Talk:Sumo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sumo article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is part of the "Olympic events" set of articles nominated for Version 0.7. Discuss this nomination, or see the set nominations page for more details.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Good article Sumo was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Sumo Rules

Does anybody have any more information about the rules used in a sumo match? Are there any more rules than the ones listed in the article? For example, is it a rule to touch the ground to start the bout, or is that more of a custom? More inside would be appreciated. Sneeka2 09:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New external link

I think it could be a good idea to add a link to the non-commercial website www.sumo.it in italian. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.208.36.89 (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Umm...this is the English wikipedia. --Auximines 21:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Answers

I have answers to most of the Sumo wrestling questions you have! Just Go to edit this page and then post them below this and I will check this page frequently and answer your questions! Thank You, Heaphy

No, people shouldn't do that. This is for discussing edits to the article, not a general discussion forum on the subject. If there's anything from Wikipedia's articles on Sumo you feel is lacking, you should edit them to correct that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Review recommending delisting

The article is quite informative, but fails a number of GA criteria, in my opinion. I'm recommending for delisting. Please visit the review page to support or oppose. Bradford44 19:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The criteria for GA status are stabilized and higher than they once were. I promoted the article to A class from GA and was the one who suggested it for FA review which it failed for essentially the same reasons that GA requires. I have demoted the article to GA (recind my A promotion) but will wait for consensus before going further.Peter Rehse 04:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there were several supporting and no dissenting opinions I've delisted Sumo as a Good article. Below is the comments regarding shortcommings with the numbers refering to Wikipedia:What is a good article?.Peter Rehse 08:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

  • 1(a), because it is plagued by informal prose and one sentence paragraphs, especially throughout sumo#Professional Sumo (大相撲 Ōzumō).
  • 1(b), for example, the article begins by explaining how to win a match, followed by how a match begins and how the ring is set up, followed by the history of the sport, then into how the sport is professionally organized. Also, some sections need to be divided into subsections. Also, several subsections are inappropriately titled.
  • 1(c), the article greatly suffers from failure to adhere to WP:MOS-JP, as it uses many inconsistent methods to present, define, and translate foreign terms, and breaks various rules regarding usage of Japanese characters.
  • 1(d) a number of technical terms should be better explained, and used less often.
  • 2(b) this is a 41k article with only 8 inline citaions. Many large sections are entirely unreferenced - this alone should be sufficient for delisting.

Bradford44 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement ceremony

Does anyone have any info about sumo retirement ceremonies Chris Ssk 01:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think I could write a piece about it. As soon as I get done referencing various sumo bios. Kaiketsu 00:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] health?

Some of these people can be really fat... is that healthy? Some info on there strength and health conditions? --Colinstu 04:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sumo technique video

This is a video explaining sumo technique: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0t1gFeIXOtI

Should a link be added?

133.11.95.55 12:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The freakonomics section should be removed. This theory has been discredited.

I agree that the Freakonomics section should be removed, but what about the theory has been discredited? If it has, perhaps that should be added to the Freakonomics entry? Jrhoadley 17:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Individual Wrestler Tournament Info

