Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Navbox revision

The following is the martial arts navigation bar as it currently appears:

v • d • e
Martial arts by focus
Martial arts are listed by area of primary focus; please note that they may include training in the other areas.
Striking
Grappling
Weaponry
Mixed, hybrid,
and multi-discipline

The box is meant to give a comprensive navigation tool for all "types" of martial arts, with the further dual purpose of easing a reader's journey through the different martial arts articles, as well as perhaps igniting a reader's curiosity as to the martial arts that they may be unfamiliar with. While perusing it, one may notice that Tai chi chuan is conspicuously absent from the box. This is due to a consensus at talk:Tai chi chuan, that due to the wide variety of training methods and philosophies amoung various branches of Tai chi, it defies categorization as either a grappling or striking art, and thus, should be pulled from the box.

Under a previous discussion topic, above, Medains suggested that the box be reformatted to be organized into Chinese, Japanese, Korean martial arts, etc... I think this suggestions has a lot of merit, and in fact may be more interesting, and more likely to pique the curiosity of the casual reader, than the current navbox.

I propose that the box be titled "Martial arts by country of origin", and a martial art's origin should be defined by where the art was officially codified, the first official training hall was created, etc... For example, we will not have arguments about whether Shaolin is Chinese or Indian. Whether or not it was created by an Indian monk is irrelevant, the monastary where it was created is in China. End of story. I'm going to give this a try, and post a new version of the template here shortly. I expect the template to take up more space on a page, but I think that ultimatlely it will be more useful, and more interesting. Bradford44 15:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Here goes nothin'. I've created a navbox at {{Manav by country}}. It's pretty big, but it does go at the bottom of a page, and has a "hide" option (does anyone know how to make it hide by default?). As I have said, I think the value in doing this is to generate interest. For example, right now it is easy to imagine that a reader might look at the box and say to themselves, "hey, I didn't know Iceland had a martial art!" and then click on the link, and learn something new. That's what wikipedia's all about, right? Basically, I think people are more likely to browse by nationality than style (as in striking/grappling/weapons).
Well, whether you buy my argument or not, here's the box:
v • d • e
Martial arts by country of origin
• The Martial Arts Portal •
   
Unknown or no single origin:
Boxing • Fencing • Silat • Stick fighting • Wrestling
Note that in categorizing the arts, no regard is given to the nationality of the founder, only the country in which it was founded (i.e., Kinomichi, Jeet Kune Do, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu). Also, the time of the arts founding is controlling where the country no longer exists (i.e., Sambo - USSR), or if a different country subsequently took control of the region where it was founded (i.e. Gatka - India). Thoughts? Bradford44 17:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think both forms of navigation have their merits. The "Martial arts by type" gives a breakdown that is not really found elsewhere. If someone is interesting in reading about grappling arts (maybe trying to find one to practice or differentiating between them), then the categorization by type is more useful. I also like the "Martial arts by country of origin" because it can be comprehensive. However, listing the name of an obscure martial art gives no information about what it is - only where it was created. I agree with how you organized the arts by origin (the place it was first practiced). What I would do is first, add another "type" to the existing template for mixed and other arts (including MMA, Tai chi chuan, Wrestling, Fencing, etc). Second, would it be bad to include both templates? Why not just add {{Manav by country}} to the bottom of {{Martial arts}}? As suggested above, it could be hidden by default. --Scott Alter 18:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


I think both template boxes have importance. I have the most fun going back and forth between the martial arts by type but I would also like to be able to see the template by origin on every page. I would vote that we either have both templates on every article or you combine them together, leaving by type on top and country expandable, but hidden, on the bottom. Tkjazzer 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

