Template talk:Martial arts/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Linking the "Types"

Not sure I agree with linking the "types" (grappling, striking...). It kind of makes the categories blur to together with the arts. What do you think? Bradford44 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I added it in to make it more general i.e. why are the arts grouped, maybe turning it into a table rather than straight text might solve this? --Nate1481 (talkcontribs 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Added the list of MA's to provide an alternative organisation --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 14:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


how's this? {Navbox generic |name = Martial arts |title = Martial arts by focus | style = | color = LightPurple | group-style = background-color: LightPurple | even-style = background:#ddf; | group1 = Striking | list1 = BoxingBaguazhangCapoeiraJeet Kune DoKarateKrav MagaMuay ThaiSavateShaolin kung fuTaekwondoTaekyon • •TaijiquanWing ChunXingyiquan

| group2 = Grappling | list2 = AikidoBrazilian Jiu-JitsuCatch wrestlingGlimaHapkidoJudoJujutsuKinomichiMalla-yuddhaPankrationPehlwaniSamboShuai JiaoSumoSystemaWrestling

| group3 = Weaponry | list3 = BattōjutsuEskrimaFencingGatkaIaidōJōdōJogo do PauJukendōKalarippayattuKendoKenjutsuKyūdōNaginatajutsuOkinawan kobudōSilambam

| group4 = Mixed and varied focuses | list4 = Hybrid martial arts

|list5 = See also the List of Styles by country |} }}


Can't add the list of MA's as a footer --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 14:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added the list of martial arts as a footer. I prefer this new layout with the links to the "types". --Scott Alter 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
added unclassified & mixed --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 08:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Re-word P.S. this is also under discussion Here --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 11:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Changed it. --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 09:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Remove hybrid martial arts?

I don't know that Hybrid martial arts belongs on the box. It doesn't appear to be a martial art like "karate" or "kenjutsu", but rather a category of martial arts that others fall into. On the other hand, maybe the text for the bottom section could be changed to read:

"[[Mixed Martial Arts|Mixed]], [[Hybrid martial arts|hybrid]], and multidiscipline"

Thoughts? Bradford44 03:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Hapkido

Shouldn't is be in the varied-tab? Could a distinction between internal and external styles also be made?? Kbarends 06:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me like Hapkido should be moved,; as I understand it, Hapkido significantly incorporates traditional Korean striking techniques, but you should ask on Hapkido's talk page for consensus before moving it. Regarding your other question, since there are only three generally recognized "internal" arts, and only the Chinese martial arts generally seem to draw that distinction, it is probably too small and specific a category to include, but that's just my opinion, feel free to see if you can find some other people who would like to see an "internal" category. Bradford44 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How would an art like Nippon Shorinji Kempo be classified? Striking? Grappling? Hapkido would be classified in a similiar way I think.--Mateo2006 21:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"List of styles" link on the template

I still don't like seeing a link to such a messy article displayed so prominently on the template. How do you feel about replacing the link with the following text?

[[Portal:Martial arts|Martial Arts Portal]]

Bradford44 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking the portal would be a good plan the list of arts has it's uses but needs a clean-up --Nate1481(t/c) 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


MCMAP?

does anyone thing that the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program belongs on here?

I took look at the article (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program), and I'm inclined to think that it does. Anyone else? Bradford44 13:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this template worth it?