Hello, I have been toying with different ways to put individual wrestler's Makuuchi tournament wins on their individual articles. I started out with "succession boxes", but this is cumbersome and not very informative. Now I am trying out a table set up that shows the 6 basho a year system, and lists a wrestler's championships. I have done 3 rikishi so far, but the best example of what it looks like is Asashoryu because he has so many wins. Anyway, though my original idea was just to show basho wins in an easy to read format that shows the basho system, I realized that empty boxes (no yusho) could also filled with a wrestler's rank and win/loss record for each tournament (which would necessitate changing the section name to Tournament Performance or the like) . Anybody interested in making such section/tables for more wrestlers articles and/or expanding and improving the tables I have devised? I would appreciate the help. Thanks.Malnova 21:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic! And yes, the boxes for basho where the rikishi didn't win the yusho should show their w-l record and sansho awarded. It might be interesting to show kensho as well, but that might not always be available.
I'll allow some more time for discussion on this, and then get to work on a template. You might not want to bother with adding this to more articles until there's discussion on the format, so as to avoid going back and changing them all.
I'm pasting Asashoryu's table in here for easy reference. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
January March May July September November
(Tokyo) (Osaka) (Tokyo) (Nagoya) (Tokyo) (Kyushu))
2001 W Maegashira #12 (9-6) E Maegashira #6 (9-6) W Komusubi (8-7)
O		 E Komusubi (7-8) W Maegashira #1 (10-5)
F☆		 E Komusubi (10-5)
F
2002 W Sekiwake (8-7) W Sekiwake (11-4)
O		 W Sekiwake (11-4)
F		 E Sekiwake (12-3)
O		 E Ozeki (10-5) E Ozeki (14-1)
2003 E Ozeki (14-1) W Yokozuna (10-5) E Yokozuna (13-2) E Yokozuna E (5-5-5) E Yokozuna (13-2) E Yokozuna (12-3)
2004 E Yokozuna (15-0) E Yokozuna (15-0) E Yokozuna (13-2) E Yokozuna (13-2) E Yokozuna (9-6) E Yokozuna (13-2)
2005 E Yokozuna (15-0) E Yokozuna (14-1) E Yokozuna (15-0) E Yokozuna (13-2) E Yokozuna (13-2) E Yokozuna (14-1)
2006 E Yokozuna (11-4) E Yokozuna (13-2) E Yokozuna (1-2-12) E Yokozuna (14-1) E Yokozuna (13-2) E Yokozuna (15-0)
2007 E Yokozuna (14-1) E Yokozuna (13-2) E Yokozuna (10-5) x x x
  • The wrestler's East/West designation, rank, and win/loss record are listed for each tournament.[1]
  • A third figure in win-loss records represents matches sat-out during the tournament (usually due to injury)
Pink Box=Tournament Championship F= Outstanding Performance Prize O= Fighting Spirit Prize T= Technique Prize ☆= Number of Gold Stars.
I highly appreciate your enthusiasm Csernica! I was going to fill out 2007's boxes but I thought it was better with no boxes as it emphasized they haven't been held yet. But this point is trivial. The rest of your recommendations (adding sansho etc.), are all great. Malnova 23:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
It's possible to mark them out in some other way, by coloring them gray for example. It's just that tables look funny when they're not completely laid out. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't keep myself from working on this. I re-pasted in my new template scheme for tournment boxes above. Opinions are welcome.Malnova 15:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that I'm all that enthusiastic -- you're doing all the good work here.
Just a few thoughts. I think we probably want to stick with a standard font size or smaller. When you get to rikishi like Kaio who've been in makuuchi since the dinosaurs roamed the earth, it will get a bit cumbersome. That will also allow more information to fit inside each cell. We don't want to get too crowded. (But not all the text has to be the same size either.)
A color scheme that's too complex may end up confusing the reader. Since at most only a handful of rikishi are awarded sansho each basho, it might not be too much trouble to just list them by abbreviation (with a key in the caption?) inside the cells. With a template this can be made relatively simple, since layout will be handled automatically.
I'll try to get a start on the template today. It will be a set of templates similar to that for succession boxes with a start, data lines, and end, since that's the easiest way to handle tables of varying size.
How do you like gold-colored gold stars? ●○✯✮✭✪★☆ Meh, it's a thought. Gold doesn't show up well against a white background, but a black background looks too ominous. There are other choices for the stars as shown. They officially use circles for shiroboshi and kuroboshi, so maybe? Just an experiment, so take it or leave it. I don't know that I'm all that crazy about it myself. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As I suggested on Malnova's talk page...The boxes are great but needs to be "deflated" ;) Kaiketsu 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm....well it would be better to cut the colours for the sansho. Just add a letter instead. Would be too many colour combos. For example: Gino + Kanto = yellow, Gino + Kanto + Shukun = brown.. etc. lots of many possible combos...Though not many rikishi win even 2 sansho in one basho it still would be irritating.Akinoshima's box would be a nightmare to read. Kaiketsu 00:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I worked out a compromise for overlapping sansho etc. that can see on several rikishi's pages, such as Hakuho and Kaio. If a wrestler has an overlap (yusho + fighting spirit + outstanding etc. etc.) I colored it purple and made a note what purple means for this wrestler at the bottom. I think it is a good way to highlight such a special event. Just putting in letter codes (as I have seen in some places) looks quite drab and doesn't catch my attention at all. Malnova 07:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the goal needs to be legibility and comprehensibility. And color-coding isn't a great way to convey information to the color-blind. (It's more common than you might think.) Yes, such a combination is rare and remarkable, but I'm not sure that an astonishing color communicates that with any more immediacy than text. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know where you are coming from about the colors. At least my tables ignited feedback anyway. I kind of like the gold stars you posted. Maybe a similar "symbol" method could be used for sansho. Any ideas or suggestions for symbols besides the gold star icon? This sounds a lot more interesting than just a letter code. What about the colored box for a yusho? Should that go too? Malnova 10:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What about "symbols" such as follows for the sansho and kinboshi?
F O T ☆

