Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 6

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

{{Contains Chinese text}}

This template is often used in MA pages (along with {{Contains Japanese text}} on other pages). Whilst we should warn readers about the characters in the text, it is a bit of a pain because it doesn't look good with the infobox. (see Tai chi chuan). Any thoughts? Should we add this to the infobox somehow (optional display obviously). -- Medains 07:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Can it be made to go to the left above the navi box? --Nate1481(t/c) 07:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Proper infobox usage

I think we need to come up with a standard as to where to use {{infobox martial art}} vs. {{infobox martial art school}} vs. another alternative. {{infobox martial art}} should be used for types of martial arts (such as those in {{martial arts}}). {{infobox martial art school}} should be used for dojo/schools that have a headmaster that may practice/teach a variety of types of martial arts (such as those in {{Navbox koryu}}). The gray area is for styles of a martial art (such as styles of karate, listed in {{karate schools}}).

I am of the impression {{infobox martial art}} is best suited for modern martial arts and not koryu. Perhaps we should limit the use of that box in those types of articles? This is especially true since old systems usually (not always though) involve several other weapons and skills, modern arts tend to focus on one or maybe two. (aikido, jujutsu(modern), kendo, taido and even Iaido(seitei). As you said, the gray is the karate-styles however. Regardless, that infobox should be modified and improved. Entries such as "Famous practitioners" "Olympic Sport" doesnt sound like something fitting for a koryu article infobox. Fred26 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


For styles of a type of martial art, neither template really seems to fit quite right. Most of the fields in {{infobox martial art}} are appropriate, but it is missing things like ancestor and descendent styles. {{infobox martial art school}} does contain these fields, however, some fields do not apply and the terminology does not fit. For example, what I see as the chief purpose of the template, "Arts taught", is not applicable. When this template is used for a dojo, this field is used to mention the various different arts taught - but when you are using this template on a style of a type of martial arts, there is only one martial art taught. Also, there usually is no date founded, the period of when the art was founded is not relevant, and there often is no "headmaster" (different from the founder).

I'm not sure I understand. Why is the foundation-period irellevant? Just because we cannot put a firm date right down to a year doesnt mean we should instead remove the timne-period we know it was concieved. I also dont understand what you mean with "template is used for a dojo". A dojo is just a training locale. We dont write articles on individual dojos as far as I know. Fred26 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh by the way, (edit), I agree that perhaps current headmaster is not the most vital piece of info in the infobox. Fred26 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe the foundation-period is irrelevant for all of the current styles. It may or may not be necessary for the koryu arts, since it is listed in addition to the date founded. I just don't think it belongs in the infobox, as it does not describe the martial art. Similarly, I don't think the birth and death dates of the founder are important to the martial art school either. These items seem to just take up lots of space. --Scott Alter 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Then we are in disagreement on the koryu-style box. I believe the info provided is both relevant and necessary. I created the original info-box with the purpose of providing solid and quick information "at a glance" without having to go through 20-30 pages of information. Clear-cut and precise info, all in one box for easy user-acess. To sacrifice this principle just to save 6-8 lines of space is counterproductive to the original purpose of the box. Using that logic we might as well delete the box alltogether. As I said I can agree that perhaps headmaster-section is reduntant since many of the old schools today have more than one branch and seperate headmasters for each in many cases, but there is always a founder and that founder lived in an era and that era is of interest as any martial arts researcher can tell you. Was it created in the Edo-period (1603-1868) when the Samurai had all but abandoned armoured fighting? Was it created in the era of the Ashikaga-shoguns from 1333 to 1568 when the naginata was slowly being phased on in favour of the spear not to mention the introductions of firearms? Or maybe it was created in the time just before the Minamoto Shoguns when the Way of the Samurai were identical with the "Way of the Horse and Bow"? This is important information to anyone, especially people with a hint of classical martial arts interest, and I am opposed to any removing of that info from the box. Fred26 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I just think that having the period in addition to the date founded is redundant. I can see its relevancy, as you have previously described. However, people who know the information about periods as you have described can probably already tell you what period a given year was in. All that I meant by it wastes space is that there are too many unneeded rows and the columns are not needed either. Here's an example from Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū on the left, and what I think would be sufficient for the article on the right. --Scott Alter 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū
(天真正伝香取神道流)
Example.png
DVD Cover of Yoshio Sugino's "Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū", performing te ura gasumi
Founder Iizasa Chōisai Ienao
(飯篠 長威斉 家直)
Date founded c.1447 (Muromachi period)
Nationality Traditional Japanese martial art
Headmaster Yasusada Iizasa
(飯篠 修理亮 快貞)
Arts taught Kenjutsu - ōdachi, kodachi (Sword - long and short)

Iaijutsu - ōdachi (Drawing the long sword)
Ryōtōjutsu (両刀術?) (Using long and short swords together)
Bōjutsu (Staff)
Naginatajutsu (Glaive)
Sōjutsu (Spear)
Shurikenjutsu (Spike throwing)
Jujutsu (Unarmed grappling)

