Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Can clarify Vladimir_Putin / Judo re belt ranks?

Vladimir_Putin#Martial_arts says re Putin's practice of Judo: "Currently, Putin is a red/white belt (6th dan)", with "red/white belt" linking to Black belt (martial arts). However, Black belt (martial arts) isn't very specific on this - it might be better to make this link to Judo#Rank_and_grading or to Judo#Belt_colours.
On the other hand, the graphics in Judo do not show the "red/white belt" (though the text mentions this).
Additionally the text discusses belt colors in "most of Europe" as "in ascending order ... white, red, yellow, orange, green, blue, brown and finally black. Some European countries additionally use a red belt to signify a complete beginner, whereas other European countries such as the UK use a red belt as the belt one grade above a beginner to show that the person is a full member of a club."
Is Russia included in the "most of Europe" system? If so should the "red/white belt" be mentioned? If not, should a separate entry on Russian belt colors be added? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Manav by country

A while back it was decided to include C an above do people still feel this is a good line? The was also a question posted here as to whether boxing originated in the UK, las i heard was a semi consensus it was antient in origin but it has been raised again Here. --Nate1481 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What is "Manav", and boxing originating in the UK? That's never going to fly. There are too many cultures around the world where boxing has evolved to be able to give any one country as the place of origin. User5802 (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Enbukan

Can anyone clarify where Enbukan fit's in? There don't seem to any articles linking to it. - xedaf (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like an advert to me, no references or assertion of notability. Someone should probably prod or afd it. Bradford44 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Eskrido

I never heard about this Philippine martial arts before but I'm not sure if we should delete it outright. Can you take a look?--Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a highly notable version of Doce Pares with a famous grandmaster, very well-known in the Phil. (search any Phil. newspaper). JJL (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the problem in Phil newspapers is that they are rarely archived online. There are online ref's in the article but the RS there are not enough to describe the art. Perhaps you guys have offline martial art magazines/book lying around.--Lenticel (talk) 12:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Shim Gum Do

I validated the remaining missing citations by including 2 more external sources confirming the data entered and reworded one contention to express it as an opinion rather than a confirmed fact (which would be difficult to confirm anyway). Although slim, the article sticks to the facts of the martial art and is now verified by multiple external sources, including a nationally well-recognized US newspaper, as well as the martial art practitioners' own literature.

Eolasuile (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Defendu Vs. Defendo

This has been an ongoing problem with a certain support of Fairbairn erasing any mention of Bill Underwood. I'm not sure if the terms itself may be copyrighted by someone now, or what the whole background on this is. But in any case, both are important and significant, there needs to be some kind of consensus found and room for both on wiki, --Mista-X (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Kumdo

Edit-war brewing, looks like a Korea/Japan/China origins debate, both sides seem to have some sources but needs to try & get a consensus version. Any calm voices would appreciated. --Nate1481 10:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Oom Yung Doe

The article has been on a steady upward track & I'd say it's a 'B' class now as the sourcing is about as comprehensive as you get on MA articles, points supporte'B'by primary sources are phrased as such, i.e. as opinions not facts and the lay out etc seem ok, I'm putting it up for a peer review but thought that I'd ask for opinions here to. --Nate1481 11:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Am I on the right track here Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe#Aliases_for_John_C._Kim in put please. --Nate1481 16:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido.net

Disagreement on validity of sources, I am getting ranty & annoyed so input would be appreciated to see if I am being unreasonable Talk:Bullshido.net#Big-boards/alexa refs --Nate1481 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I will express sympathy<g>. There are no gold-standard, verifiable, peer-reviewed journals for modern martial arts so ranting/differences of opinion can only be endless. I find bullshido.net extremely valuable because is fulfills the peer review function: if you express an odd view, it will attract comments. Alas, bullshido.net has no verifiability so there will always be editors that want to crusade against it. No solution. Sorry that you lost good will and energy<g>. jmcw (talk) 10:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually this time its on weather Alexa internet is usable as a source not BS it self...
In reply to your comment, i agree as you point out it's as close as you get to peer reviewed MA stuff, the problem is that 'peer' is a distinctly ambiguous term at times and the idea that users there are peers gives some people a fit. --Nate1481 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Modification of two current infoboxes

1.) I am proposing an inclusion of "style" in Template:Infobox martial art school. There is no location in the current infobox to include information such as "Traditional Japanese martial art." I also suggest changing "date founded" to "dates" or "period of activity / existence".