敢 殊 技 ☆

か し ぎ ☆

カ シ ギ ☆

I thought F O T ☆ looked a little drab so I tried out different Japanese approaches. The kanji ones especially would be hard to decipher for those that aren't used to looking at kanji.　Malnova 21:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the purple, but against black it's very low-contrast and at least on the monitor I'm using ATM it doesn't show up well. It should be more legible now; is that color acceptable?
I'm of two minds on the Japanese. To the average English speaker kanji, hiragana, and katakana are equally cryptic-looking, so if we're going to use that approach I'd say go with the kanji, which is more attractive to my eye. But since it is cryptic-looking it may be the wrong choice. It would be nice if there was some template-fu that would allow us to set a user preference, or base it on their language interface setting, but I don't think there is.
Anyway, I should be able to take a first stab at a set of templates soon, and I'll post examples here once I have that done. It shouldn't be too difficult to tweak as we decide on details. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried out a letter system on the test Asashoryu above. I agree that Japanese is probably best avoided. I don't really think the West/East distinction is very informative or useful and it makes the information in many of the boxes go askew, but some people will probably insist on it.Malnova 01:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It can be prettified a bit, but I'm not going to worry about that right now. I think this system is a fundamentally good one. E/W is there, so if we're recording rank at all, why not? The "askewness" may be browser-dependent, and I think we'll want to tweak the font sizes anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Malnova 02:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My endless tweaking of the table continues (yes I do have a job). I wikilinked the sansho/kinboshi listed below the table, and wikilinked the first mention of the ranks Maegashira, Komosubi, Sekiwake, Ozeki and Yokozuna in the table. I have also applied these changes to Kaio Hiroyuki's article because I wanted to see what this all looked like for someone with lots of basho, yusho and sansho to record. On another note, since putting up Kaio's table, I have started to think we should be recording a kadoban somehow. What would be a harmonious way to add this to boxes (if we added it at all). Lastly, I am beginning to not like pink (a color I chose) to mark a yusho, could we use another color or is the current choice easy on the eyes? Again, this point is trivial. Malnova 00:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a job too, which is why I've made no progress on a templated version.
Perhaps for yusho wins the box can be left uncolored, but the bout record is bolded and colored? Example: (14-1). For kadoban, there are a few things we might do:
  • reverse the color on the rank: Ōzeki
  • outline rank in red: Ōzeki
  • append or prefix rank with an alarming icon of some kind:
    • kadobanŌzeki
    • kadobanŌzeki
    • kadobanŌzeki
    • kadobanŌzeki
And how about jun-yusho? If we want to show it, maybe we can just bold the score without altering the color. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I have continued making tables for rikishi. I have added tables to all the current sanyaku and some of the better known (former sanyaku) Maegashira. I have also continued to refine the table(s). I thought about doing kadoban, but things might start to look to busy I decided. Besides, anyone who knows about Ozeki and kadoban would know just by an Ozeki's record whether or not his next basho was a kadoban; and anyone else probably wouldn't care much - or at least that's what I am thinking for now.

I have now added completed makuuchi tables to every rikishi that had his own article and was in the 07 May Banzuke, a total of 26. I think I'll take a break for a while. There are still all the original tables I put up for retired greats (10 in all) that have only their yusho recorded. Anyone feeling industrious, feel free to take a crack and filling in all their empty boxes.Malnova 15:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source

When these are put up, we should remember to add a reference/source to show where the information is coming from. It shouldn't be too difficult to add that information, which is actually required, anyways.XinJeisan 16:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As all the tables added so far are mine, I thought it my responsibility to add them, which I have done for every full table I have done so far. The retired wrestlers' tables (Chiyonofuji) that only show yusho have not been referenced yet. I thought I would save that for when the all tourny info is filled in.Malnova 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Submitted for your approval, as Rod Serling used to say. See the development version in my sandbox at User:Csernica/Sandbox/Sumo. I put Asa and Kaio's tables in there for testing and so that you can see what it looks like, and if you hit the edit link you can see what it looks like from that end. You'll notice it looks kind of long, but not every rikishi is Kaio. Plus, I put every template transclusion on its own line for clarity, but you don't have to do that if you want to save on vertical space. The design isn't the same as what Malnova's been doing, but I hope it works well. Please let me know what you think.