My main objection to the "martial arts by type" template is that the categorization of many arts is awkward and the subject of much disagreement, so the nav-box will be constantly in flux (for example, I can see someone adding TCC back to it in the future just because it's missing, and as a student of xingyiquan I find its categorization to be at odds with my knowledge of the art). The new "by country of origin" is a good effort, and allows other more obscure martial arts to be added without first debating the category it should fit under.
A compromise would be to list only those arts that the articles clearly identify as being primarily under one of the categories, list other arts under "No established category" and link (or have an expandable hidden) the list by country of origin.
An alternate suggestion would be to have a "similar arts" section on each article, enabling the editors who have the best knowledge to cross-link arts considered similar (or derivative) - and link the List_of_martial_arts article. -- Medains 12:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the efforts to compromise, but I still have to urge that we abandon the "martial arts by type" navbox. Even if we were to follow Medains' very sensible compromise suggestion, we would immediately create more problems than we solve. Many of the listed martial arts incorporate multiple "types" into their curriculae. Take aikido for example. To some people, it is the paradigmatic soft, effortless, non-confrontational throwing art. To others (perhaps those who attach importance to the statement attributed to the founder: "aikido is 99% striking") strikes are an indispensible and inseparable part of training. Still others, such as "Iwama-style" practitioners, incorporate a substantial and to them, inseparable, weapons curriculum. So suddenly aikido is now in the "No established category" section. Likewise with jujutsu, kenjutsu, karate, tai chi, baguazhang, krav maga, sambo.... Where would we draw the line? We would have to start making arbitrary decisions about whether the quantity of grappling in a striking art pushed it over the line into the uncategorized section. And there was already a very long discussion just to decide if tai chi was grappling, striking, neither, or both.
Regarding Medains' "alternate" suggestion, I believe a "similar arts" section would be redundant to simply placing the articles in their appropriate wiki categories. There should be categories for striking arts, grappling arts, and weapons arts. Because of the way categories function, it is quite simple for aikido to be in all three categories at once, without creating confusion or clutter. Thus I suggest we use the new navbox at the bottom of every page (as a learning/navigation tool), and standard wiki categories for organization by type. Bradford44 14:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Good plan - so navbox is by country of origin, and the "striking","grappling" arts etc.. can be added as categories "Martial arts employing grappling" etc.. which would also allow for "Martial arts which bar the use of X" for indicating that striking is against the rules in wrestling, and groundwork isn't allowed in boxing for instance. To avoid the overuse of categories, we'll start with just "striking", "grappling", "weapons" and "sport martial arts" (for those with established organizations holding tournaments with rules) - and have some criterion for creating new categories. Need some more support for this approach, then we can add it as a guideline and start modifying articles in line with it. -- Medains 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the above statements that sorting martial arts by category is an exercise in frustration. Sorting by country of origin is not without its problems, namely the issue of Mixed styles, but overall I believe it to be the better solution. -- Maintainerzero 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

<- The List of martial arts is also sorted by country sorting by type is very difficult for some arts, would 'focus' such as on the main MA page, and an 'other/mixed' category help? This would provide two diffrent methods of navigation. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 09:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed box

v • d • e
Martial arts by focus
Striking Boxing • Baguazhang • Capoeira • Jeet Kune Do • Karate • Krav Maga • Muay Thai • Savate • Shaolin kung fu • Taekwondo • Taekyon • •Taijiquan • Wing Chun • Xingyiquan
Grappling Aikido • Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu • Catch wrestling • Glima • Hapkido • Judo • Jujutsu • Kinomichi • Malla-yuddha • Pankration • Pehlwani • Sambo • Shuai Jiao • Sumo • Systema • Wrestling
Weaponry Battōjutsu • Eskrima • Fencing • Gatka • Iaidō • Jōdō • Jogo do Pau • Jukendō • Kalarippayattu • Kendo • Kenjutsu • Kyūdō • Naginatajutsu • Okinawan kobudō • Silambam
Mixed and varied focuses Hybrid martial arts
See also the List of Styles by country
I don't see how this one is any different than the old one, other than the slight change of look? Maintainerzero 15:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Minor wording change of 'type' to 'focus', but classify by origin is only slightly less contentious & will be a lot more untidy. Also, in my opinion, less usefull as we already have the List of martial arts by country (which i'm trying to figure out how to fit as a footer in that version) --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 15:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I've thought about it, and I'll give you this: I think a country of origin sort is going to be significantly easier, but the sorting by focus is probably more useful. I think the country of origin sorting is going to cause far less contention in the long run, but the 'average user' is probably more likely to follow a link to another grappling style than one for a second Korean martial art, for example. I guess its up to general consensus then to decide what the best option is...easiest/least contended or complicated/most useful. Maintainerzero 17:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The wording change, to the more vague term "focus", is an improvement, I think, and I especially like the new look of the box, which is much more clear. But doesn't the box still need an 4th category, for "Uncategorizable" martial arts? Further, the "List of martial arts" page is problematic, as it completely fails to distinguish between "arts", such as jujutsu, kendo, karate, and "schools", such as Daito-ryu or Shuri-ryu. I think we're making progress here, though I still think the "by country" box may be easier to manage in the long run. Bradford44 17:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Uncategorizable" - though this may be better as "No focus", we must include it otherwise the first thing that's going to happen with the suggested template is that the Taijiquan editors will repeat their discussion and remove it from the navbox (although I note that an anonymous editor has re-added it to the current one). -- Medains 08:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tweeked some bits including the unclassified section, don't think you were but can we decide on a layout then shuffle arts round? I think the focus is more helpfully if harder to maintain, just because its hard doesn't mean it's not more useful, also neater if it's goin to be on lots of pages. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 08:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Medains is correct. The categorisation by focus has the disadvantage of being static regarding a skill set. Taijiquan historically has a focus that introduces students to wrestling, grappling, striking, na, fencing, as well as aspects of meditation and traditional Chinese medicine in a discrete order. So even different students in the same school will be working different things, it depends on how long they've been doing it. Also, different practitioners specialise in their own preferred aspects, again even in the same school. And nowadays, who knows what most Taijiquan schools are up to... The categorisation by country is better, demonstrably accurate and less controversial. --Fire Star 火星 08:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the key to my view is utility. I simply don't see that a box by country is as useful, and is substantially larger.
Also the fact that this is links to articles what will explain in more detail about the art in question weakens the argument that it leads to extensive miss-conceptions, arts can be moved if a consensus is that the another category is appropriate. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 09:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the "by focus" has greater utility that a listing by country. Including the entire list at List of martial arts would be overkill. Listing all of the martial arts should be in a list. As I see it, the purpose of navigation bars is to easily move between articles that a person reading the article would be interested in. I believe that the average person would more likely classify martial arts by type than by country. And as for naming the uncategorized articles, how about "Mixed and varied focuses," "Mixed and combined focuses," or "Mixed and various"? I don't like "Unclassified" - it almost seems negative. And since the listing has expanded a lot since I initially created it, I prefer the new design using {{Navbox generic}}. Also, if we can't come to a consensus, how about going back to having both navboxes in the same template with the "by country" hidden by default? --Scott Alter 10:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Unclassified was just the 1st word that came to mind besides 'other', I like "Mixed and varied focuses" as it seem most accurate. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 11:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