2.) I am proposing to begin deleting the Template:Chinese martial arts from articles and replace it with the Template:Infobox martial art school. User5802 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On 1) I would put it under origin, of koryu arts formatted as you have above. Not sure what action on 2 the Chinese MA template is quite old, from when there was a seperate CMA project @ one point but it died out. --Nate1481 16:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You think it should say "Country of origin: Traditional Japanese martial art." ? User5802 (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant in the 'parenthood' variable, if that make some sense. --Nate1481 17:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
There is no 'parenthood' variable in Template:Infobox martial art school. ??? User5802 (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
sorry meant 'ancestor_arts' --Nate1481 10:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring in koga ryu

I would like to get input on two different issues in this article:

1.) The term "extinct" is being constantly inserted and deleted. I think this link alone shows the term "extinct" should not be used to describe this art.

2.) Christa Jacobson, "a World Martial Arts Hall of Fame winner. The only non-Japanese to be awarded Menkyo Kaiden in Tomo Ryu Shinobijutsu." and an instructor of "over 6,000 students in over 15 different countries" is being continuously added and deleted from the article . User5802 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Gendai budo

I propose to eliminate the entire Criticism Section (see Talk:Gendai_budō#Criticism_Section). This will leave the article without references. jmcw (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, for now that section is useless. User5802 (talk) 07:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorization needs reorganization

The categorization in respect to the Martial Arts is very confusing and seems to follow absolutely no standard. As a prime example take this:

Martial arts practitioners by type
Martial arts practitioners by nationality
Martial arts practitioners by type by nationality ! ! !

What is Martial arts practitioners by type by nationality?!?! User5802 (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you find wrong with the categorization? How is it confusing? What standard do you wish to follow? I think that the hierarchy is extremely organized. (A note of disclosure: I was the one who originally reorganized the category tree around 1.5 years ago...it was previously a complete mess.) Category:Martial arts should contain few articles (thanks for cleaning it out). Category:Martial arts by type contains all categories of types of martial arts and the articles of types of martial arts without categories. (There is no need for both a category and article of the same name to be in Category:Martial arts by type.) Category:Martial arts by regional origin contains categories of martial arts by nation.
Category:Martial arts practitioners also should contain few articles. Based on the guidelines of this project, martial artists should only be in one category for each martial art they practice, in the format "nationality type of art practitioners". By consistently using the same format for all martial artists, anyone can easily be found in the Category:Martial arts practitioners structure. If we would remove some of the "by nationality category" or "nationality type of art practitioners" categories (as you have suggested we do at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 December 18), this entire structured hierarchy would no longer contain all martial arts practitioners. When browsing by type of martial artist, use Category:Martial arts practitioners by type. When browsing by nationality of martial artist, use Category:Martial arts practitioners by nationality. Category:Martial arts practitioners by type by nationality might be a bit overkill (and might be better named (Martial arts practitioners by type and nationality}, but it is a valid way to categorize the categories. Just because you do not use this category does not mean it should be deleted.
The only problem with this category structure is that it requires frequent maintenance of articles. Many editers place articles inappropriately in Category:Martial arts and Category:Martial arts practitioners, when the articles really should be further into the hierarchy. --Scott Alter 21:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, one step at a time, the Category:Martial arts practitioners by type by nationality is overkill. I can't see any reason to have that. Can you explain a little better how that particular category is a valid way to categorize the categories? User5802 (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
It might be clearer if renamed 'by type and nationality', just a thought --Nate1481 13:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Multiple martial arts should be renamed to combat sports.