The links above the tables are to the templates themselves. If you want to know what the code looks like, feel free to poke around. I'll hold off on documentation until I'm sure it's satisfactory, but there examples of most variations on the syntax present so how to use them ought to be clear for now. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That looks nice. I just have two suggestions or comments. 1) I have started to link the location of the basho to the arena where the event is held, like Ryogoku or Fukuoka Kokusai. Aichi Municipal and Fukuoka Kokusai don't have pages yet, but when I have some time after next week I want to make those pages, and hopefully expand the other two. If we are going to link the years, then we can link the months and the locations as well. 2) I wonder if we need to put the Japanese names of the basho. If you look at this page for tickets, [1] they just call it by month in English. I guess I could poke around for policy, but, if the sumo association uses these words in English, shouldn't we follow their lead?
Also, I was playing with the List of sumo tournament winners page today. whatever template we end up using for individuals we should also use for this page and others like it as well XinJeisan 07:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any policy exists on this subject. That's the kind of thing a project would come up with once it gets going. Part of a template's purpose is to achieve a uniform look across related pages, so whatever design we come up with for it will be the de facto policy until a different consensus is reached. I listed the Japanese names for the honbasho because among online sumo fans they're very often encountered, so anyone reading other online sumo resources are going to have to deal with them anyway. They might as well meet them here in a context where they're associated with the English month names and they don't have to get confused.
The thing we might want to consult with WP:JAPAN about are things like transliteration styles. We want to be consistent in that area. I prefer macrons to the other methods of indicating a long vowel, which mostly just look funny in English, but I don't know what's generally done in articles on Japanese subjects.
Ryogoku is just the name of the district in Tokyo where the Kokugikan is located; it's not the name of the Kokugikan as such. I'm mentioning that because it sounded odd to call the arena just "Ryogoku". While that arena is certainly worth the article it now boasts, I wonder if the same is true of all the others? If they're never going to have articles, we don't want to link.
The other issue is that links in the headers of tables can be kind of distracting, like links in section headers. I usually avoid them, and only linked the years here in a fit of madness. If it comes to linking the months, I'd rather delink the years. That kind of thing gets pointless after a while.
This template isn't suitable for List of sumo tournament winners; I made it specifically so that table entries for tournament records of individual rikishi could be entered with a minimum of hassle. It would have to be rewritten to accommodate shikona in the cells. There's also nothing too special about how it's set up as a table per se. The only nonstandard thing I did was to squeeze the line spacing down. But you don't really need a template for a one-shot table anyway. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, very snazzy table. If I had known you would come up with such a snazzy table, I definitely would have waited on making my own. As you (Csernica) said, and I already knew, I should have waited to put a bunch of tables up, but I really didn't think there were enough interested people to even have any kind of consensus. Anyway, the table certainly follows the fundamentals of what I came up with, and I wouldn't protest my template being replaced by what Csernica has come up with if it meets with general approval. Having said that, I am burnt out on entering info into tables, and I am not keen on re-entering all the table info for wrestlers I have already finished. I could probably be talked into entering info for other wrestlers though. Malnova 11:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrestler and Stables that need articles

As I was adding makuuchi tables, I was surprised at some wrestlers that don't have articles.

  • Wakanosato (maybe his heyday has passed for now, but he is still in makuuchi and a cute and spunky guy
  • Toyonoshima (up and coming for a while)
  • Mitoizumi (he is probably before the time of a lot of editors, but he was quite popular, the rikishi who threw a huge

handful of salt before every bout to get the crowd roaring, and he actually had a makuuchi yusho in 92 or so.

  • Lots of heyas need articles, there are very few out there

Any takers on these? I might get to some after I get over my tourney table addiction.

