Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PocketMoon (talk | contribs) at 13:43, 12 October 2007 (→What counts as a "type" of martial art?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notablity Critera

We need a notability criteria for martial arts/artist that can be referred to in AfD debates. Anyone want to help me draft one? Made some notes @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/notability can be codified & written in pros when we get a better idea of the content. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional thoughts - using the same "for" and "against" as you have in the notes linked
For
  • Reliable sources (if there's a reliable source then notability probably isn't a problem)
  • Subject of an independent article/documentary (written about, significantly, in media or sole subject of a TV program would count)
  • Artist: founder of notable art (but info should be in the arts article if there is only a para or so of text about them)
  • Artist: olympic medallist, or finalist in significant event (either more than a few dozen competitors, or competitors from multiple nations)
  • Artist: author of significant books on their art (perhaps a book that is recommended by someone who is an artist from a different style and/or school)
Against
  • No sources available (if no-one can provide -any- sources)
  • Artist: only acheivement seems to be that they teach an art (or founded a non-notable art) I would even go as far as to avoid mentioning them in the article of the art unless they are one of a few high-ranked artists in an art that has thousands of students.

Comments?--Medains 11:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added them in there for now, reliable sources are an interesting one, I can cite a mention in a local newspaper that the school exists but if doesn't make the subject notable. Other wise looks good, would it be worth separating individuals from arts? or just not that some are only relevnt ot one or other. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, one local newspaper article doesn't in itself demonstrate notability, but I would propose that several 'small' sources like this (over a length of time, over a wide geographical area, etc.) could be reasonable grounds for arguing for notability. Janggeom 08:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The simple way would be to look at the specific content of the source(s) rather than just there existence, something I think people often miss, asking for an assertion of notability in the source ? --Nate1481( t/c) 09:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NUDGE Any more? or tidy it up & start applying it? --Nate1481( t/c) 11:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox 'style' field

After this discussion on Aikido and a similar one on talk jujutsu I was wondering if changing the field to be titled 'Main focus' or similar in the same manner as the divisions on the main MA page and nav box, to avoid the these arguments would be a good idea. It is also more accurate as that is all there is space for in an info box. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the language, there is a 'component creep' wherein infobox after infobox starts off desrcibing an art as striking, then someone adds, grappling, then weapons, then kicking, then hybrid/mixed, etc., etc., because everyone feels their own art is 'complete' and 'modern' and includes all these things. Surely most arts do have a bit of many different things, but to be useful each art should be categorized as having one or perhaps, on rare occasions, two areas of focus. I'm not sure that changing the term to 'focus' would be much help, but trying to enforce a more rigid taxonomy will surely meet much resistance (inclduding possibly from me). I'm not sure what the answer is but there is a problem. JJL 16:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be taken to the next level if the term was changed, so BJJ which currently has 'grappling' could be changed to 'ground grappling' (as that is is main focus) Judo to 'stand-up grappling' TKD to 'kicking' rather than 'mostly kicking, also punching, and grappling'(just changed a bit as that was not helpful) Aikido to 'wrist locks & throw'
If if was added as an additional field the style couep be the broad catagory (as per the main MA page) and the focus could be the key part, I would suggest having a 'other areas covered' field but that seem like asking for trouble. --Nate1481( t/c) 08:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea of keeping a set of standard, general categories that the martial arts fit into is a good one. It allows readers who don't have a lot of knowledge of the subject matter to grasp where the art fits in the universe of martial arts. Few actual practitioners, particularly of martial "ways," will like this, since practicing a martial art is almost by definition an act of exploring something deep. But wikipedians should maintain a small number of boilerplate categories for the martial arts, and the editors of each art's page should come to consensus on where their art fits.
What I would suggest, though, is perhaps using a second field for 'Main focus.' This would be a field where the editors of each art's pages could place a short description of their art that they feel conveys its unique nature. 208.49.172.2 15:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there will always be arguments on what the "style" is, however a consensus must be made on what the more notable "style" of the martial art is. ie. grappling, striking, throwing. The "style" field must have a focus on conveying useful information to the general public. Avid practitioners of the art will understand there are many other "styles" included.
I don't see any benefit to changing "style" to "main focus". User5802 08:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but how about adding a "main focus" field which would be a place where the editors of the page can provide a more unrestricted description of their art? Transentient 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's called the lead paragraph of the article. Bradford44 14:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are the major categories, then? TKD has (had?) Kicking for example. I think that's too specific. Right now people seem to be using Striking, Grappling, Mixed/Hybrid, and Weapons (and variations thereof) as the big catgeories, I think. Of course, Filipino martial arts are known for weapons but the practitioners view it as empty-hand too--an art can be best-known for something that people who do it don't think of as its main focus. I'm in favor of not more than half a dozen broad categories. Some arts may require two categories, but even arts that insist "we cover it all" (e.g. Bujinkan) must primarily focus on a few areas on a day-to-day basis, it seems to me. JJL 11:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Those four work for me, I think a sub title in brackets of say kicking,(for TKD) ground work(BJJ), or sword(Iaido) would be a good addition though. The Fixed list would kill argument though. --Nate1481( t/c) 12:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kicking is just a little too restrictive of a description if you ask me. That's like saying ground work for jujitsu or throwing for judo. Those are what the arts are FAMOUS for. To give the art justice its style should be a little more broad. ie Striking for TKD, Grappling for Judo or Jujitsu. Now boxing could definitely have the style punching, because yes that is all boxers do. Bujinkan... hmmm you'd have a hard time labeling that one because indeed the schools do focus on a variety of martial arts with equal amount of time. For a simple descriptor the only way you could accurately label the style would be "various" or maybe "various Japanese styles" or "Japanese hybrid". Definitely can't spoon feed the style label. It's just going to vary from art to art. User5802 13:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning to linking it to the main MA page was that to an external reader these are not stand-alone pieces their should be some cohesion & organisation in it. Personal preferences on organisation aside, does basing it on that (or changing that to match this consensus) seem like a good idea?--Nate1481( t/c) 15:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're trying to say here Nate User5802 10:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was bit confused, OK: On the Martial arts we have the Scope section. The categorisation we use should match that, or once we have decided on an organisation schema the scope section should be edited to match. Better? --Nate1481( t/c) 11:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm.. It would be nice if the Scope section could include all possible styles. Just don't know if that can happen. Will take some work by members in the community to be willing to research / talk to those in the know in order to make this happen. But I agree it would be nice to have Scope edited to keep up with the different styles used. It would be nice if within wikipedia we could develop a group of known researches and perhaps a notable researching subcommittee for interviewing different martial artists or researching topics on the martial arts. The wikiArtists, "Dedicated to authentic research of the Martial Arts" or something, haha User5802 04:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to see something happen with this as it is a recurring issue. Yet, I don't see enough people discussing it to say there's any consensus. JJL 13:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we go round poking some of the more active members to get their input then, this need sorting out. --Nate1481( t/c) 15:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the more scope categories there are, the more disagreement there will be about which one to put each art in. The current very broad categories still cause disagreement, but are about the minimum we could put in and still claim to be classifying different arts. -- Medains 07:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plan of action