With the addition of "Mixed and varied" I think that this navbox is getting to a point that it could be useful. There are some points that need to be cleared up...

  • Editors for each listed art needs to be informed of the change, so that they can reach a consensus on where to place each existing art in the navbox.
  • We need a guideline on which arts should appear in the navbox, and when one should be added.
  • We need a guideline on which pages the navbox should appear.
  • If the answer to the previous point is not "all MA style articles" then we need a guideline for what should appear as standard on MA pages where the navbox is inappropriate.

With those addressed, then the categorisation of arts can be left to the editors of the arts article - and we can move forward with a nice navbox. -- Medains 12:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

These should be placed on the template page (I've made a start). I think it should appear on the arts listed the main page and any 'navigation' pages such as Japanese martial arts but not on individual style pages. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 14:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

p.s. changed the colours a bit better or worse?

I like the new look, very nice. In terms of which pages should include this box, I'm going to have to agree with the theory that very few pages which aren't linked within the box should be listed (just the main navigation pages, like Chinese martial arts. I don't think it's appropriate to include on each individual school or style page. Finally, I think the "Mixed and varied" area is a great compromise, that hopefully everyone will be able to accept.
We should definitely come to a consensus as to what qualifies a page for inclusion in the navbox. I'd say a few attributes would be as follows:
  • Should be a Martial Art Type, not a particular style or school within a type.
  • Article should be more than a stub (this one needs to be expanded? Perhaps B rating or above?).
--Maintainerzero 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with B rated, unless there's a good reason for inclusion other wise, as it will lead to the best articles & the others are still visible in the list @ the bottem.--Nate1481(talk/contribs) 16:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I am not opposed to putting the box on the main navigation pages (like Japanese martial arts and Chinese martial arts), but would a new, different box be better suited for these pages? There are many of these main navigation pages (Chinese martial arts, Filipino martial arts, Russian martial arts, European martial arts, Indian martial arts, Western martial arts, Japanese martial arts, Sri Lankan martial arts, Burmese martial arts, Vietnamese martial arts, and Korean martial arts to name most). I don't think it is necessary for a template with these articles, but putting all these together would essentially group martial arts by origin. I personally wouldn't want this, but I just wanted to throw it out there for discussion.
As for guidelines, I support the template only belongs on pages that are listed in the navbox. And only martial art types (not schools or styles) should be listed. I slightly oppose the B rating or above, and would prefer any article that is not a stub (so anything rated start or above, or unrated articles of sufficient length). My reason for this is that not all articles are rated, and some were rated as a stub when the article was created but were never updated to reflect added content. Requiring an article to be of a certain quality may cause problems. I don't think it is necessary to inform editors of each of the arts listed. The template has been in use for almost a month now, and we should know which arts have had issues of classification. Only editors of these hard-to-classify arts should be notified about moving the art to the "Mixed and varied" category. --Scott Alter 16:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Scott that B-class and above would be too stringent, Start-Class and above should work out fine. I just have a problem with the inclusion of the link to "List of martial arts". That list is pretty messy right now (because it fails to distinguish between "types" and "schools" - maybe the link could be left off the navbox until the list is improved?) Also, after all of this, I'm starting to think that the creation of a martial arts Portal may be in our future... Bradford44 16:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you might be right regarding a portal - we are definitely hitting critical mass here. Also, Start-rating and above sounds just fine to me, and will perhaps help with the problem of un-rated martial arts articles. Maintainerzero 17:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Portal is defiantly a way forward, start class is fine by me just felt it might encourage people to improve articles and reduce the problem of newly created things spamming the template. Urated is solved by getting whoever adds the article to rate it first, a small comment to that effect on the template should be sufficient. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 09:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm just jumping into the conversation here without having read every post, but what I see is that the newest box proposed is just a more comprehensive version of the original. Better-looking and easier to use, but still causing the exact same problem. Much discussion for alot of the arts included (and even more not already in the box) is necessary to reach consensus on the "focus" of the art, and there will always be a goodly number of disgruntled dissenters. I think Occam's Razor would dictate that since the country of origin is less contentious issue, a country of origin format works best. Why spend the next decade constantly arguing with every anon martial artist and new member of the Wikiproject over how to categorize such and such an art when this can be settled permanently? VanTucky 19:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The argument that the list of styles is mess is more an argument for a clean up there, (no small task I admit) but removal for now wouldn't bother me just felt it added an extra navigation option. My view on why focus is better than country is summarised here Just because it's more work doesn't mean it's not a good idea. The list of MA's frequently has arts already listed added under another country, boxing & silat for example also you still end up with an Unknown/other catagory. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 09:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed

Since disscusion seems to have dried up I've been bold and changed the template. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 09:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Not worth it

I argue that Template:Martial arts add more problems than value. Discussion held at Template talk:Martial arts. // habj 16:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've replied there, lets archive the discussion here. -- Medains 18:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

This article is AfD wondered if people could have a look to see if it can be improved or not. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 11:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be reduced to a basic author's page (Biography and Bibliography sections) since several sections are essentially summaries of the contents of his web page. Some note should be made of the antipathy that he has generated or has for others, as well as documented legal cases - but generally this page should be quite short due to the lack of reliable verifiable sources. -- Medains 13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The court case & Aliases need a mention, if your talking about a person it helps to know who they are... --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 14:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sumo Wikiproject

I have made a proposal for a Sumo Wikiproject here at WikiProject Sumo Proposal. Yesterday I spent part of the day sourcing Akebono with a few other people after its repeated blanking due to lack of sources. Most sumo articles are not well sourced. Though under two WikiProjects already, I think it would be to the advantage of both the articles of sumo and wikipedia as a whole if Sumo is placed under its own WikiProject. If you would like to join or have any comments, please go to the Project proposal page. Thanks! XinJeisan 17:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish you luck whith that - Sumo used to be GA class before they made the GA requirements more stringent. It would be great if the sumo-related articles could regain their former status. If the project is created, make sure to let us know here - I'll add the project to the listing of descendant or related projects in the MA project navbox. Bradford44 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support! I will keep you informed of what is happeningXinJeisan 18:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Assessment and Tagging

I've seen a handful of newish pages that need tagging for WP:MA, and we also have a buildup of unassessed articles. So please make it your business to tag articles if they should be tagged using {{martialartsproject}} in the talk page, and checking Category:Unassessed_martial_arts_articles every so often for new articles to assess.

Here's the current status...

Martial Arts
articles		 Importance
None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 2 2
A 1 1
Good article GA 3 3
B 74 74
Start 474 474
Stub 504 504
Assessed 1058 1058
Unassessed 143 143
Total 1201 1201

Looks like we need to get more articles out of stub and start class too. -- Medains 12:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Martial Arts Listing format

Regarding the new topic on Talk:List_of_Chinese_martial_arts (including founders/heads of systems on lists), would it be worthwhile to review the current organization of lists to include additional information (origin, founded-date, founded by, current head (when not debated), etc) on the lists? The project is currently unclear on the exact recommended format. JScribner 19:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I figure that lists of things are necessary since the categories are not always appropriate, but the only thing necessary in the list is what is needed to get to the article (or to navigate similar articles). Maintaining the same details in multiple lists would be a potential pain. So I think the links to arts in links should be "Name as used by article - Common English Name" and no more (any more and you're including information that the reader can find by going to the article). Lists could be arranged a bit better (so not just alphabetically, but also by categorizations or other sorting mechanisms) so that they offer more than just a category would. --- Medains 21:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Template for koryu