  • Akinoshima (all time sansho leader). I thought Mitoizumi had an article, how could anyone forget "ol'Saltshaker"! Kaiketsu 10:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Tamakasuga, this guy is still around, and has been in and out of Makuuchi a number of times, he is a scrapper and definitely deserves an article
Over the last few months I have started articles on some the older guys such as Kirishima, Sakahoko, Kotonishiki and Takatoriki, and I've been meaning to get round to Mito and Akinoshima. I'll probably start them in the next few days if no one gets there first! Pawnkingthree 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I added all these names to the really beginning template for the Wikiproject homepage. Please tell me what you think of it. User:XinJeisan/Wikiproject Sumo

[edit] Sumo Wikiproject

I have spent the past few weeks watching and participating at Akebono watching the repeated blanking the page due to lack of sources. It seems that many sumo pages lack sources. This could be improved if we started a wikiproject. Then, the conversation above could also be done on the Sumo Wikiproject page. I am not sure about the process to create a wikiproject for sumo, but, I think it would be a good idea. What do you think here? XinJeisan 21:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It would benefit sumo on Wikipedia for sure. This talk page is practically working as sort of a semi-project page for sumo. So I'm all for it.

As far as sources go, there is actually quite good information available. Japan Times, Japan Today and Mainichi Daily are quite good sources of up to date info on sumo. I referenced (wheres citations were needed) the whole Wakanohana III article through these "newspapers". Will be harder to reference "older" rikishi, but If someone has a whole box full of old editons of "Sumo World Magazine" that would really help!

Though not many GOOD books about sumo are avaible in English, that would give in-depth info about the history and the rituals of the sport itself. The best I've come across is Mina Hall's "the Big Book of Sumo". It was published in 1997 so it's a bit outdated but I would certainly recommend it. Kaiketsu 10:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The best book on sumo I've read is definitely Lorna Sharnoff's "Grand Sumo" (1993); indeed I've used it as a source for several articles such as Takanosato and Wajima. It's excellent on the rituals and history too! Pawnkingthree 16:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have posted a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals for Wikiproject Sumo, please sign up! It is proposal 1.116. If someone can edit this to link directly to that section, I don't know how, please go ahead. Thanks.XinJeisan 16:50, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Like this: WikiProject Sumo Proposal TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks!

I created a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sumo so that everyone could feel comfortable to move discussions on sumo in general over there and get working on that. XinJeisan 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't using XinJeisan's User wikiproject page much at first, but I have since added to a lot of articles and had some more ideas and have been recording them at said page. Stop by there when you have time, anyone who wants to make the wikipedia sumo presence better by contributing ideas and article content. User:XinJeisan/Wikiproject_Sumo. Thanks for your time. Malnova 05:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that all this be moved to the main project page XinJeisan created earlier. It now has a shortcut: WP:SUMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, last I looked it seemed the main project page wasn't being used (or I couldn't find it anyway). I have since merged all the additions into the main project page. Thanks.Malnova 07:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinboshi table

I just added a table of "top kinboshi earners" to the Kinboshi article. Take a look. Any feedback, ideas are welcome. Except for the "status" of each man on the list, I got the numbers from here: [2] and there is a lot more info on this page that could be used for other makuuchi tables if anyone is feeling inspired. I am sure there are similar tables in English somewhere, but this Japanese list was the best I could find. Malnova 08:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] italicizing bot?

Following the example of the sumo kyokai's official page and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Foreign terms, I just went through the kinboshi article and did it by hand and realized how long this would take to do on a large scale. I have very little idea of how bots work, but is there a bot already made that can go through the sumo articles and italicize and/or decapitalize the Japanese terms? I know you have to "request" one, and was wondering about the feasibility of such a bot and the consensus for doing such a thing across sumo wiki articles. Malnova 20:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sumo glossary