OK. Categories are broad but largely accurate, so if we change to 'Focus' with the options ofStriking, Grappling, Weapons and Mixed/Hybrid, pick one per art (i.e. mixed or hybrid if you would need to put two), and LINK the them to help clarify things. In brackets put any specialisation e.g Grappling (Ground-work) for bjj, Striking (kicking) for TKD. For a hybrid or mixed focuses, try to put striking, grappling or weapons in the brackets if appropriate. We edit the template to state these options, any changes to this list are discussed. Will this work? --Nate1481( t/c) 10:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a good solution. The focus should always be the same as how the art is listed in {{Martial arts}}. Parentheses could used if necessary to mention a major sub-focus. --Scott Alter 12:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I prefer it without the parentheses--just one of the four big categories. Otherwise I fear we'll get the same run-on parenthetical comments, e.g. Tae Kwon Do Focus: Striking (kicking, punching, locking, throwing, gator-wrasslin', etc.). 'Focus' may be a better term--I think of the FMAs, known for Weapons but practitioners often think of them as empty-hand arts that use weapons to develop attributes--though I'm not sure it's important what that term is, and 'Style' is OK by me. I agree it should match {{Martial arts}}. There may be a rare case where two major headings are appropriate but Hybrid in that case is OK by me (including for, say, Hapkido, Hybrid (Striking/Grappling)) as long as this is done relatively rarely. JJL 14:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Wrestling Articles

I would like to invite the members of this project interested in wrestling to look at the wrestling articles in WP:AFC and help to decide if the wrestler is notable. Perhaps even to create the article for the anonymous contributor. Many of them do not have adequate sources. But they may be found!