I've been working a lot lately on improving the general quality of articles about koryu, and for the purpose of better uniting them by creating more traffic across koryu articles, would like to create a navbox template at the namespace template:navbox koryu. It would look like this:

v • d • e
Traditional schools of Japanese martial arts
12th century (1101-1200)
13th century (1201–1300)
14th century (1301–1400)
15th century (1401–1500)
16th century (1501–1600)
17th century (1601–1700)
18th century (1701–1800)
19th century (1801–1876)
Traditional arts practiced:
Battōjutsu • Bōjutsu • Hojōjutsu • Iaijutsu • Jōjutsu • Jujutsu • Juttejutsu • Kenjutsu • Kenpō • Kyūjutsu • Naginatajutsu • Ninjutsu • Shurikenjutsu • Sōjutsu

It matches the colors of the {{infobox martial art school}} currently in use in virtually all of the koryu articles. It would follow the same rules developed for {{martial arts}} discussed above, namely that it not be a place to exhaustively list koryu, but rather for the purpose of navigation to koryu articles that are start-class or better. Finally, it should be used only at the bottom of pages that are about koryu. Any thoughts for improvement? I'll wait a few days and hear ideas before I create the template namespace, it exists right now only at User:Bradford44/Sandbox. Bradford44 15:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is okay - navigation around a closely grouped set of articles. You might get a little disagreement if someone adds an art and someone else disputes it's status as koryu, so a guideline on the template is a must (though ensuring there is no 20th century line should help there). On the century lines that get a bit long, you could break things up into kenjutsu, iaijutsu, naginatajutsu etc... -- Medains 21:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't see much potential for disputes where the standard definition for koryu (though not written in stone) is pretty precise as: "any martial arts school founded in Japan prior to the issuance of the Haitorei edict in 1876", and this definition is supported by published works by Diane Skoss (considered highly authoritative) and others. Between that rule and the one requiring articles to be start-class or better (because completely unsourced or unbelievable claims about the age of a school are most likely to be found in stubs), I don't see that there is much room for controversy. I plan to state the rules clearly on the template page. I agree that there may be some room for further divisions in the future, but honestly, almost all of the koryu for which a substantial amount of publicly available historical information exists are already on the list, so I don't see it growing much more beyond a few more articles here and there in the near future. Bradford44 23:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Created {{navbox koryu}} Bradford44 15:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Martial arts by country of origin

I would like to add the navbox {{manav by country}} to the bottom of all of the "<country> martial arts" articles (e.g. Japanese martial arts, Korean martial arts, etc...) as well as the article "Martial arts". It looks like this:

v • d • e
Martial arts by country of origin
• The Martial Arts Portal •
   
Unknown or no single origin:
Boxing • Fencing • Silat • Stick fighting • Wrestling

Any objections? Bradford44 05:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

makes sense to use there, would adding the art by region artivles (e.g. Chinese martial arts etc be a good plan? --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 07:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that might be overdoing it - after all, every article about a Japanese martial art already has "x is a Japanese martial art..." at the top. Likewise for Korean, Chinese, etc... And I would support including Korean martial arts and the rest in the "see also" section of "Japanese martial arts" so in my opinion it's not necessary. Bradford44 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I like this. Can I also add the template by type? I like having both personally. Tkjazzer 19:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Judo Technique Articles

I've noticed amongst many of the unassessed articles are a lot of articles about Judo throws. I contacted the originator of the articles (Pereza) a little while back (but no response so far) to suggest that since there was a great number of them, mostly only stubs (see O Goshi, Osoto Otoshi and Yoko Wakare as examples), that they would be better off in a broader article such as Judo hip throws - and could be broken out into a full article when it becomes apparent that there is enough material to justify it. Comments, thoughts, and volunteers to set up all the redirects... ;) -- Medains 18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, there are over a hundred such stub articles, and virtually all of them also have a broken image on them, further reducing their independant value. Additionally, many are very precariously balanced upon, if not having crossed, the "how to" line, as well as the "notability" line. When I revised the conventions on the project page recently, these articles are exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote the second half of the rule at WP:WPMA#Articles about techniques. It will be a lot of work, and help from someone with judo experience would be essential, but I think they need to be combined and reorganized around an English-centric article structure (like "Judo hip throws" as Medains suggested, and not something like "Koshinage's"). Further, the techniques should be discussed using English as much as is practical, or else the article ends up being "too technical for a general audience", as many sections of the judo article may already be. Bradford44 14:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Grouping the throws would be a good plan I've come across dozens of them and the info may be good but having them grouped would make a better article. I'd suggest starting the article ^ move content in as sections then copy editing, some also look distinctly half done.--Nate1481(t/c) 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Judo Books