Ancestors None identified
Descendants Nakamura-ryūMeifu Shinkage-ryūShintō Musō-ryūYagyū Shinkage-ryū
{{{name}}}
Date founded c. 1447
Founder Iizasa Chōisai Ienao
(飯篠 長威斉 家直)
Hm..I admit it doesnt look bad. Can you provide us with a finished example of a finished modified info-box and post it here for evaluation? Fred26 19:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I just completed the finished example using Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū. The "arts taught" section could be more condensed, leaving out the descriptions. The descriptions of the arts is probably better suited for the article content anyway, or not needed at all for the better-known arts. The example use the standard Wikipedia layout and design, and if desired, the other Koryu templates could be changed to match. --Scott Alter 00:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Here are my comments for the individual fields of the new box. For this example I'm using the above Katori-box:
  • Kenjutsu - This is a bit tricky. For the Katori-box: They use the long sword and short sword. They use them together in the ryotojutsu, but they also use the short-sword alone and this is incorporated into the "kenjutsu" description. I would very much like to have that information in the kenjutsu-description, but I*m at a loss as how to make that type of description minimal. Likewise with the Katori Ryotojutsu(two swords at once)-description.
  • Iaijutsu - I think we can remove the mentioning of "odachi" from the field in both existing and future boxes. Few iai/batto arts use anything other than the sword, and the description "sword-drawing" should be hint enough to the casual reader. Sword-drawing can be used to describe drawing of both the long and short sword respectively.
  • Bojutsu - I think we should include the description "181cm staff" (or similar). Reason for this is that there are other arts who uses shorter staves that are still called Bo. (actually Shinto Muso-ryu, which uses a 128 cm staff, was once referred to in one of it's official documents as Shinto Muso-ryu Bojutsu.)
  • Sojutsu - As with Bo there are many types & lengths of spears. I think we can afford to at least put the TYPE of spear used. As you can see on the Yari article, there are several types of spears .
One thing, when the text is smaller like in the new box the italic text looks a bit "messy". I think it would look better with regular text for the "arts taught"-section. Other than that I think it looks very good. I approve of this new design as it definetly holds true to the original box's intent. Actually it looks way better than I expected, my apologies for being (overly) skeptical. Fred26 05:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally prefer using {{infobox martial art}} for these styles of types of martial arts, and adding 2 new fields as I mentioned in the "New field for Template:Infobox martial art" section above. The design of this template also fits better with the navigation templates than {{infobox martial art school}}. Alternatively, a new template could be created. Because {{infobox martial art school}} is in major use with the Koryū articles, I don't think it should be changed too much. --Scott Alter 02:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Scott, that revision is needed here. I'm not sure what the best solution is, though, and I plan to think about it. Bradford44 05:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally preferr the {{infobox martial art school}} for koryu-arts but I also want that box to be optimised without compromising its structure. Fred26 06:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The only required section of that is "arts taught", and that would be appropriate for koryu-arts (listing bojutsu, iaijustsu etc.. as appropriate with descriptions that the style of each is unique to the koryu). -- Medains 13:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this infobox is appropriate for koryu schools. This template was designed specifically for the koryu arts. Because the koryu schools did have multiple "arts taught" and this is a required field, it makes this template awkward when placed on articles with only one style of martial art, which the article itself is describing. Rather than make this specific template generalizable, I would rather expand on a general template (such as {{infobox martial art}}). Gōjū-ryū is a karate style that currently uses {{infobox martial art school}} and Shōrin-ryū is a karate style that currently uses {{infobox martial art}}. I prefer the visual layout of {{infobox martial art}}, and think {{infobox martial art school}} takes up too much space with large text and some unnecessary headings and content. If the layout/design could be standardized, both of these templates could me merged together. Or we could just make a new template for karate styles (or other sub-types of a martial art). --Scott Alter 00:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
To be honest I wasnt aware that my original box was used in karate articles. I've (personally) only added the Koryu-box to the koryu articles. In the case of karate articles I agree that we should either improve the "light-box" or create a new template for karate articles. If you are concerned with the size of the font then you can simply reduce the font-size. Fred26 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm inclined to support the creation of an infobox that is unique for karate, as well as renaming {{infobox martial art school}} so that it is only for koryu. I like the idea of having a unique presentation for these different kinds of martial arts schools. For example, an effort should be made in the design process to differentiate the colors used in the box - for karate schools, perhaps the colors of the old Kingdom of Ryūkyū or modern Okinawa Prefecture could be incorporated. Bradford44 13:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
So {{infobox martial art koryu}} {{infobox martial art karate style}} - we still need a generic infobox (maybe based on a cut down koryu infobox) for modern martial arts schools like Rhee Taekwon-Do and others that don't fall into the "koryu" or "karate style" boxes -- Medains 15:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Rhee Taekwon-Do, {{Infobox martial art school}} half of the infobox space is unused. The entire left side and bottom section are not needed. Articles like Rhee Taekwon-Do are similar to those of karate styles, and can probably use the same template. Colors can still be used to differentiate different arts. {{Infobox musical artist}} uses this to have different colors for different types of bands/artists via the background field. If we create a new template, maybe we should name it {{Infobox martial art style}}. --Scott Alter 19:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

List of proposed infoboxes

All right, let's start listing all of the infoboxes we want to have and what they will be used for. The pre-existing templates should still be subject to some formatting modifications per the above discussion.

  1. {{infobox martial art}}, to be used for "types" of martial arts - karate, aikido, taekwondo, tai chi chaun, etc...
  2. {{infobox koryu}}, the current {{infobox martial art school}} can be moved here, to be used for koryu schools.
  3. {{infobox martial art style}}, for schools/styles/organizations of all types of martial arts, other than koryu.

Does this work for everyone? Once we have an agreement, I believe we should create subsections below for discussion of each template separately. Bradford44 20:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing assistance needed for Breaking (martial arts)

I am calling your attention to a tag placed on Breaking (martial arts) for sourcing needs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 22:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal - WikiProject Asian martial arts

Hi. I'm trying to reduce the number of inactive wikiprojects and just wonder if your project might be interested to do something about wikiProject Asian martial arts. This particular project was started in December 2005 to deal primarily with the Chinese martial arts articles. Then it expanded the scope slightly but went inactive by the end of 2006. I think your wikiproject already covers what they were trying to do and could easily merge it into yours without any difficulties. Another option would be to recreate WikiProject Asian martial arts as a descendant wikiproject (similar to WikiProject Mixed martial arts) but this would require a lot of works as that project wasn't well-organized. Anyway, feel free to make comments and suggestions. Thanks for reading, --Melanochromis 06:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly would be involved in merging that project with this one? How would a merger differ from merely declaring WikiProject Asian martial arts inactive, or deleting it? After all, I would guess 90 percent or more of the WP:WPMA's articles relate specifically to Asian martial arts already - this project is already taking care of those articles, so I don't think anyone here would notice if the WikiProject Asian martial arts simply disappeared. So I'm basically asking, what are the pros and cons of merging vs. deletion? Bradford44 14:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking. The most important part of the merge is the participants (there are 6 of them). I'll put them in WP:WPMA list and then notify them that their membership have been transferred to a different project, and if they don't wish to join WP:WPMA they can remove their names from the list anytime. The rest of the project page and its talk page doesn't seem so useful but, for record keeping, it'll be turned in an archive that is a subpage of WP:WPMA page and it will be accessible from Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts/Navbox. Just an attempt to organize old pages and prevent future editors to revive it without being aware that there already is WP:WPMA. Do you think this is the best way to do? If there's no objection I'll go ahead and finish it. --Melanochromis 19:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That sounds ok to me. Anyone else? Bradford44 19:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Fine -- Medains 09:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Merger and archival process completed! The new archived subpage can be seenhere. Most participants of the project are already members of WP:WPMA. Only two were transferred to WP:WPMA and have been notified. Cheers, --Melanochromis 20:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Do Pi Kung Fu and Choy Lee Fut

In October 2006 it was suggested that Do Pi Kung Fu be merged into Choy Lee Fut. It has not been resolved. Please discuss here. JohnnyMrNinja 09:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Summary: It's a stub article that was nominated for deletion on grounds of notability. A merge into the CLF article was suggested as an alternative to deletion - there hasn't been any discussion apart from someone requesting that it not be merged.
I would oppose the merger, since it's a combination style not a direct decendent. But work needs to be done to expand the article and provide references. This raises another point for me... see below. -- Medains 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Martial Arts with few practioners and poor sources

Prompted by the Do Pi Kung Fu merger note above, it occurred to me that there are many arts for which we will repeated have the same problems. Namely those of notability and good references.

Perhaps we should create broader articles such as Southern Kung Fu Styles - which would be summary/list articles with links to the main articles where they were better than stubs, and have redirects from the articles that are just stubs. This would give us an opportunity to write some good "overview" articles, whilst providing a place to capture the small amount of information available about such arts without fighting notability/deletion/merger battles all the time (and I think we'd have less of a fight about merging stub articles into the overview/summary articles).

