn't wrestling, and there are many standing grappling applications that don't apply to wrestling. —Erik Harris 15:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A new user, Snake bgd (talk · contribs), has some questions (see here). I've refered him/her to you because the user is interested in karate articles. Maybe someone can check on Fudokan, which was created by this user. Thanks much, Fang Aili ^talk 21:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles or not? Do we need duplicate lists?Peter Rehse 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that either of these articles, as titled, should be lists. These should be articles about the commonalities (and perhaps notable differences) between different (Western / European) martial arts. If they were cleaned up in that manner, they could remain as separate articles, since they're not quite the same (European beign a subset of Western). If they're going to be nothing more than lists, the articles should probably be renamed to List of (European/Western) martial arts. —Erik Harris 13:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Two part question, I was hoping to get some assistance with some martial arts related articles. Namely the Kip-up and the 540 kick.

1. Myself and another wikipedian have tried reorganizing the Kip-up article to accurately describe the move and its variants. We were wondering if anybody could provide the Chinese name (or English equivalent) of a breakfall in Ditangquan were the person jumps up, lands on their back/shoulders and then does a kip-up without hands.
2. Regarding the 540 kick, we're debating on the Talk page if the article should be renamed and if so, what should be the name? Another point of view would really be appreciated.
   (Guyinblack25 19:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC))