Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts

List of archived discussions
till December 2005 till November 2006 till March 20, 2007

Grappling POV

There is an effort in the grappling article to suppress the opinion of the International Federation of Wrestling Styles. I have two primary concerns (1, 2) and two secondary concerns (A, B);

1) There is an effort to minimize or remove International Federation of Wrestling Styles opinion of what grappling is. It is argued that International Federation of Wrestling Styles is not a reliable source. I am at a loss of words.

2) While not being considered a reliable source, the wikipedia introduction for the article grappling appears to be plagiarized from International Federation of Wrestling Styles. My attempts to rectify the possible plagiarism have been edited and removed.

A) There is an effort to steer the orientation of the word 'grappling' to be used as noun, although no such derivative exists for the word grapple as do derivatives for words such as wrestle (N-wrestling) and box (N-boxing). I have reservations about how the word grappling is attempted to be used in this article. A better scenario may be to treat the word grappling like the word striking; where as striking redirects to strike and grappling would redirect to grapple.”

B) The notation above is being taken a step further to challenge the usage and domain of the word 'wrestling'. The word wrestling (noun) pre-dates the 12th century (Old English) and was defined as; a sport or contest in which two unarmed individuals struggle hand to hand with each attempting to subdue or unbalance the other. The word 'grapple' (noun) was introduced around 1601 and the etymology indicates the word 'grapple' (noun) comes from "grappling hook". I believe the usage of the word grappling\grapple (grapple being more correct) as a noun and omitting the word's etymology makes the relationship between the concepts ‘wrestling’ and ‘grappling’ a bit confusing.

I am most interested in inserting and adding the acknowledgement of International Federation of Wrestling Styles work about grappling. But in a broader sense I am looking for some additional opinions regarding the relationship of wrestling and grappling.

Penciljunk 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The opposing POV is that grappling is a skill set used in martial arts that has, over that last 10ish years competitive grappling as a sport under various broad rules sets has become popular. Within the last 10ish months FILA have released a set of rules, a wrestling derived form of grappling.FILA is not an independent secondary, source so should not be used as the main definition in an article if contested. --Nate 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You misinterpreted my objective. My objective is to add an attributable source to the article of grappling. My understanding of wikipedia is we are not responsible to paint a picture of what grappling is, it is our responsibility to consolidate attributable sources about grappling so readers can make their own conclusions about topics. I may be wrong, but I feel you are trying to paint a picture and that picture does not include the opinion of FILA. Penciljunk 12:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

FILA's definition is include in the article, that makes sense but it should not dictate the whole article. --Nate 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is obviously too close to the FILA page (and the first picture in the article is a direct copy) and I have marked both to be redone. No attempt is being made to remove the FILA definition of grappling, it is included in the current version (they treat it as a synonym to the sport of submission wrestling); however, attempts to limit the article solely to the sport created in October 2006 by FILA are being prevented. The term has a wide and pre-existing usage in the combat sport and martial art community (see the Aikido and Jujutsu articles - the arts are described as Grappling, not wrestling) and I see no reason to allow the article to be limited in this manner. FlowWTG 01:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think more effort should be made to the International Federation of Associated Wrestling Styles page rather than try to change an established definition to a version used by a group founded only a very short time ago. If the idea is to promote the work of FILA that is the best approach - at the moment there is no attempt to address the notability of the organization. I don't think FILA has the history to be in a position to alter established definitions. Grappling is a broader term than just submission wrestling.Peter Rehse 02:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, FILA was established in 1912. Penciljunk 11:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In the last 95 years have they organised any sambo, judo, JJJ or BJJ competitions? --Nate 13:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

How should names of forms (kata) be written?

Are they proper names? If so, then every word in their name should be capitalized (except maybe for particles such as "no"). If names of kata are proper names, should they be italicized like regular foreign words, or not? Japanese proper names (such as names of books) are italicized, while others (such as people or places) are not. If names of kata are not proper names, then they should be italicized every time they appear. Is this preferable? My opinion is that kata are more like works of authorship, rather than common foreign terms, or the name of person or place, and therefore should be capitalized and italicized like the name of a book (obviously, in many ways kata serve the same purpose as books - the preservation of information for future transmission). If there is agreement on this point I will add this to the conventions on the project page. Bradford44 16:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with the book analogy same function and partly used like a text book. --Nate 16:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Supplemental question

Also, it will be necessary to distinguish what I would classically consider a kata, such as Taikyoku Shodan, from what some might think of as a "mere" technique, such as ōsoto-gari (the first written like a proper noun, the second like a common noun). I believe the first is a kata and the second is a technique. However, the manner in which some articles are written regarding the practice of kata (particularly judo and aikido) would lead a reader to believe that two judoka practicing ōsoto-gari are practicing kata. Further, such a conclusion is not really inaccurate. Is making a distinction here between kata and technique going to create a problem down the road? Bradford44 16:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

question about book

Has anyone one here ever heard of a book called Shan Kowk Chi? I'm afraid I don't know the characters or the mandarin pinyin version of its title. I was told by eagle claw grandmaster Lilly Lau that it has information about Jow Tong. (Ghostexorcist 15:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC))

Horse Stance

I edited out the how-to guide in the article, and added some pictures from Commons. But this stub is still in serious need of some cross-style expansion. VanTucky 23:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yoshukai International Stub Nominated for Deletion

I thought some of you might want to check in on the discussion here: Yoshukai International —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.161.41.226 (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Blocking techniques

I have marked this page as needing cleanup (and failing that, speedy deletion) for violating content policy. the majority of the pages content is a how-to guide. please help either rm all such content. thanks! VanTucky 04:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to split the topic of blocking techniques into separate articles by nationality or category of martial arts. Many blocks in Japanese and Chinese martial arts have similar English translations, but are very differently executed. "Blocking techniques" is an extremely broad topic. Should there be a paranthetical note in the title reflecting that this is only about martial arts blocking techniques, as opposed to those used in boxing, for example? Perhaps separate articles for "Blocking techniques (Japanese martial arts)" and "Blocking techniques (Chinese martial arts)"? I must admit, I hate how long of a title that makes. Maybe "Blocking techniques (uke-waza)"? But foreign words are to be avoided in titles if possible... Bradford44 15:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's broader than that. Boxig is at least arguably a martial art, but "blocking techniques" could include stuff about blocking in football, politics, etc, too. I definitely think it's too broad. I think even something like "Blocking techniques (Japanese martial arts)" is probably too broad to justify an article. Either that, or as VanTucky said below, it should be made very generic, and without going into detail about specific techniques, in which case it should probably be called "Blocking (martial arts)." —Erik Harris 18:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe its okay as is if we make it more like the strike and kick articles. These are both cross-style and not too expansive. VanTucky 17:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Blocking (martial arts) is the correct disambig. VanTucky 18:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page to Blocking (martial arts). VanTucky 18:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Started work, will try and add some more generalised info --Nate 19:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

incorporate Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan in to main martial arts articles

Please help me incorporate this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan in to the other main martial arts articles. Tkjazzer 23:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

copy from Category_talk:Martial_arts

better family trees for styles

Since often one person is attributed for a creating a style, it would be nice to see the family tree, so to say so we know a little bit about what the style came from, what the originators formally training was in, etc.

Like, the Japanese that came from okinawan styles should have articles about what the parent style to this was, what this new creator saw could be changed/improved, and how this new style is different. This would assist people on choosing styles. Tkjazzer 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this would be nice, but it would be too complicated to have 1 big family tree (see [2] for an attempt with "modern karate"). There are 2 different types of trees that should be produced too - one that follows the style (showing origin), and another that follows the masters. Maybe each individual style could show its individual tree to trace its roots.

Another possibility is to create a somewhat standardized infobox for each style and master. The style infoboxes could contain something like "Derived from" and "Evolved into". The masters could similarly have "Student of" and "Notable disciples". Then, there is an easy way to trace lineages without searching the content of the articles. Creating this would also help create the data required to compile a large tree. --Scott Alter 21:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If we look at different websites we may have some leads on certain style masters within say Okinawa Karate. For example, check out http://ihadojo.com/Origins/index.htm Tkjazzer 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Separate Okinawa and Japanese martial arts family pages

I'm not an expert, but didn't the majority of karate in japan come from okinawa? Therefore, shouldn't the okinawan styles get a seaparate family line? Also, shouldn't the Japanese styels that evolved from Okinawa link or show their family tree back, via by masters or training location, back to the original styles in okinawa? (sorry for bad english, feel free to correct) Tkjazzer 23:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Karate is defined as an Okinawan martial art by it's page. But there were important Japanese teachers and promoters from whom a few of the styles originated. But generally, yes it is an Okinawan art. VanTucky 23:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object to renaming the Category:Karate category to "Okinawan Karate", creating a new "Japanese Karate" category, and moving the Japanese karate articles into this new category? This would help in the separation of Okinawan from Japanese karate. Then, a new "Karate" category would contain the categories of "Okinawan Karate" and "Japanese Karate", in addition to articles pertaining to both. --Scott Alter 17:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

To simplify, I am going to have a bot move the Okinawan articles to Category:Okinawan karate and the Japanese articles to Category:Japanese karate. --Scott Alter 02:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox for martial artists

Is anyone aware of a template for an infobox for martial artists? I have not found any, but would like to use one. If there isn't one, I will base it off of Template:Infobox_Person and use fields name, residence, other_names, image, imagesize, caption, birth_name, birth_date, birth_place, death_date, death_place, death_cause, and website. I'd add style, teacher, and notable students. Any suggestions for additional fields? --Scott Alter 18:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

here is the infobox scott made - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_martial_artist Tkjazzer 21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you help me write this article?

Hello,

I was wondering if you would be willing to help me write either Seikichi Iha or Shorin-ryu Shido-kan. Tkjazzer 21:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure! I'll see what info I can find and try to expand them. :) --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I added some information to Seikichi Iha, mostly just a timeline of his promotions. I'll add someone once I find a few more sources. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Martial arts categorization

Based on the need to create "martial art practitioner by nationality" categories (see [3]), I am proposing a new structure of categorization for martial arts practitioners categorizations. The basic structure (using "American Kickboxers" as an example) would be:

• Category:Martial arts

• Category:Martial arts practitioners

• Category:Martial arts practitioners by nationality

• Category:American martial artists

• Category:American kickboxers

• Category:Martial arts practitioners by type

• Category:Kickboxers

• Category:Kickboxers by nationality

• Category:American kickboxers

• Category:Martial arts practitioners by type by nationality

• Category:Kickboxers by nationality

• Category:American kickboxers

Suggestions and comments welcome. --Scott Alter 23:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have almost completed this transition. What remains left to do is the semi-martial arts (archery, wrestling, dueling, maybe others that I missed). Should Category:Dueling even be listed as a martial art? The "nationality archers" categories need to be added to "nationality martial artists". This is also needed for wrestlers. "Wrestlers by nationality" needs to be created somehow. Wrestlers are sub-categorized into profession, sport, and sumo. Any ideas on how to make these fit the Martial arts categories? We could just have a category "American wrestlers", which contains "American sumo wrestlers", "American professional wrestlers", and "American sport wrestlers". --Scott Alter 21:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Templates for "major styles" of an art

Currently, there exist Template:Major styles of aikido and Template:Major Styles of Karate. The Aikido template was recently removed from its articles (see Template talk:Major styles of aikido). I think the "Major Styles of Karate" template is unnecessary (how do you define what major is) and is obsoleted by the bottom navigation bar for karate (Template:Karate schools). I copied my existing discussion below, and would like more input. --Scott Alter 23:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that this template is still needed on the karate articles? I had removed it from Shorin-ryu when I began expanding the bottom navigation bars for all of martial arts. The {{Karate schools}} template encompasses all of the styles listed in {{Major Styles of Karate}}, and is already on every page listed in the Major styles template. Also, the placement of this template at the top of the article detracts from the actual content of the style. I would like to see the "Major Styles of Karate" template completely removed, since the "Karate schools" template is already in its place. --Scott Alter 19:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its a nice addition, it lists the well known styles, and makes all the main karate style pages linked together nicely. I think that either all the pages listed in the template should have it, or none, just to make things regular. RogueNinja_talk 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree in uniformity - so all or none should have it. But I have a couple problems with keeping it:

• Placement - Putting this at the top of each article detracts from the actual content of the article. I like the infobox to be first, but pushing this template down makes it out of place (when among content solely about the page you are on).
• Definition - What exactly is "major"? People constantly are adding other styles to this template, but who is to say which ones are valid and which are not?
• Redundancy - This template includes 8 styles, while the "Karate schools" template (on all of these pages), includes 18 styles.
• More redundancy - Many of the individual pages contain internal links to other styles within the text of the article.

--Scott Alter 04:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, it seems like Aikido is having a similar issue with Template:Major styles of aikido. This template was recently removed from use. --Scott Alter 16:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way is fine with me, I just wanted them to be consistent. Why not ask the wikiproject? RogueNinja_talk 18:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the corresponding aikido template from all the aikido articles, wrote on almost all the talk pages, and on the template talk. Nobody has written anything in response so far, so I guess consensus is that the template is not needed. // habj 07:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The words system, branch, organization, school, and style

I've had a problem with this section of the conventions since I first read it, and that problem revolves around the fluidity with which these words are used in real life as compared to the rigid and ultimately forced definitions that are given here. Because some martial arts use system to mean organization, or use style interchangeably with school, I don't think it's possible to come up with definitions here that will suit all martial arts, and I think this section of the conventions should be eliminated. Especially since the recent introduction of a definition for "branch", which has rendered the definitions internally inconsistent (because the explanation of "system" explains that a system is smaller than a single school, but the section goes on to explain that an a system may contain more than one organization.

I have been thinking for some time about how to fix this, and my conclusion is that it cannot be fixed. The terminology across all martial arts and nationalities uses the same words to mean different things, and there is no way to unify them. Ultimately, I don't even know what we gain by using these terms consistently. If your talking about an organization, but calling it a school, I can't imagine how it could not be clear from the context that you are using school in an expansive sense, like a "school" of thought, as opposed to the local elementary school, which has a specific, singular identity and location.

To spare anyone from jumping back and forth to the project page, the current text of the section is as follows:

"When talking about martial arts, many people use these terms interchangeably. However, in an encyclopedia it makes sense to use these words in a standard way as much as possible.

• System: An organized method or complete syllabus for teaching a martial art. This probably includes training drills, forms, sparring techniques and rules, warm-up exercises and so on. Systems are taught by schools, and may be overseen or regulated by an organization. Most schools will teach a single system, and in such an instance, the words system and school may be interchangeable. Other schools will incorporate multiple systems, such as Shintō Musō-ryū, which began with a system for the short staff, but over the centuries assimilated several other schools and now additionally teaches systems for the sword, walking stick, chain and sickle, rope-tying, and truncheon.
• Branch: A subdivision of a system. Branches usually form after the death of the head of a system. High-ranking practitioners then go on separately to continue teaching the ways of their former instructor, but with their own style. An example of this is the system of Shorin-ryū, which has branches including Matsubayashi-ryū and Kobayashi-ryū (which is further branched into Shidō-kan and Shorinkan).
• Organization: An organization is just that, a group of people collaborating to define a martial art. For example, the World Taekwondo Federation is an organization that certifies teachers and runs tournaments. So is the All Japan Kendo Federation. An organization typically includes many different schools, all of which are usually within the same system (or branch).
• School: A school consists of at least a single group of people that are usually taught or overseen by a single teacher, such as Tenshin Shōden Katori Shintō-ryū. Occasionally, a school might consist of several groups in different places, but at some point in its growth would more properly be referred to as an organization.
• Style: A way of fighting, including preferred techniques, ways of doing techniques, preferred weapons, kinds of trickery, and many other things. Styles are largely personal, although some schools are very rigid and try to ensure that their students' style is identical to the teacher's. People with different bodies generally find that slightly different styles work best for them. For example, Suassuna and Acordeon both learned capoeira in Bimba's school and were taught the same system (capoeira regional) but the two men play capoeira in very different ways, that is, with very different styles. In some martial arts, such as the Neijia, style commonly refers to a system (see above) within a particular art (sometimes differentiated as a "family style" e.g. Yang style, Chen style etc).

In summary: a system may contain branches, which may contain organizations, containing groups of schools, that have students practicing their own styles."

Has anyone ever actually referred to this when writing an article? Bradford44 15:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to a limited extent. I'd suggest that they be rephrased as guide lines, you could also link any use of them to a sub giving the definition used here, more for ease of reading. If someone refers to there style as a system or system as a style it should not be changed but unless their is another reason. Using these is better than chaos, which imagine is why they were created initially, you can't standardise the world, but you can standardise a small bit called wikiprojects MA... --Nate 15:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Good set of definitions, the main problem with a lot of articles is that the terms aren't even used consistently within the article. If we can get lots of editors using one set of defined terms then their use will spread. -- Medains 08:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I agree. I would love to see these definitions followed more closely, however many people use 'style' to mean the school, branch, etc, making things more difficult. Who's up for revising all the MA articles to reflect these definitions, lol :p Shanada 12:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Kick - Sidekick pictures please

Could we get some more side-kick pictures or video posted for this section of the kick article. Sidekick may be one of the hardest basic kicks and it would be nice to have more pictures posted of it. Also, how does this kick vary between different styles? 66.215.4.48 02:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox martial art

The article Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage-ryū was just updated, such that the "koryu" style table has been removed, and replaced with the "infobox martial art" template. I disagree with this use of it, but it warrants discussion here. In my opinion, the template {{infobox martial art}} is appropriate for "types" of martial arts, for example, all those named in the navigation bar template {{Martial arts}}. However, I believe that it results in a very inelegant presentation when used for a particular school of martial arts, especially a koryu school, where quite a large amount of information is trying to be presented in a very small space. I have no problem with there being a template for schools, or specifically for koryu schools or gendai budo schools, but the infobox martial art template is not suited for it. I'm reverting Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage-ryū pending further discussion here. Bradford44 13:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in standardization across all related articles, and as such, I think there should be a template on this page. However, I am unfamiliar with koryu schools, so I will relate my opinion using karate. Firstly, I am unsure if this article is about 1 specific dojo or a system of martial arts (the article is unclear, as use of the word "school" is ambiguous). If it is about an organization of several dojo that practice the same art under a common master, then it should have the template {{infobox martial art}}. If this is about one prominent dojo (in one physical location), whose students train directly with the "headmaster", then it should have a new template created for martial art schools. This new template should be like the "koryu" style table, containing the founder, dates of operation (year opened/closed), martial arts taught (with dates if appropriate), and current headmaster/instructor(s). My only concern is that there are few, if any individual schools that are notable. Generally, an individual school becomes notable only when the headmaster develops his specific style into a system (and these articles should use the template {{infobox martial art}}. --Scott Alter 19:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a template specific to traditional schools of Japanese martial arts, or koryu, (regardless of whether they are technically a "style", "school", or "system"... whatever those words mean) is warranted. This is because even if a "school", such as Muso Shinto-ryu, has multiple dojo, it still isn't a "martial art". It is a particular system or school for teaching martial arts, such as jojutsu and kenjutsu. So I'm going to start work on a template that will not be for use with "types" of martial arts, even if they are ancient and traditional, such as kenjutsu, battojutsu, jujutsu, sojutsu, etc..., the {{infobox martial art}} is appropriate and well suited to those articles. The new one will be just for koryu schools/systems/styles. Bradford44 15:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you call it {{Infobox martial art school}} - or something similar and not specific to koryu (traditional schools of Japanese martial arts). Since this infobox can be generalized to other schools, it should not be specific. If you want to mention "Traditional Japanese martial art" at the top, make that a field in the template (maybe "martial art type)". --Scott Alter 20:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I created a template called {{Infobox martial art school}}, which is not specific to Japanese martial arts, and to demonstrate it, implemented it at Kashima Shinden Jikishinkage-ryū. Let me know what you think. Bradford44 19:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nav Template {{Martial Arts}} - I find the artificial classification of art by "striking, grappling or weaponry" to be unhelpful, and the source of much disagreement between practitioners of the listed styles. Perhaps a "Chinese, Korean, Western etc.." list would make a better nav template. Maybe we should reach a consensus on navigation between martial arts. -- Medains 14:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Jump down the page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial Arts#Navbox revision for further discussion. Bradford44 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop a quick "thank you" all for making the infobox into a template :-). I would have done it myself when I created the box but I had no idea how...(and still dont, I type it manually hehe). I really like the "Ancestor/descendant schools" idea and it is a great addition, but I'm not so sure about the choice of words. "Ancestor school", to my ears, doesn't suggest what it is supposed to. Can we use a slightly clearer phrase? Fred26 14:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that for a while when I created the template, because while I like the sound of "descendent schools", I didn't like "ancestor schools" any more than you did. However, going strictly by meaning of the word, I could think of no clearer term. Plus, ancestor is the proper antonym of descendent, giving the two categories a nice balance. "Root schools" sounds worse to me, and the meaning is less clear. What other words carry the requisite meaning? "Based on", "influenced by", "antecedent"? I've got nothing. Any suggestions? Bradford44 14:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nah I got nothing better right now I'm afraid. If I find something new I'll post it here for opinions. Fred26 07:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Videos

Please encourage everyone you know to make YouTube tutorial videos of your style and katas of your style and then linking them in the wiki article pages that relate.

Video opens an amazing tutorial and learning opportunity that was not previously so easily available. Please utilize this new resource in your wikis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagamine%2C_Shoshin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagamine%2C_Shoshin

should I add the bio template? Tkjazzer 22:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. Bradford44 02:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, i'll add the template but please help fill in the boxes. Tkjazzer 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographies on Okinawa Masters

We need to make sure we have some decent bios of these masters:

• http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/023/eng/014/index.html

• Shugoro Nakazato
• Katsuya Miyahira
• Meitoku Yagi
• Kosei Wakugawa
• Koshin Iha
• Ryuko Tomoyose
• Jyoen Nakazato
• Seiki Itokazu
• Shoshin Nagamine

I probably spelled these wrong and may have missed one so please double check. Tkjazzer 21:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Their status as 10th Dan holders of their style doesn't necessarily make them notable enough for their own pages, though they do deserve a mention on the appropriate Shorinji-Ryu or Shorin-ryu page - or if their national status can be confirmed via other sources (I can't confirm it via a brief search) on the Living National Treasure (Japan) page. -- Medains 14:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a separate page for Living National Treasure (Okinawa). From http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp, there are the lists of "Intangible Cultural Asset holders" for several categories (including "the field of Okinawan Karate and Martial Arts with Weaponry"). This page could at least have the list of the karate masters (and people from other fields) until articles could be written. Alternatively, maybe list these people as a subheading by prefecture on Living National Treasure (Japan) - though this could get long with several fields for 47 prefectures. --Scott Alter 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Martial Art in fiction/popular culture" - And External Links

Ladies and gents. For those of you who have been following the Iaido article you may have noticed that in the past there were tons of "iaido in popular culture/fiction". I made a compromise and created a seperate article for all the pop-culture references. It was deleted however (which was perfectly fine by me), but it signaled to me that perhaps we should have tighter reins from now on in the MA articles regarding "MA in fiction". I'm guessing this is not an isolated trend for just the iaido article.

I suggest, that from now on, we remove any(most) mentioning of "insert-martialart-here in fiction/popular culture" from the MA articles unless it is a very special case. Instead, if there is a famous (or infamous) fictional character/group that just so happens to train/practice iaido, kendo, boxing, whatever, that information will remain on the character-article. I see no disadvantage in this as no information will be lost, it will just not clog up the respective MA articles. I formally suggest we make this an "WikiProject Martial Arts"-policy and start enforcing it. Not sure about you guys, but I'm sick of reading how many Anime characters do Iaido. As of right now the Japanese anime scene is very popular among western (and japanese) youths so the trend of adding more pop-cult references WILL continue unless checked. We should discuss this first and go over any pros and cons before saying yay or nay.

If this has already been brought up before then my apologies. Fred26 15:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This is in fact a pet peeve of mine, and I will gladly take as much credit as everyone's willing to give me if I am the one who started this trend. It is already a wikipolicy to eliminate trivia sections such as these (see talk:nodachi#Trivia (aka Fiction), as well as the article Nodachi itself, for a good example of why the material should not be included, as well as how to properly acknowledge the article subject's appearance in fiction, respectively). I will amend the conventions on the project page to reflect this immediately. Bradford44 15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thats one solid "yes" if I've ever heard one. :-) Fred26 16:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol - I may have skimmed the part where you said we should discuss the pros and cons of this first... oops ;) Bradford44 17:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. I doubt we will have much opposition from the MA-guys in any case. More likely the anime-guys will protest before anyone else. Fred26 07:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Navbox revision

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

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:

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)

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)

Infobox

I'd like to add the {{Infobox_martial_art}} infobox to the Xingyiquan page, based on the guideline. Unfortunately, we already have a "chinese" infobox to show the various transliterations of the word, and they don't look good together. We need someone good at templates to work common elements of the "Chinese" and other language infoboxes into the martial arts one - thus enabling us to use a single infobox on the many chinese/japanese/korean etc.. martial arts pages. -- Medains 08:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The WP:MOS-ZH specifies the use of several variants of the "template:zh-...", to be used inline with the text. Thus, if you follow the manual, and use it in the text, the "chinese" infobox becomes redundant, and can be removed and replaced with "infobox martial art". I gave this a try on the Xingyiquan page. Let me know what you think. Bradford44 15:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok to me.. lets go with that approach to remove language-infobox clutter. The MA infobox is more important for those articles I think. -- Medains 11:00, 29 May 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)