Thoughts? -- Medains 11:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

karate article cleanup discussion

Please look at Talk:Karate#Article_Cleanup jmcw 14:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have started working on improving the Karate article. This is not my area of expertise, but I will be aiming to tidy it up as best I can. Janggeom 15:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unassessed category deleted

Got speedyed last night what happened? --Nate1481( t/c) 09:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on making all of the categories consistent as "class-Class martial arts articles", matching the structure of Category:Articles by quality. I had changed {{Martialartsproject}} to do this, but it seems as though you have reverted my changes. The new category for unassessed articles was Category:Unassessed-Class martial arts articles. All of the class categories were located in Category:Martial Arts articles by quality, matching Category:Articles by quality. I realize that some people might not consider templates to be articles, but the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team uses the Category:Template-Class articles. Also, in order to use certain features of the "class-Class" templates (such as linking directly to the project's category for that class of articles), it is easier to have all of the categories in the same format (see the linked row names at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts/Assessment#Quality scale). I think that having everything as "class-Class martial arts articles" better organizes the articles than they were previously. If the only reason you reverted this was that you thought the unassessed category was simply deleted, please revert {{Martialartsproject}} back. Otherwise, let's discuss why you think the old way was better. --Scott Alter 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is that while nice & standard, it doesn't make sense. Not all of the things, e.g. templates or this page, are articles. Unassessed class is debatable but, making a sweeping change like this deserves comment, even if just telling people what happened. Also the unassessed category is linked form the portal & the to-do section here these links were broken as the category was deleted not moved. Also isn't version 1.0 an old standard? /rant, sorry just was a little miffed this morning when every thign had disappeared & there was no explanation --Nate1481( t/c) 16:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that some categories don't make sense. NA, template, and cat (not used here) aren't in the main namespace, so they aren't really articles. I apologize for not explaining these changes, but I have been making some modifications to try to standardize article assessment across multiple projects and am still in the process of doing so. I have not heard that Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team was an old standard. What is the new one? In any case, this project is currently participating in the 1.0 assessments, so even if this is an old standard, it is what this project is using (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index). Besides the ones that "don't make sense", do you have a reason for keeping it like it was? Regarding the old template-class category (which I created), I think it was misnamed from the beginning. I think Category:WikiProject Martial Arts templates was more for templates used for the project pages, more for article pages. When we began adding the "non-article" ratings last month, I never remembered where each article was located within Category:WikiProject Martial Arts. I think it is easier and less complicated to standardize everything and put all categories in Category:Martial Arts articles by quality, even if there are categories like Category:Template-Class martial arts articles. --Scott Alter 17:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a little confused, but the following are the categories that there used to be, and I think there still should be (as far as classification/assessment related categories):

Articles

Non-article pages

Articles and pages for which a class has not been assigned yet

What exactly is the problem with this? Bradford44 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The list, dab, and article class categories were not changed. The changes I made are below. Nate1481 partially reverted back for now. Because the revert back was only partial, some non-articles are being placed in categories that do not exist.
Class Old Category New Category
{{Template-Class}} Category:WikiProject Martial Arts templates Category:Template-Class martial arts articles
{{NA-Class}} Category:Non-article martial arts pages Category:NA-Class martial arts articles
{{-Class}} Category:Unassessed martial arts articles Category:Unassessed-Class martial arts articles
Here are the arguments:
For - To be consistent between categories, have all classes be "class-Class martial arts articles". This format is used by Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team (see Category:Articles by quality), and is required for links to work in templates like {{Grading scheme}} (see class links in table at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts/Assessment#Quality scale). Also, I modified {{Martialartsproject}} to link the class of the article to the category the article is in - so if you are on a Template-class article, clicking on "Template" would bring you to Category:Template-Class martial arts articles. This is not possible if the category names are not consistent (well, it would be, but would require conditional statements for each possible class).
Against - Since {{Template-Class}} and {{NA-Class}} pages are not articles, the category should not call them articles.
I believe that the benefits outweigh the misnomer, which is why I was bold and made the change in the first place. I do not believe I was reckless, in that I fully updated {{Martialartsproject}} and Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts/Assessment. I'm sorry if I missed other links on other pages that you might use to get to the categories, but I thought I had changed all of the relevant links. --Scott Alter 20:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Currently the unassessed articles do not appear in any category - I don't mind much which way these are categorized, as long as they ARE categorized. -- Medains 12:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

May have got my version mixed up so disregard that. Unassessed is a mater of opinion, my main gripe what that there was no information on what had happened & there were broken links here & on the portal to them. Templates and NA(standing for non-article!) category names should not be called articles as this is miss-leading if you are a user trying to navigate as opposed to an editor. Dab & list are for user viewing so doesn't matter, but I do have a bug-bare over creating contradictions/nonsense for 'standardization' --Nate1481( t/c) 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S.Some of the points 'for' are not actually relevant as they involve how thigs were set up, and could easily be set up the other way. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
P.P.S. I have no objections to being bold. There is however a difference between bold and arbitrary, at the very least an explanation of what has happend afterwards was needed. Ideally, on something as wide ranging as this, it should be posted here for comment first. I tried to go to the unassesed page & it was deleted, reason being that the template was deleted, which made no sense & left me with quiet a bit of work to figure out what had happened before I could even see if it made sense or not. --Nate1481( t/c) 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

MA categories

For the sake of consistency and logic, how about we have the categories be named as follows:
Articles
Non-article pages
Articles and pages for which a class has not been assigned yet
Is this a reasonable compromise? I think it makes the most sense, naming-wise; articles are called "articles", non-articles are called "pages", and every kind of page designation is called a "class", except of course for the one category of pages where a class has not been assigned. Bradford44 13:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, but just looked @ the subcats of 'Articles by quality'
Would following a consensus on this level (as in inter-project) make sense?
Also I think this is something that may need to be discussed @ broader level if it hasn't already, i.e. re-naming the Version 1.0 catagories --Nate1481( t/c) 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this should be discussed at a broader level. I have no problem with naming some of the categories "pages", but I would like to match what Wikipedia:1.0 is doing and what is at Category:Articles by quality. This category has the potential to hold all of Wikipedia's pages by grade, which might be nice to have. So staying consistent between projects is important. I haven't found much discussion of the non-article grades or how the non-article categories were chosen. I don't think the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team was involved with the non-article classes. The editorial team just calls them Non-standard grades and says to refer to the individual projects for clarification. Maybe we should ask to standardize the non-article grades? And rather than settling for what most projects are using at the subcategories of Category:Articles by quality, we should try to reach consensus. It seems like WP:1.0 doesn't want to have anything to do with non-article classifications. This might better be addressed at a place like Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council would be the most appropriate place to bring this up. --Scott Alter 20:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Note, the current scheme can't use the {{cat class}} template, since it would expect 'Martial Arts articles by quality to contain A-Class Martial Arts articles, not A-Class martial arts articles. As for Category:Unassessed martial arts articles, that is the most prevalent format of Category:Unassessed-Class articles. -- Prove It (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if the current categories were renamed to have Martial Arts with the first letters capitalized? This is what most other projects use. If there are no objections, I will list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming here, as capitalization changes is criteria for speedy renaming. --Scott Alter 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have brought this category naming issue up at the WikiProject Council, but have not yet received any comments. Do you want to try and achieve consensus here, at least for now? Currently, some links on Template:Martialartsproject are broken due to the partial reverts of my changes. I do not want to make any more changes until we are all in agreement. Can we just settle on Bradford44's proposal above? --Scott Alter 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with Bradford's suggestions for now. --Nate1481( t/c) 12:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Neko-ryu

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Neko-ryu is notable enough to have its own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. If you can spare some time, please add your comments to the article's talk page. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 18:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is "Kempo" a loanword?

Kenpō
Japanese 拳法
Hiragana けんぽう
Revised Hepburn kenpō
Traditional Hepburn kempō
Kunrei-shiki kenpô
Nihon-shiki kenpô

I'm trying to do some cleanup, because the Kenpo article is a mess, and the so-called disambiguation page Kempo is even worse. However, it is impossible to proceed without a determination regarding what language to use, so I'm looking for some consensus on this question. I see two reasonable possibilities. First, everyone should be aware of the information in the box to the right, as it is central to the outcome. You must also be aware of the rule at WP:MOS-JP#Article titles:

"Article titles should use macrons as specified for body text except in cases where the macronless spelling is in common usage in English-speaking countries (e.g., Tokyo, Osaka, Sumo and Shinto, instead of Tōkyō, Ōsaka, Sumō and Shintō)." See also, WP:MOS-JP#Body text.

Additionally, Japanese words which are not loanwords should be written using Revised Hepburn Romanization. For some examples, the following arts have been considered loanwords by this project:

Aikido, Judo, Jujutsu, Karate, and Kendo

while these have not:

Iaidō, Jōdō, Kenjutsu, Kyūdō, and Naginatajutsu.

Therefore, there are two possible outcomes:

  1. Kempo is widely written as such in English publications, and is therefore a loanword. As a result, Kenpo should be moved to "Kempo", and Kempo should be moved to "Kempo (disambiguation)".
  2. Kempo is not a loanword, and is only an incorrect romanization. Kenpo should be moved to "Kenpō". It is unclear whether Kempo should redirect to Kenpō, or remain a disambiguation page with either its current or a different name.

Thank you for your consideration, Bradford44 20:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To follow up a bit, "Kempo" fails the dictionary test for loanword status, and "Kempo" and "Kenpo" get approximately equal google hits (1,250,000 and 1,160,000, respectively). The slight google preference for Kempo is certainly not decisive enough to elevate Kempo to loanword status, alone. It is therefore my inclination to implement option #2, above. For an example of how this might play out in a typical article about a style of kenpō, see Kiyojute Ryu Kempo, which will not be moved from its current location as a result of option #2 (because official names of organizations are normally given preference over correct romanization; but note that the correct romanization is indicated parenthetically for the kanji). Due to the (understandable) total lack of interest in this issue so far, I'm going to go ahead and make this change to the Kenpo article tomorrow morning (UTC-4), and then try to figure out what the best course of action is for Kempo. Bradford44 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This has been done. To summarize:
  1. Kenpo was moved to Kenpō
  2. Kempo had its content deleted and replaced with a redirect to Kenpō
Bradford44 14:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion sorting