Related to my previous point, we have two articles and a category about Judo books. (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Theory and Technique, The_Canon_Of_Judo). Both articles seem to be a summary of lists of techniques from the two books - aside from reading like adverts for the books, I'm not sure about the value of these articles or the category. (There's also Category:Judo Lists which includes both books). Anyone think these are valuable articles, or should they go up for AfD? -- Medains 18:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing inherently wrong with an article that is only a list, but these articles can't have it both ways. The article Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Theory and Technique, for example, should be about the book (assuming the book is notable), but an extensive list that dwarfs the prose is inappropriate. However, I think the list would be permissible if it existed at List of judo techniques appearing in the book Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Theory and Technique (again, assuming notability). That is, if it was properly named as a stand-alone list article. Likewise with the other books.
Incidentally, if there is a list that needs to be deleted, it is probably Lists of Danzan Ryu. Bradford44 14:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Started a little on them on issue is possible copyright, i.e. are they taken straight form the books? --Nate1481(t/c) 15:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks like it - I removed the lists from the Canon page since the early lists replicated the contents page of the book (as visible on amazon) -- Medains 14:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Filipino martial arts

Just came across this need a clean up, currently reads like its an article about a style, rather than the general term. Not brilliant style and lots of lists. The big thing is that one section has a copyright tag on it I'm not sure as permission to use is included but don't know if is should be in there so hid it. --Nate1481(t/c) 09:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It reads to me like an advert for Eskrima. Some of the links are about other martial arts though (Latigo y Daga for example). Many links lead to non-MA articles (Redonda, Free Flow) which is just wrong. A little searching leads me to eight separately named Filipino styles (mostly of a relatively modern origin) that could be summarised and linked to without trying to write an article about Eskrima. (Those eight, for anyone who want to take on the rewrite - Eskrima, Kali Sikaran, Pangamut, Pananjakman, Kombatan, Modern Arnis, Suntukan and the previously mentioned Latigo y Daga). -- Medains 13:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
A quick extra note about the copyrighted section you commented out - it's two tables that say table 1 - (in FMA empty hand, stick, knife, sword and shield are used in all combinations in both hands) and table 2 - (ditto for impact, edged, flexible, projectile and ballistic weapons) - which is better said in prose, despite the practicalities of some combinations being questionable (someone using a whip and a bow at once, come on....) -- Medains 13:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed removed. You draw with you teeth....--Nate1481(t/c) 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

where do you request articles for improvement?

Where do you request articles to be improved?

I think two articles which could be improved are 2 extremely important biographies is the Russian Martial Art Systema.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vladimir_Vasiliev_%28martial_arts%29 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Ryabko


a website that would help is www.russianmartialart.com

Thanks! Tkjazzer 10:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the right place, though I'm not sure about how many of the participants in the project are active at the moment. There might be a problem finding reliable sources for these individuals in English (and is a general problem with MA bios, since any that are published tend to be by niche-publishers). -- Medains 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Project Focus

I feel that I'm flitting hither and thither firefighting little issues and not really making much improvement to MA articles in general - perhaps we should select a few articles to focus on for a certain period, and try to get their quality up. We should have a page to show the "current foci" and who is working on them, and a short template to place in pages that we're working on. Does that sound like a good idea? (WP:Milhist have a Contest, but we don't really have enough participants to make that workable) -- Medains 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets make a portal effort of article of the week. Similar to what the medicine portal does. Tkjazzer 19:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It might have to be "of the month" at the rate we edit articles ;) -- Medains 21:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Priority List

I started a list on the P:MA of articles we should consider working on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_talk:Martial_arts#List_of_priorities. I propose that we start on basic articles of various attack and defense movements... for example "striking." Things to think about:

  • where, anatomical location, on the human body the contact happens
  • possible injuries from the movement (both from correct and incorrect form - also injuries from not being conditioned properly and over-exerting)
  • the type and amount of damage that can be done - range of damage possible
  • possible target locations (or common target locations) on the opponent

(will finish this later - feel free to edit it)

Given the enormous range of possible results of a "strike", that data will be hard to quantify without becoming original research. Perhaps it would be better to prioritise B-class articles for common martial arts (Karate, Judo etc..) and maybe articles that were previously better rated (Sumo) - it will be easier to find references and to improve the quality of these articles. -- Medains 11:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Ernest_H._Cates

This article has be tagged for deletion with a prod template and is already past it's deletion date. If you think it shouldn't be deleted, please go remove the template. --Versageek 01:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Father of Taekwon-Do"

I've come across repeated claims that individuals are the "Farther or Taekwon-Do in [insert country here]" in Rhee Taekwon-Do article, just wanted some input on whether these are reasonable claims or adverts, as I have minimal knowledge or TKD liniages --Nate1481(t/c) 09:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Not familiar with this gentleman, but his brother Jhoon Rhee is certainly a well known and legendary pioneer of TKD in the U.S. --Marty Goldberg 14:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Without a reference referring to the individuals with these honorary titles I don't think they belong in the article. There's a certain amount of OR that needs pruning from the article too (disputed claims, no-one is actually in dispute so that whole section is OR) -- Medains 10:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

{{infobox martial art school}}

Two points...