Graeme Bartlett 09:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New template for martial arts terms

I've been seeing a proliferation of improvised tables for martial arts terms and techniques, so I made an infobox at Template:Infobox martial art term. Let me know what you think. For an example of implementation, see aiki (martial arts principle) and compare it to the table previously in place. Bradford44 17:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to be able to see the characters in the new version, but needs to be reduced in size. User5802 11:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warring over inclusion of "secret" boards

There is constant warring going on here. The boards Shinyo and Shingen are constantly being deleted and resubmitted. The people deleting these boards do not like that this information is being released to the public. However, specific reference is given from notable sources on the content of these boards. The boards are publicly available both on the internet and in many schools. Need help from the community on coming to a consensus here. User5802 11:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that lists of techniques are useless to the reader unless they are a practitioner of the art or the list either links to articles describing the techniques (which I think shouldn't have their own articles anyway, since WP is not an instruction manual) or includes a brief description of the technique. Does anyone else have thoughts about technique lists? -- Medains 14:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would go back to notability. Is a technique notable enough to warrant description? (For example, a 'signature technique' of a particular art.) Is a group of techniques notable enough to warrant a stand-alone list? (I cannot think of an example just now, but a case might be made if an art was the foundation for others later on, and hence, notable.) To me, lists of techniques are more appropriate on external organisations' websites than on Wikipedia. Janggeom 15:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this is the general consensus then we should remove all of the Atemi-waza from the Judo technique article. Is this the general consensus? User5802 04:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Judo techniques is a list article, not quite the same thing as a list in an article. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my opinion equally applies to the Judo technique article - which should describe the difference between the various throwing technique categories and give better examples, none of the individual technique articles is likely to get better than B-class; whilst the main article itself could go a long way up the scale. (Not that I have time in my busy schedule to move it along) -- Medains 12:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is more information given in the Danzan Ryu lists than the Judo technique list, why would the Judo list be classified as a "list article" and the Danzan-ryu list be classified as a "list in an article" Nate? User5802 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry got the miss read & thoght you were talking about the main Danzan-ryū article. I'd Say keep them but ad a brief description or a translational. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've put together a brief outline of a replacement for Judo technique at User:Medains/JTcleanup, any comments welcome. -- Medains 14:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... it's an outline but it is going to take quite a bit more work to turn it into something that can replace the judo technique article. Couple of things that need to be added in my opinion: The references section and the hyperlinks to the articles on the various techniques. Perhaps your intention is not to include all these technique names, but I personally like them. User5802 04:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my point was that it's an outline for a replacement in order to make it into an article instead of just a list - I don't currently have the time to give all the techniques the "laymans description" treatment. The plan would be to keep all the techniques and references, and probably after a while retire the techniques individual pages - preserving the little information that they add by including it in the broader article. -- Medains 11:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good User5802 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Emerson FAR

Ernest Emerson has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to copyright issues is it generaly best if you don't use the wikipedia logo as part of your logo.Genisock2 02:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is confused - this was over the sidebar and martialartsproject banner logo changed to a wikipedia logo with a superimposed tao symbol by Mekugi. I have reverted. If anyone feels that the project should have a logo change, the correct place to bring it up is to discuss it here...
Mekugi's logo looks like...
The current logo looks like...
Discuss -- Medains 15:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As part of a project I don't see the issue with using the wiki image esp as I imagin it falls under one of the open licences used for most content. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How can something considered a part of Wikipedia violate its own copyright policies? This project isn't a seperate entity to Wikipedia, so it to me it doesn't stand to reason. If someone doesn't like the logo, and all feel it is better off with the old one that is okay...different subject though. I thought it tied together nicely with the theme...although the Dao does show up clearer.
Mekugi 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is not in violation at all. But I think the Taijitu (yin-yang) symbol is clearer or at least more recognizable than the other. If the average person came across the wiki/taijitu symbol, they would have no idea what it is. --Ghostexorcist 12:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Shun Leung

I have just nuked this leaving only 3 lines as it was in such a state. See it's talk page.--Nate1481( t/c) 12:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abir (martial art) deletion

Abir has been nominated for deletion. It is supposedly an ancient form of empty hand and weapons combat utilized by Jewish soldiers thousands of years ago. However, the current grandmaster of the art is well-versed in Korean Kuk Sool Won, leading some to think Abir is just a rehash of his Korean training. Please read the article and then cast your vote on the deletion page. --Ghostexorcist 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What counts as a "type" of martial art?

There has been a minor dispute as to whether Russian All-Round Fighting is a type of martial arts, such that it belongs in the {{martial arts}} or {{manav by country}}. PocketMoon has asserted that it is, and it does. I'm not so sure, and I want to open the topic up for broader discussion. What follows is the post PocketMoon made on my talkpage, followed by my response on PocketMoon's talk. Please add your thoughts. Thanks, Bradford44 13:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Russian All-Round Fighting is a hybrid martial art. Shure it includes elements from other schools, but it has alot of it's own, and it's own rules. I wouldn't say it was recently created. It was formed in 1998, that's already almost 10 years. Anyway, what do you say if we turn it into a one section: USSR/Russia? PocketMoon 13:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll want i have nbo problem with spliting it into two, but it looks good as one USSR/Russia. PocketMoon 13:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts&oldid=164042525"