This has been created, usefull page to watch I think Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts --Nate1481( t/c) 08:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only to watch - I think it is necessary to activily identify martial arts articles that should undergo deletion debate. In the past while the quality of martial arts articles has increased substantially but wikipedia is still full of Grandmaster Super Dave and the amazing ninja (no disrespect to the real ones) twins.Peter Rehse 10:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Progressive Fighting System

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Progressive Fighting System is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 17:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Neko-ryu

It seems that I forgot to announce the expert review for Neko-ryu here. Could you have a look? Discussion is on the article's talk page. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 17:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Change in capitalization of project name

When attempting to change the capitalization of some of the project's assessment categories, a point was brought up - the title of this WikiProject does not use proper capitalization. As per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#Initial setup:

The naming convention for WikiProjects is to place them in the Wikipedia: namespace at "WikiProject Name of project" (note that the "WikiProject" prefix is considered to be a virtual namespace; thus, the first word after it is capitalized, but any others follow standard sentence case rules); for example, if you were creating a WikiProject about tulips, you would create the page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tulips.

According to the standard sentence case rules, martial arts should be titled as "Martial arts" - as it is for Portal:Martial arts and Martial arts. Therefore, I would like to rename this project (and associated project categories) from Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts to Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts. --Scott Alter 02:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you want to rename all the categories to match, it's kind of a lot of work, but probably a good idea. If someone puts up an umbrella nomination like this one, I'll support it. -- Prove It (talk) 04:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Support Bradford44 13:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Support--Nate1481( t/c) 13:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I just completed renaming several of the WikiProject pages. I put in a request to rename the project's categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Once this is done, the following templates will need to be changed:

Also, the following pages will need to have their {{Expert-subject}} tag adjusted:

I might not get to do these template and article changes for a few days, depending on when these categories get renamed. So if anyone notices the categories are renamed, but have no articles, the templates will need to be changed by someone. I think this would cover all of the necessary changes for renaming the project. --Scott Alter 23:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It's done. I've also updated the templates and poked the bot ... it seems happy. Let me know if you find any problems. -- Prove It (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll so an AWB run changing Martial Art to Martial art which should catch atlot --Nate1481( t/c) 10:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal Updates

When are we going to change the featured content on the portal? I'd suggest monthly --Nate1481( t/c) 15:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Done one as a month & a half has gone by

List of Koryu schools of martial arts

Greetings! I've just put up a list with guidelines and other info regarding the handling of the List of koryū schools of martial arts and I'm posting a duplicate here.


  • Alphabetical order please.
  • Always double-check that the ryu's article-link is correct. Red links are allowed up to a point, but double-check that there isnt an existing article for it or we might start creating duplicate articles.
  • Do not put the name of the art after the schools name. For instance, dont put up Kashima Shinto-ryu Kenjutsu but simply Kashima Shinto-ryu under the aproperiate section of the article. The exception is when posting a ryu in the Various weaponry.
  • Note 1: Try to place the ryu in the correct specalized category though it might not always be easy. For instance, that Shinto Muso-ryu is a dedicated staff-art is correct eventhough there are other weapons taught within the system. There might be some ryu that does not see itself as specalized in one specfic art. As an example: Yagyu Shingan-ryu main focus is desribed as unarmoured/armoured-grappling, but they also have kenjutsu, bojutsu (etc), so there is room for error when placing it in a category. (though in Yagyu Shingan-ryus case I do know they put emphasize on jujutsu but it was just an example). Extra efforts should be made to find out how the ryu itself describes itself so we can put it in a proper category.
  • Note 2: Very large systems, such as Katori Shinto-ryu and Tatsumi-ryu, are called "Comprehensive systems" for lack of better terms. However, though KSR and Tatsumi are obviously qualified for comprehensive status, I'm honestly not sure what parameters to use when judging the other arts unless they have at least as much as KSR and Tatsumi-ryu. Please keep this in mind when adding a ryu to the Comprehensive Systems-list.
  • Note 3: Ninjutsu/Ninpo systems. There is still debate wether or not (some) of these old systems are Koryu in the strictest sense of the word. I'm gonna experiment with a special Ninpo/Ninjutsu section of this article created specifically for ryu that focuses on the above-mentioned arts. Please note this does not include ryu that include Ninpo/ninjutsu as ONE of its arts.
  • Note 4: Muso Shinden-ryu ís a school of Iaido created in the 20th century. However, MSR is an amalgation of several koryu schools put together into one system by a fully qualified koryu-practitioner, namely Nakayama Hakudo. More specifically: kata-series from various ryu were taken and incorporated into what would become MSR. For this reason, Muso Shinden-ryu is on the list although going by koryu year-standards it was founded post 1876 and thus a gendai (modern) martial art.