  1. This infobox seems specifically designed for "ancient" schools - any thoughts on using this template for modern schools (I was thinking of articles like Rhee Taekwon-Do here).
  2. I've placed an update of the template in my sandbox with the existing template for comparison - I've just changed the template such that rows without data are hidden, if you think it's an improvement I'll replace the main template with it. -- Medains 10:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and updated the template -- Medains 10:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Template for karate kata

I would like some input on creating a new template for karate kata. User:Shikai shaw seems to have created a table used on a few kata articles. The box is a good idea, but it should be standardized. The Naihanchi and Sanchin boxes look like:

内歩進 (内畔戦, 内範置, 鉄騎)
Japanese: naihanchi (ナイハンチ?) ,naihanchin (ナイハンチン?), naihanchen (ナイハンチェン?)
Ryukyuan: naifanchi (ナイファンチ?) ,naifanchin (ナイファンチン?), naifanchen (ナイファンチェン?)
Shotokan: tekki (鉄騎?), old:kiba-dachi (騎馬立ち?)
三戦 (三戰, 三進, 参戦)
Japanese: sanchin
Mandarin Pinyin: sānzhàn
Min Nan POJ: saⁿ-chiàn
Literally "three battles"

The text is obviously way too big, but I was wondering if anyone had ideas as to what fields to include. Should it be totally free-form (field1name=Japanese | field1value=naihanchi, naihanchin, naihanchen | field2name=Ryukyuan | field2value=naihanchi, naihanchin, naihanchen) or more rigid (Japanese=naihanchi, naihanchin, naihanchen | Ryukyuan=naihanchi, naihanchin, naihanchen). Also, I do not think that individual styles should have their own fields (like Shotokan in the above example). There could be an othernames field for these cases. --Scott Alter 15:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

An infobox for forms (not just for karate kata, but all kata, as well as hyung and poomsae) would be a good idea, and I think there are many people here who could contribute good ideas for what kind of information should go in various fields. However, before you take your proposed template any further, maybe you should ask yourself: "how useful is this information to your average English reader?" I think that the answer is "not very". Maybe you should consider something along the lines of the {{infobox martial art}}, {{infobox martial artist}}, or {{infobox martial art school}}, where a picture, the English language, and important information about the subject itself is quickly accessible in the infobox. I'm not saying that you shouldn't list alternate names and foreign writing systems within the box, but perhaps the focus should cater more to the non-expert or non-linguist. Bradford44 18:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think non-English names should be in the infobox, since this is an English language encyclopedia and my guess is that most readers do not speak Japanese/Okinawan/Korean/Chinese. The appropriate Asian language translation can be within the article. A general name for the template could be "martial art form". The following are fields I would like to include:
  • Name(s) of kata
  • Image
  • Image caption
  • Martial art (ex. karate, taekwondo, judo, etc)
  • Country of origin
  • Creator(s)
  • Date created (approximate)
  • Level (beginner, intermediate, or advanced)
These items should be of value to both martial artists and laymen. --Scott Alter 22:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that articles on individual kata will have a tendancy towards "How-to" articles (see this text from the Naihanchi article - From naihanchi/tekki shodan, use the uchi uku to block an oi zuki coming from about 45 degrees of your kiba dachi and then stagger with the intermediate hand of nagashi uke to minor counter with the ura zuki to face.), and should generally be avoided. If it is notable for a particular reason (it is used as a competition form) then it should first appear in a broader article (karate competition kata), and only in its own article should there be sufficient material. The Hyung article describes Taekwon-Do's "kata" and is really equivalent to the Karate kata article (and possibly needs a rename to "Taekwon-do forms" for the non-expert). In summary, I feel that we don't need this infobox since the articles that it's proposed for shouldn't really be full articles. -- Medains 10:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the "how-to" portions of the kata articles is bad; however I disagree with combining all of the karate kata articles into just one article. Unlike Taekwondo, there are hundreds of styles of karate, each with their own set of kata. Most kata do not apply to most styles of karate. I envision having the articles of individual karate styles link to the articles about the kata pertinent to their style. This way, you won't have to sort through a list of 58 kata to find the 20 applicable to the style of interest.
Most of the current karate kata articles do have sufficient content to warrant their own articles (even after taking out the "how-to" sections). The articles all have a history component, describing who developed the kata and when. This content would not belong in karate kata with a summary of the kata.
Currently, karate kata currently lists 58 kata series in the table. When I first proposed converting the list at karate kata to a table, I wanted to have this table at another page (perhaps comparison of karate styles). Now, I think this is still appropriate. The karate kata article could give brief summaries of the 58 kata series, with {{main}} links to a full article - if the kata is notable. I agree that each kata might not warrant its own article, but some do. Therefore, I would like to make the forms infobox. --Scott Alter 17:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

possible AFD

I just came across the Shaolin-Do article, and to me this looks like a McDojo with zero third-party notability, and the article is distinctly spammy; filled with "Grandmaster" titles and claims of direct Shaolin temple lineage. I have place a notability tag on the article, and if no sources are given within 24 hours I will be nominating it for deletion. VanTucky 19:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

