Template talk:Infobox martial artist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Martial arts Portal
This page is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project.

Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article
if you think something is missing, please help us improve them!

You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.
Template This page has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Naming conventions

The problem: English readers of oriental names are often confused as to the naming convention of different martial artists. Unfamiliar names can be confused. eg. Kanazawa Hirokazu being referred to as Mr Hirokazu instead of Mr Kanazawa.

Proposed soultion: Replace name with display name to show the correct name according to the relevant naming convention. Add family name and given name(s) as additional fields in the infobox.

simonthebold 13:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the person's name should be listed twice (once via display name, and then again separated by given and family names). Maybe just having the given and family names as separate fields would work. The proper way to display the name should be the title of the article. However, if the naming conventions per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Names, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles)#Names, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean)#Name order were followed, this would not be a problem - so the issue might be moot.
Anyway, what I could do is depreciate the "name" field and create 2 new fields - "given name" and "family name." The template would display the "given name" and "family name" fields if they are present, or fall back to "name" if they are absent. --Scott Alter 15:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the naming coventions should be used. However unless you happen to know:
(1.) which naming convention applies and (2.) that its correctly displayed,
you still might not be able to distinguish between the family and given name! Where better than the infobox to display this information.
I think its best to force people to differentiate the family and given names with separate fields but have the template display the correct convention in the title. To do this maybe the template can have an extra field for "family name first" that the template uses to create the correct display. It is important for the infobox to convey this information though so maybe displaying just the "given name" in the infobox under the title would be sufficient?
eg.
{{Infobox_martial_artist 
| family name first =    (yes or no)
| family name       =
| given name        = 
| residence         = 
| other_names       = 
| image             =
simonthebold 16:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

I wanted to suggest renaming the template to "Infobox martial artist biography"

Dan9186 11:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose That seems unnecessarily complicated to me. Could you please articulate what is wrong with the present title? Bradford44 17:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I was looking through some of the various biography infoboxes and it seems to be what some of them are moving towards. Was just a thought if the naming convention for biographical boxes are to have a standard of any sorts. It is not something I see as being necessary and I can agree that it would be more complicated.Dan9186 21:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested fields

  • Also looking at it, should this infobox not contain height and current dojo/club? Dan9186 21:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Current club/dojo would potentially be awkward to maintain for active fighters - who might change club - and be almost useless for others (especially deceased artists). As an optional field, I'd say it's worth it for notable clubs (especially if they have their own article). Height - useful for competition fighters, not so useful for others. So, feel free to add both but make them optional - and if you add height, also add weight as optional, since for those articles the weight and weight class might be useful. -- Medains 08:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As suggested by Medains I am adding the following optional fields: Height, Weight, and Notable club(s). I will update the documentation as well to reflect the additions.Dan9186 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Related to the club field, I think a school field should be added. I have previously been using the "martial art" field for this purpose, but it should have its own field. How is the club field currently being used? Are school and club synonymous? I don't think schools can be called clubs, but can clubs be called schools? --Scott Alter 02:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that "school" and "club" are synonymous enough that both are not necessary. To me, a school is a single dojo, and a club is a group of people without their own facility. Maybe separate fields for "school", which can be the name of the local group, place, building, or club with which the person practices (assuming it has a name), and one for "organizations", which can be all of the organizations that the person belongs to. Bradford44 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason I bring this up is that the "martial art" field is currently being misused on many articles about martial artists. For example, in Ankō Itosu, "Martial art practiced" should be "Karate" and there should be a separate field for "Shorin-ryu, Shuri-te" - the system/school/club/style/branch (or whatever else you want to call it). I wouldn't call Shorin-ryu or Shuri-te a club, but neither are they distinct martial arts. At least for karateka, I'd like to see each article's infobox contain "Karate" as the martial art, and their particular system as a new field. I don't think that the particular dojo or organizations a person belongs to is notable enough to be placed in the infobox, but the system is. (I probably should have used the word system in my previous message, rather than school.) Should system be added as a new field? I want this field to parallel the usage of {{Infobox martial art school}} (for schools, styles, systems, or organizations)...so the content of the "martial art" field would link to an article that uses {{Infobox martial art}}, and the new "system" field would link to an article that uses {{Infobox martial art school}}. If articles about clubs are using {{Infobox martial art school}}, then I think we should be able to merge the fields. But if the clubs are sufficiently different, 2 fields would be needed. --Scott Alter 05:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
School and club typically amongst practitioners are synonymous. I know that generally most Judo groups, whether they have a place of their own or not, call their place of practice a club. While other places such as Karate and Kung Fu describe their place as a school. As for the use of dojo to name a place, this is not entirely applicable to all articles that would use {{infobox martial artist}}. There are other fighting styles that a practitioner is in that could be classified as martial arts that are not Japanese, and since dojo is a Japanese word it would not always be the best choice. I would suggest adding a field that will let you specify what to call the place of practice such that it would simply either display notable club(s) or notable school(s). ~Dan9186 November 20, 2007 17:31 (UTC)

Ok I think I have addressed all of the issues you have proposed. I have made it such that there is a club and school field. These two fields are tied together such that only one will show depending on which you use. Respectively they will displya Notable club(s) or Notable school(s) so that depending on the practitioner either one can be used. I have also added a field style that displays Style practiced with the intent that the Martial art practiced field will be used to display Karate, Kung Fu, Kendo, Judo and such others. If the martial art is segregated into smaller factions like Karate has Shorin-Ryu, Kyokushinkai, Goju Ryu, and others that are all still considered karate they can be placed under Style practiced. ~Dan9186 November 23, 2007 20:33 (UTC)

[edit] Wikifying fields

Out of curiosity why are the Born, Died, Residence, and Website fields not wikified? Would it possibly make sense to do so with them?Dan9186 04:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)