I think someone touched on this a few weeks back, but there are a heck of a lot of "dictionary entries" for sumo words floating around on wikipedia. Examples being: toshiyori, fusensho and many more that elude my memory right now. Wouldn't it be better to link all the appearance of these words to one sumo glossary article? It seems to me it would be a definite improvement for a number of reasons: 1. wiki is not a dictionary, it is a type of encyclopedia, and besides the short explication given for most of these terms looks pretty sad when a user may have been expecting a full article. 2. the casual user (or not so casual) may take the opportunity to check out other words listed in the glossary. 3. It could make the over-preponderance of Japanese sumo terms on wiki articles more easily manageable. Thoughts? I just checked and there are glossaries all over wiki, including sports specific terms, so I have taken the liberty of starting a similar glossary for sumo, entitled Glossary of sumo terms and wouldn't begrudge any help (wink wink). Malnova 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It would certainly be useful. But I think the entries should consist of brief entries. The longer explanations should be inserted into the article covering the related subject. The bulk of what was in fusensho could, for example, be integrated into a broader article on how a honbasho is run, and a brief summary definition inserted into the glossary.
Also, consider using the "; :" syntax for entries. They're designed for just this sort of thing, and translate into DT, DD HTML tags. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I think it would be a good idea to try to get rid of that "no sources" tag at the top of the article. It really doesn't look good to have the core sumo article on Wikipedia having such a prominent tag. I don't remember if this tag came before or after someone put a source list at the bottom, but I suspect we are going to have to put footnotes throughout the text before we can get the tag taken off. Malnova 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Lots of footnotes is the usual standard, yes. Tags like this aren't too uncommon for older articles written back when a simple list of references at the end was considered sufficient. After the rule changed, many featured and good articles got downgraded. But I can see I'm going to have to start looking for books. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Online sources as well are acceptable, no? Malnova 02:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
They're fine, but they may be rather limited, depending on what we're trying to reference. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
There are now enough footnotes to justify taking the tag down. Additionally, "References and footnotes" can be just called "References", but the "Books" section needs a more precise title. Were those books used as references, or are they just for further reading? There is nothing wrong with a "Further reading" section. Bradford44 14:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey all. I would love to get that last vestige of incompleteness off this article and lose that last "no source" tag floating in the "Pro sumo" section. I am however out of books and online sources. Anyone got a few more sources to add here and there so we can finally lose that tag? Malnova 21:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put some in and I think that should be enough to remove the tag. Pawnkingthree 16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] improving quality, coherence

If you sit down and take a look at the sumo article it really is pretty convoluted. It has lots of extraneous info, for one thing, that is well covered in other articles. I will take a crack at reducing some of the info that is repeated in other articles (most especially yokozuna info). Malnova 20:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly recommend that the history of sumo precede any sections on modern practice and tournament structure. Bradford44 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I can put the history back. Anyway, the problem with the structure of this article is that it has always tried to be about Pro sumo and sumo in general at the same time, as I am sure many have noticed. I am not sure how we should go about it, but we might considering separating these into two articles, sumo and pro sumo. I understand why no one has tried this, because pro sumo is so "steeped in tradition" that it seems incongruous to leave everything else out. Any ideas? Malnova 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My first impulse was to disagree with Bradford's recommendation, but I note that other sports articles also place the History section before the Gameplay section, so we probably ought to follow suit. However, since sumo's history can be rather extensive, depending on how much detail we want to cover, it might be best to develop a main History of sumo article at some point.
I had been thinking about how to handle pro/amateur sumo, and it seems to me that professional sumo ought to be treated in this general article, and amateur in its own main article with a brief summary here. It's the professional sport that's a direct outgrowth of the traditional martial art, entails a characteristic lifestyle, and still plays a cultural role in its relation to Shinto, and so on. By comparison, amasumo is kind of a pared-down version, and so is easier to describe in relation to the pro sport than otherwise. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Definitely reads much better now that the history section is first. Pawnkingthree 12:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, an external review of the sumo article dating from April 2006 (here) is generally positive but suggests that the sections be rearranged more or less as we have now done. Pawnkingthree 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you pointed this out. It is a pretty ringing endorsement. Makes me feel better about the work we have done here, even with all those tags. Malnova 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote broken

The following link:

http://web-japan.org/kidsweb/virtual/sumo/history.html

which is footnote #1, is broken. Whoever put it up needs to fix it, take it down, or replace it. Bradford44 18:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sumo Rituals

Hello, we are trying to make an entry on Sumo rituals. To avoid redundancy, we may have to delete and edit current sections that has already mentioned rituals.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Group10_sumosplash (talk • contribs) 02:31, 30 July 2007

[edit] Open hand striking

There is a reference to this oin one of the captions. Could someone please edit the body of the article to describe what is allowed/practiced? --David from Downunder (talk) 05:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Which caption are you referring to? It's usually called harite in sumo and refers to slapping the opponent's face. It's in the rules (striking with a closed fist is banned though) but often frowned upon as it can be considered disrespectful. Takatoriki was a recent wrestler well known for it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it's not in the caption, it's just under the caption of the first photo - in the info box: "Focus: Grappling, open-hand striking" David from Downunder (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have to say that while it exists it is defiantly not a 'focus' of the sport and should probably be removed from the box a& discussed in the text. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sumo in the arts