List-Class articles

I just noticed that "List" is a working term for entry after "class=" in the {{martialartsproject}} banner, but it fails to actually place the article into Category:List-Class martial arts articles. Can someone with some wiki-skills fix this? Likewise, this option needs to added at our assessment page. Bradford44 16:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I just modified {{martialartsproject}} to include List-class articles in Category:List-Class martial arts articles. I don't think there are any articles currently in that class, but it should be working. --Scott Alter 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Template-Class articles

Could I trouble you to do the same thing for the entry "Template" and Category:WikiProject Martial Arts templates (which itself belongs in Category:WikiProject templates)? Thanks :) Bradford44 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Most of the articles currently classified as NA (Category:Non-article martial arts pages) should either be moved to Template or List. Any other items you can think of? How about adding importance? Is that necessary? --Scott Alter 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I've always liked that the MA Project doesn't have an importance scale. The importance scale always seemed arbitrary and unnecessarily confusing. The articles that are the most important will ultimately end up being the ones most highly rated on the quality scale, because they will get worked on. Besides, we fight about enough stuff related to the relative eminence of various martial arts, let's not add a new way to fight. Bradford44 18:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There are still more possible classifications: Category, Disamb, Image, Needed, and Portal (see Category:Articles by quality). Does anyone think these are necessary? I think Disamb would be useful, so I'm going to set that up. I'm not sure about the others. There are so many categories, that I don't think that class would be useful. Conversely, there is only 1 portal, so that really isn't needed either. Just throwing them out as more options. --Scott Alter 18:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kempo Disambiguity Page

Please view the kempo page. Thanks! jmcw 12:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Karate#Karate and Kempo:

Okinawan Te draws from Chinese kempo. The current wikki articles about chinese martial arts and kempo say little about the Chinese kempo contributions to karate ( for example, no mention of Wanshu 1683 or Kusanku 1756 or Ryu Ryuko 1874). I would suggest no link to kempo at this time. jmcw 22:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure it needs to say anything about the influence on karate. All it needs to do is link to the article on Chinese martial arts in case anyone wants a definition of that term or to learn more about Chinese arts. I wouldn't, however, link to "kempo" as that term is generally used in the west (and this is en.wikipedia) to refer to specific American martial arts rather than as a generic term for martial arts which is the way Morio Higaonna would be using it. Shinji nishizono 18:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Maybe a disambiguation page for kempo would be useful. Americain Kempo, Chinese kempo, Southern Chinese kempo, White Crane kempo, Five Ancestors kempo would all be interesting. jmcw 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some sort of disambig page about the uses of kenpo. However, having kempo as the disambig page and kenpo as the article is not the answer. Both kempo and kenpo should link to the same place. If the article at kenpo is the best known usage of the word, then that is where the article should stay, and have a disambiguation page at kenpo (disambiguation). Otherwise, the current kenpo article should be renamed to possibly Kenpo in the West. Also, I briefly mentioned Kenpo's contributions to karate in Okinawan martial arts, which I am still developing. I did not wikilink to kenpo because I did not know which article was appropriate. --Scott Alter 15:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to have a "kenpo (disam)" page, though I've added some more items to the existing one. -- Medains 08:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


New field for Template:Infobox martial art

I would like to create a new field in {{Infobox martial art}}, but am not sure what to call it. I would like it to be for successor styles of a martial art - similar to parenthood, but what comes next (as opposed to before). I want to add this with karate in mind. I do not think successor is a good word because often a style will be an offshoot, and then the 2 styles coexist. For example, the direct lineage (descendants) of Shorin-ryu is Kobayashi-ryū, Matsubayashi-ryu, and others. However, it also had offshoots of Shotokan, Isshin-ryū, and others. Another example is Yoshukai karate, which has an offshoot of Yoshukai International. Both of these are active styles. Should there be 2 new fields: descendants (for styles that have one parent, and the parent is no longer practiced) and offshoots (styles that are usually a fusion of multiple parents, and the parent may still be practiced)? Is there a better name that can combine these two categories? --Scott Alter 15:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This field could cause some disagreement in individual pages, unless it's named something ambiguous like "Related arts". Good idea for an addition though. -- Medains 08:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)