Thats about all I think.

Fred26 10:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yamanni_ryu and an article on Oshiro Sensei

This is taught by Oshiro Sensei and I believe it is taught by Iha Sensei. It is NOT listed on the comparison of kobudo styles but I want to verify that is should be listed before I add it. http://www.oshirodojo.com/kobudo.html Tkjazzer 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison_of_kobudo_styles Tkjazzer 16:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

kenpo disambiguation

Bradford44 did not approve of my first attempt to patch up the usage of kempo. I have now added

For other uses, see kempo(disambiguation).

to the kenpo page. Any comments? jmcw 16:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

My only concern is requiring that kempo(disambiguation) meet the requirements of WP:DAB and MOS:DAB. Right now, it does not. Further, at the time I deleted the old DAB page, it did not appear to ever be able to meet those requirements. All of the uses (and spellings) of the word kenpō (拳法?) are explained at Kenpō. There are no other articles about any subjects written, called, or spelled "kempo", "kempō", "kenpo", or "kenpō" to disambiguate it from. I'm not trying to be contrary for contrariness' sake, but the DAB guidelines explain the very limited purpose that DAB pages are for. Right, now kempo(disambiguation) is essentially a disconnected "see also" section of kenpō. This is improper, according to the guidelines. I would like to see it fixed, but welcome further input and consensus on this subject. Bradford44 16:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Amending my previous comment - "There are no other articles about any subjects written, called, or spelled "kempo", "kempō", "kenpo", or "kenpō" to disambiguate it from" except for the Constitution of Japan, which is sometimes referred to in Japanese, for short, as the "kenpō". This sole other use of "kenpō" is properly indicated through the use of the {{otheruses4}} template at the top of the article. Bradford44 17:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The muddle over kenpo seems that it has different meanings to different groups. The citation used in the karate article is from an Okinawan author. The person who objected to the word kempo stated that kempo in America means a specific style. It seems that the way around this ambiguity is, well, a disambiguation page. It seems a lot of work to add the word kempo/kenpo to title pages in order to satisfy a guide line. I respect the existing wikki guide lines. How should one resolve the multiple meanings? jmcw 17:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Amending my previous comment<g> and attempting to answer my own question: I suppose the correct way to solve this problem would be to re-write the kenpo article to be more general. The references on the current disambiguation page could be integrated more clearly into the kenpo article. I guess I'm too lazy to take it on right now. jmcw 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

AFD

The relevant article of Vambudo is up for deletion. VanTucky (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese martial arts vis Okinawan martial arts

Apparently in the List of martial arts and in the categories of Martial art by region they are two separate entries. Frankly I don't have feeling one way or the other but if they are separate I think they should be distinguished at the Category level (ie. one or the other).Peter Rehse 08:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My view would be that it deserves it's own list but @ a sub level of Japan, or at the very least a cross reference in the cat header. What is done on the Japanese wiki? --Nate1481( t/c) 09:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It used to be a sub-list in the List and Perhaps it should be a subcategory Peter Rehse 09:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It deserves to be separated from Japanese MA, I think categories can be separate, also I think it should be separate on the list. Tkjazzer 13:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Okinawa is Japan - has been for quite a while. Its enough of a block that a separate subcategory makes sense but if Japan/Okinawa are separate - how doesn that reflect on a list which is divided by country.Peter Rehse 13:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But since karate, so to say, started because of hostile invasion / control of the country, I think they deserve to be separated. The country of okinawa where taken over and not allowed to use weapons, correct? Tkjazzer 19:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they should be completely separate. What do you mean by "they should be distinguished at the Category level?" I think most of the martial arts are classified this way, or they should be as listed in Template:Manav by country. Martial arts are generally classified here by where they originated. The martial arts that are Okinawan actually came from the Ryukyu Kingdom (or earlier), and not from Okinawa as part of Japan. I think that each heading in Template:Manav by country with significant content should have its own article. Okinawan martial arts might be more appropriately named Ryukyuan martial arts with Okinawan martial arts redirecting to it, instead of Ryukyuan redirecting to Okinawan. --Scott Alter 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that "Te" (which really needs its own article, by the way), the indiginous art of the people from the Island of Okinawa and upon which karate is based, predates the Kingdom of Ryukyu. Further, Karate began prior to annexation by the Japanese in the late 1800s, but it's not like karate was created in a single instant or even by a single person, so who is to say that what we know today as "karate" truly solidified before or after Okiniwa was part of Japan. In many ways, karate is part Ryukyuan, and part Japanese. The only real constant is the geographical location - having originated on this particular island. Bradford44 00:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

How should this statement be presented?