I've just undone the reversion of my addition of the section "Sumo in poetry". It is important that the broader context is encompassed within an encyclopaedic article, and there can be no reason to suppress information regarding Japanese wrestling in Japanese poetry.
--Yumegusa (talk) 10:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that it is deserving of its own section here. It's hardly surprising that Japan's national sport has been a subject of Japanese poetry and I don't think it adds much to the reader's understanding of sumo. Would it not be better off in the Haiku article? Pawnkingthree (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Since when has something being "hardly surprising" been a rationale for excluding it from an article?! Though this fact may not be of interest to you personally, that is clearly not a reason to assume that to be the case with all readers. Your suggestion to include it in haiku rather than here is in any case impractical - not every kigo could possibly be listed there.
How about List of kigo then? Seems the obvious place. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The section is "Sumo in the arts" not "Sumo in Haiku and Renku". Obviously there is room for additional broader information in that section, beyond what I have added. There is no reason for this information to be excluded from an encyclopaedic article.
--Yumegusa (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that it was of no interest, simply that it may not be deserving of its own section. (And it was called "Sumo in poetry" when I made my first comment). As it is now, it seems a bit out of place. I will wait for other opinions. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The section is certainly out of place and I have removed it. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Pawnkingthree, apologies for misreading you. But can you please explain how mention of sumo in the arts is out of place in an article on sumo? Need I remind you that WP is an encyclopaedia, therefore articles need to be broad rather than narrow?
--Yumegusa (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This section that was removed was not about sumo per se, but another medium where it happens to be used. A similar section, "sumo in popular culture" or the like, was taken out some time ago. There are songs and poems about baseball, but I doubt wikipedia's main article has sections for them. FourTildes (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Well I can only say your logic is very iffy. By the same token, wrestlers' salaries and Shintō are not "about sumo per se". Do you disagree that an encyclopaedia article should be broad and comprehensive as well as deep? Have you never read a 'real' encyclopaedia?
--Yumegusa (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as "iffy" as all the other editors who have also told you that the poetry does not belong in any of the other articles you added it too as well, including Falcon, Sumo, Camellia sasanqua, Daikon, Milky Way, and Morning glory where everyone has given you the same message. Please stop before you get blocked. David from Downunder (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
First of all, please assume good faith. I am not trying to be in any way disruptive, but rather to broaden the scope of some articles to make them more encyclopaedic. The sarcasm and threatening tone of the last contributor are quite out of place (see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND). The 'everyone' he refers to above, amounts to one single editor who stalked me across WP, reverting all of my edits.
There's been several emotive responses here, but thus far no-one has been prepared to substantiate their position. My mind is open, and I am prepared to be persuaded that you are right and that I am wrong, but thus far your substitute for logical debate has been mere repetition of your positions ("I don't think it adds much to the reader's understanding of sumo", "The section is certainly out of place", "not about sumo per se"). There's a serious point at issue here: Is there a place for a section "X in the arts" in an article on X? Reading through WP:WIN I can't see a case for excluding it. On the contrary, mainstream informed opinion has it that an encyclopaedia article should be comprehensive and well as deep, horizontal as well as vertical, if you will. Some calm and fair debate would be most welcome.
--Yumegusa (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