As with Judo and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, should we begin to mention in the opening sentence of every article on a sport-friendly martial art that it is a "COMBAT SPORT".? User5802 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually the combat sport is only a part of both of those, there are several kata in judo that preserve techniques illegal in the sport, (see also Judo#As_a_sport) and while BJJ dosen't have kata it is more than just the sport, even if that it the popular focus. --Nate1481 10:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

tried to add to a template, but didn't work

tried to add Aleksey Alekseyevich Kadochnikov to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Russian_martial_arts but when I check the systema article, the other main important person to the art did not get added on that page. I do not know how templates work. Tkjazzer (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you added the article appropriately, and everything looks fine now. Maybe Systema had been cached and just needed to be purged (or re-edited), which it has since been. Aleksey Alekseyevich Kadochnikov appears as a link in Template:Russian martial arts on Systema. The only potential issue is that Aleksey Alekseyevich Kadochnikov is not an article, but a redirect to Kadochnikov's Systema. If you want Template:Russian martial arts to appear on Kadochnikov's Systema, you'd need to add {{Russian martial arts}} to that article. --Scott Alter 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

New source for Ashida Kim

Is this source from the 'Global Oneness' site usable on a BLP? It discusses various things mentioned elsewhere on the net, and and appears to be original journalism, e.g. reporting on the Bullshido.net articles and court cases. The article could do with a second source of some material and it would also allow expansion, some parts seem better than others and it dose mention wikipedia as a source for ('adapted from) for some of its info, but however much of what is given was never in the article. --Nate1481 12:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a secondary source so its validity is as good as the primary sources it uses. I would not use Bullshido.net as a primary source on a BLP. The books and court cases would be acceptable (IMO). In the paragraph about '$10000 Challenge', you can see the cut-and-paste from wiki (i.e. the square bracket footnote references '[2]'). jmcw (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Milestone Announcements

Announcements
  • All WikiProjects are invited to have their "milestone-reached" announcements automatically placed onto Wikipedia's announcements page.
  • Milestones could include the number of FAs, GAs or articles covered by the project.
  • No work need be done by the project themselves; they just need to provide some details when they sign up. A bot will do all of the hard work.

I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox martial art term}}

I have just tired to use this on Gogoplata and it seems to be a bit odd in that it only has parameters for translations, but we recommend it for use on technique articles and it has nothing useful for these if the name is not in an east asian language. Should it be expanded or should we create {{Infobox martial art technique}} that could have parameters that are more relavent, such as, Type(kick, punch, choke) Arts used in... etc with an 'other names' section that could include the current MA term box parameters ans should this box be reviewed as soem of the parameters are opaque as they are just letters. --Nate1481 13:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Han Mu Do

Can a martial arts expert evaluate this page for notability? There is a World Han Mu Do Association, but they seem to be the only source for this material. There's a smattering of mentions in Google. It's been tagged since September 2007 without any third-party references being added. THF (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a fairly well-known Korean art by a well-known martial artist (He-Young Kimm) who is also a well-known martial arts author [1]. I think it's notable by the usual standards for martial arts. JJL (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Southeast Asian machete-type swords

Hi there. I'm a user who's been doing research on various aspects of Filipino culture for quite some time now, and putting my research findings on Wikipedia. One of my great frustrations is the lack of good source materials on Southeast Asian swords. The major problem I'm encountering is that Island Southeast Asia (That is, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, the Philippines, etc, as opposed to continental Thailand Vietnam etc.) has so many subcultures, and similar weaponry with different names and cultural references, plus, often, a single distinguishing characteristic.

Let me cite my current conundrum for example: So many S.E.A. swords are essentially Machetes. That is, single-edged swords at mostly 20-14 inches in length. But a sword from the Northern Philippines (say, the Talibong) and a sword from the Southern Philippines (say, the Pinuti), both Machete-types are not the same because of cultural and historical differences and some design elements. (The Pinuti, for example, is distinguished by the color it takes when freshly sharpened!)

Now, this is fine so far, as we're dealing with clearly different swords. It gets complicated when you start talking about broader categories. Take the terms Machete, Bolo, Itak, Golok, and Parang, for example. My understanding is that these terms refer to a broad range of swords. What would be called a Machete in the west would be referred to as a Parang in Indonesia, and a Golok in the Philippines. Or... would that be accurate? Would it be accurate to say that Parang is the Indonesian term for Machete, and Golok the Philippine Term? If so, do they deserve their own articles? But even that is easily resolvable. The problem is more confusing than that because in the Philippines there is another, more popular term, Itak, which means the same thing in the same languages. Some say Golok is simply an old term. BUT there are those that say that there's a difference between the two - that the Itak is a pointy-tipped Golok.

AND, the term 'Bolo' is used interchangably with both Itak and Golok.

What makes it worse is that when these swords are commercialized in the west, two swords of essentially the same design are marketed side by side under different names. The big problem here is that western commercial websites are often the only citeable online sources for these weapons.

So at this point I'm thoroughly confused. The Kampilan, Keris, Kalis, Barong, and even the Panabas are okay, but all the Machete-type southeast asian sword articles and future articles, it seems to me, are hopelessly confused.

On top of that, I have to ask... what would be more accurate: "The Pinuti is a type of machete from the southern Philippines" or "The Pinuti is a machete-type sword from the southern Philippines" or "The Pinuti is a machete-like sword from the southern Philippines"

We don't have the sword category types that have been developed by anthropologists for European blades. At least, I don't think so. So are we saying that sword article categories for Southeast Asia (taxonomy/typology) is always going to be a matter of editor's opinion?

HELP! -- Alternativity (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

New longer Karate Introduction

I invite comments/changes on User:Jmcw37/karate_intro. Feel free to edit.

Does anyone think that the karate article could be upgraded to B class? jmcw (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Nate, if you have the time and energy, I would gladly nominate you!. jmcw (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good choice to me if Nate1481 has the time! JJL (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
My wiki time has been been curtailed somewhat of late, as can bee seen by my delayed reply but I'll see if in can help... --Nate1481 21:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {ta?????t??ß? – WP Physics} 09:23, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Concerns about 'Tibetan Martial Arts'

The articles contained in Category:Tibetan martial arts share a number of problematic characteristics: they're largely unreferenced (or referenced only with web links to dojos purporting to teach these 'arts'), they make nebulous claims of ancient, Tibetan lineage, and many of them read like advertising materials for the art in question. Is there anyone here who has any experience with these specific traditions, or reliable sources for working with them? I've never seen mention of any of these traditions in sources dealing more generally with Tibet or Tibetan religious traditions (including Tibetan medicine), and I'm concerned that Wikipedia may be being used to propagate some dubious claims for commercial purposes. --Clay Collier (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Donn Draeger Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts has no mention of Tibetan martial arts. jmcw (talk) 10:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Isshin-ryū#Meaning of Kotekitai

Does kotekitai mean "drum fife band"?[2] jmcw (talk) 08:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 05:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

John Ng

Article has just been re-created after speedy deletion with no independent sources; see User_talk:Dank/Archive_7#John Ng for previous discussion. I'll leave it up to you guys and WP:WikiProject Films whether it should go to WP:AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 17:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Article is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ng. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Zen Do Kai nominated for deletion

Someone has recently nominated this article for deletion, along with a few other martial arts articles, and the issue is currently under discussion. The article was also nominated for deletion last year. If anyone here would like to see the article retained, I suggest that making substantial improvements to the article might be the most constructive approach. Janggeom (talk) 13:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Lineage list sections?

What's the policy/guideline on large lists of students on an instructor's page here? Isn't that beyond the scope of what the article is supposed to be about? I'm referring to something like at Chan Shing for example. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

That list is definitely inappropriate. I removed it again. An article on Chan Shing may not even be appropriate, as I am not sure he is notable. Our guidelines are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability#Martial artists. Articles about people should contain content as to why they are notable. Usually, it is not a list of students that makes an instructor notable. --Scott Alter 01:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

stop the deletion festival

i just noticed the article alerts after not being active in this project for a while. I recommend that you please stop the deletion festival. 99.22.220.61 (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)