A sentence on Bruce Lee's article is being discussed: "Lee caused a 235lb opponent to fly 15 feet away with a one inch punch." This is supposedly taken almost verbatim from the source, a book by John Little, who has written numerous books on Bruce Lee. Personally, and please point out if I am being biased: I consider this to be an "exceptional" claim as defined under Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as it implies something that seems surprising and is not widely known. This claim suggests that after punching someone at only one inch away, Bruce Lee caused the opponent to "fly" across for 15 feet or about 4.5 meters before stopping, essentially flying across an entire room. The claim does not even suggest that the opponent merely stumbled. This claim has not been verified by the various video footages of Bruce Lee that exist. In the publicly available videos, Bruce Lee punches people but they only take a couple steps back and fall into a chair.(clip) I am not aware of any video footage where any human being can do this.

Another editor feels that the source, Little's book, is an outstanding source, that the claim is non-controversial and does not qualify as an "exceptional" claim, and finally that there is no need to state in the same sentence that the claim is "according to John Little". For the sake of consensus, could some editors please provide some remark on this issue, either here or at Talk:Bruce Lee? Thank you. Shawnc 04:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest put it a sourced quote & note the absence's of other supporting sources --Nate1481( t/c) 13:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

*Martial arts to a Good Article

Martial arts is the project title/flagship article, it needs sourcing so we can get it to Good Article status mainly in the history sections. can you help? --Nate1481( t/c) 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I notice that African martial arts are mentioned only briefly in the 'dance' section. I remember having read something about African spear-fighting somewhere, and will see if I can locate any useful information. In the meantime, if anyone more knowledgeable on this topic would like to add something, please do. Thanks. Janggeom 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be good, are there any articles on African MA's? --Nate1481( t/c) 11:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Danzan Ryu

I've added it to the cleanup list but it was already flagged. At one point I thought it was pretty good but its degenerated mostly because of lists of names of people involved in decendant schools and other trivial information. Referencing needs fixing up also. I mention it here because the changes I made were reverted.Peter Rehse 03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Erch needs heavy cleaning doing some. --Nate1481( t/c) 12:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Philippe Voarino

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Philippe Voarino is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 13:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the subject of an AfD debate --Nate1481( t/c) 13:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert Review: Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu

The article Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu has recently been promoted to good article due to it's quality. I encourage experts to review the article based on the good article criteria and consider marking the article at GA quality for the project. -Weston.pace 17:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, they're one and the same. Congratulations then! -Weston.pace 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert Review: Donna Judge

This article had an expert review tag directed to the biographies. I personally think the article is a bit of a walled garden but just added a notability tag and pointed the expert review tag to this project. As a side note her teacher's article was just deleted but that was more to do with copyright violations than questions of notability that were also raised.Peter Rehse 07:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article: Aikido

I've just resubmitted Aikido for a second stab at Featured article status.Peter Rehse 08:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC) And promoted - Peter does a little dance.Peter Rehse 02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations—excellent work. Janggeom 04:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Northern Praying Mantis (martial art)

Over the last day or so, I've made some major changes and additions to the article (including pictures, new sections, and an info box). As soon as I get permission from the copyright holders, I will be adding a photo of a person striking the mantis hook posture compared next to an old-school drawing of a mantis' arm. In addition, (once permitted) I will be adding a picture of a Shandong stone monument to the style's creator.

I am not a practitioner of the art, but I would really like to see the page expanded. Right now the page has very little or no information on the practical application or actual training regime. Most of it is just history stuff, names of various sub-styles, and associated media.--Ghostexorcist 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Still it was a good job - I promoted it to B-class and because of the expert tag that was inserted added the article to the Expert Review list. When you think it is ready I encourage you submit it to Peer review and then try for GA status.Peter Rehse 23:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind remarks, but I can not personally take it to GA since I don't practice the style. I'm sure there are some Mantis practitioners floating around wikipedia somewhere. I can, however, put up a request on various martial arts related talk boards for people to contribute to the article (on the bases that they provide verifiable sources). --Ghostexorcist 00:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course you can. If you have an interest you can edit. Now wanting it to be improved by expert advice is another question.Peter Rehse 08:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just added two new photos to the page. The lead photo is of a stone monument of the style's founder at Laoshan in Shandong. The other is a wooden statue of a monk playing mantis fist. It was taken at the Shaolin Monastery in Henan province. I have written to two different martial arts forum sites looking for people willing to improve the page with verifiable info, but no luck. --Ghostexorcist 08:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Expert review: Jean Jacques Machado

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether Jean Jacques Machado is notable enough for an own article. I would appreciate an expert opinion. For details, see the article's talk page. If you can spare some time, please add your comments there. Thanks! --B. Wolterding 14:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I added it the the Nav box.Peter Rehse 14:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect from dō to budō

There are many articles that define dō. The disambiguity page Do is ugly. I think the article on budō explains it well. What about removing a lot of redundancy by redirecting dō to budō? jmcw 09:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)