<-I'm sorry, but you cannot go around telling people to assume good faith when you yourself are not assuming good faith. For a start, checking Special:Contributions/Yumegusa for other recent changes, which essentially amount to vandalism, is not stalking. I suggest you listen to the people's comments rather than point blank ignoring them just because you think you are right. As user:David from Downunder suggests, if you continue this path of continually adding inappropriate material to wikipedia articles you will readily find users who will revert your edits. Jdrewitt (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah.. in fact I did assume good faith. And I didn't "threaten" - I didn't even put a warning message on your talk page - I just let you know what the likely outcome is if you persist (a 24 hour block from an admin.) As to your claim that The 'everyone' he refers to above, amounts to one single editor who stalked me across WP... well, that is patently false: there are FOUR editors on this thread alone who are telling you the same thing. Now, if you want to continue the debate by introducing patently false claims, then I will stop assuming good faith. Oh, and could you please indent your responses as per normal practice so that the thread can be followed? Thanks. David from Downunder (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Nate's form of sumō
Wikipedia dohyō
hell bent to indent.    David from Downunder (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, on the topic of inappropriate tone, I really don't think anyone here needs reminding that this is an encyclopedia or to be told "have you ever read a real encyclopedia". Jdrewitt (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I also thought that
But did not say it myself
'nuff said already.    David from Downunder (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Look, we could argue back and forth till the cows come home about who did and said and implied what, but I think everyone will agree that it would be less than productive. You are quite right that my tone was inappropriate (downright rude, even) in the case cited, and I apologise unreservedly for that. I also apologise for misreading the tone of DFD's post. But this is all peripheral. We got off to a bad start, but I hope we can now draw a line under that.
I'm a relatively inexperienced editor (you'd never have guessed, right?) and I am actually looking for an understanding of what is and isn't appropriate in an article. I honestly believe that a section "X in the arts" does have a place in an article on X. If I am correct in thinking that you disagree with me on this fundamental point, I am asking you to explain your thinking (rather than just repeat your position!) so that I can be persuaded that you are right. As I said earlier, my mind is open, so please help me understand why such a section should be by definition inappropriate. My understanding of an encyclopaedia article is that it should be broad as well as deep. I have read carefully through WP:WIN and I have been unable to find a case there for excluding it. Thanks in advance for your assistance
--Yumegusa (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say
That your most reasoned response
Was not a Haiku.    David from Downunder (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I could
'nt fit it - try as I might
into a haiku!
--Yumegusa (talk) 12:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

 "To express oneself
  in seventeen syllables
  is very diffic"
Wikipedia works by following a set of guidelines, but even moreso by consensus. It's clear that consensus is against your inclusions. Four editors have made that clear. The fact that other editors have not reinstated any of your inclusions adds further weight. It is not our responsibility to go into any further detail as to why. The fact that WP:WIN does not specifically exclude such cases is of no great relevance. It is detrimental to have articles become too broad or too deep. David from Downunder (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and in fact if you check the WP:WIN, it clearly states "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." So policy and consensus are both clear and in agreement on this point. Thanks.
Thats the way the mon-
ey goes. Its surely time that
this discussion closed. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That's fine, consider it closed. Passing quickly over the disingenuousness of your parting shot, let me just commend you, Jdrewitt, on your poetic license in referring elsewhere on WP, to this exchange as a 'resolution' (Care to take up haiku?<g>). Meanwhile, if any one of you actually feels able and willing explain why you feel there is no place for 'X in the arts' in an X article, you know where to find me. I guess sometimes we hope for too much.
--Yumegusa (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I never claimed that there is no place for 'X in the arts' in an X article, including the Sumo article. It could certainly be worthwhile, however I do not think that your contribution was worthwhile. For one thing, it did not cover the topic of 'Sumo in the arts' in any sort of worthwhile depth. --David from Downunder (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your clear response. I don't disagree that the section i added did not cover "Sumō (or daikon, sasanqua etc.) in the arts" adequately, but would have thought that the constructive reaction to a worthy but inadequate section or article is to expand it rather than delete it.
--Yumegusa (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Only if it's something worth expanding on to start with. --David from Downunder (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"It could certainly be worthwhile..."

(Wasn't the gohei erected several posts back??)--Yumegusa (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sumo articles needing help

Hey guys. (And yes I left this deliberately unindented, it is getting too short to read easily). I have been editing the sumo page since at least 2004, under this user name, anonymously, and under my previous User name, Malnova. I have seen this kind of unconstructive jibing back and forth on other pages, but this is the first time I have seen it on the sumo page. May I make a suggestion? How about we spend our energies on other aspects of sumo on wikipedia? The Natsu basho just ended and I, Pawnkingthree and ASCE just finished updating all the active wrestlers' tournament records. That job is finished (for this basho anyway), but there are still wrestlers who need their articles fleshed out, tournament records added, etc. I am currently at work on fleshing out the List of past sumo wrestlers article, and Pawnkingthree and ASCE are hard at work on individual wrestlers' articles. There used to be more helping us, but they have moved on. A very good place to start on the works in progress is WP:SUMO. And to be honest I have just scratched the surface with what we are working on and what else can be done. What do you think? It's a big task. Thanks for listening. FourTildes (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)b