I just removed aikido and kinomichi from the "grappling" section. They are most definately not martial arts. Whether or not kinomichi is a martial art at all, or a non-martial derivative of a martial art, is a subject for debate. If this template should be used, a section on joint techniques needs to be added; that is where aikido belongs. However, even if we do that the problems with this template is not solved. Jujutsu for instance. Should it be mentioned under grappling, joint techniques, or weaponry? All three are relevant (remember the old Japanese koryu jujutsu, don't just think of the Western versions). Many Chines styles also I think are very difficult to simply categorise this way. The template provides a picture that is too simplified to be true, and that is a bad thing. The possible flip sides are not enough, IMHO. I argue that this template should not be used. // habj 16:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll link to the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_Arts which establishes a clear consensus that a navigation tool of this kind is of use. But to address your points individually:
  • Aikido is definately a martial art, and is identified as such in the first sentence of that article.
  • Kinomichi's status is indeed a matter of debate, but I support its removal from the template on the basis that its essentially a sub-style of aikido.
  • Joint techniques are fundamentally grapples of some kind, in fact grappling in general is all about joint manipulation both on the gross scale and on the fine scale, so should not be a separate category.
  • However, as throwing is a major feature not mentioned in the navbox we might perhaps change the "Grappling" to "Grappling and Throws".
  • Jujutsu is certainly a in the "grappling and throws" category. Old koryu taught several arts under their banner, and whilst they were all of the koryu the sword techniques were kenjutsu, staff bojutsu etc...
  • The main benefit of the navbox is to enable readers who are unfamiliar with the arts to be able to browse between arts that may be similar (at least superficially) - it is down to the content of the articles to clearly define the nature of each art.
Hopefully that's layed out some support and objection to your points clearly.... can I interest you in working on getting more MA articles out of "stub" class? ;) -- Medains 18:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Medains, but would additionally like to state:
  • I think that Kinomichi deserves the benefit of the doubt. If Kinomichi self-identifies as a separate martial art from aikido, rather than a style of aikido, who are we to say otherwise? From reviewing their websites, it seems very important to them to not be aikido. Why fight about it?
  • The grappling article describes throw (grappling) and joint locks as specific types of grappling (note that the link to "throwing" takes you to "throw (grappling)"). Since aikido specializes in these two types of grappling, it properly goes in the grappling category. Finally, training in weapons and strikes is not universal enough to warrant aikido going in the "mixed" category. Bradford44 18:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Please... I am a nidan in aikido. This discussion is outright silly, and one of the best proof I've ever seen that consensus is not formed on project pages where people try and make decisions, but in the actual articles. The joint techniques in wrestling/grappling are not the same as you do standing. Obviously, you don't know what you are talking about. // habj 07:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Out of interest where is that quote from? Aikido is VERY different from wrestling in many ways, grappling covers both types. Aikido is a form of stand up grappling, it comes under the broader heading, grappling is widely used to describe an types and/or elements of sports, but the term is not restricted to that. The article makes clear that aikido is very different, this template is just to help people find articles that might interest them, try looking at the main martial arts article where it goes into more detail. --Nate1481(t/c) 07:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
habj, please take a deep breath and read WP:FAITH, WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ before posting further statements regarding your assumptions of the knowledge of other editors. I've not seen that consensus quote before either, and I'm not sure that it applies well to a template (which suffers the same problems as a project page). To further the discussion, I'll re-raise two points...
  • Aikido should be in the navbox, and the majority seem to agree that it is grappling (by the definition of grappling in that article)
  • It may benefit readers to rename grappling to "Grappling and Throws"
Unless there's some specific objection to these, I'll make the changes tomorrow -- Medains 10:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be stubborn, but the one suggestion I have a bit of resistance to is renaming the category "grappling and throws". It would be like having a category somewhere named "cats and tigers", or "rodents and rats". It begs the question of what makes throws so special, that they get named in the heading, but other sub-types of grappling do not... Maybe it would help if the grappling article were structured to more clearly indicate the specific types? Bradford44 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

<- You could put a similar intro to the one on the main MA page, splitting into sub divisions. --Nate1481(t/c) 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So restore Aikido to Grappling, and add a short intro similar to the text in the scope section on the Martial arts page... something like The Martial arts listed make extensive use of these areas, but these are not necessarily the only areas covered. Do we restore Kinomichi? -- Medains 08:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed on restoring Aikido to the grappling section. Regarding Kinomichi, it seems very important to them that they are not Aikido, and even if I disagree, on what basis can anyone who has not mastered it determine whether it is aikido or not? What criteria do we use to determine if a martial arts system is a sub-type of a martial art, or a seperate martial art? The only objective criteria I can think of is a requirement that there must be more than a single school of the art - Kinomichi clearly has at least several. I say assume good faith when the article says it is a seperate martial art, list it, and don't worry about it. Bradford44 14:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Aikido and Kinomichi restored, and the intro-text added -- Medains 15:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Combatives

Shall we consider combatives a martial art, or is it just a military term for hand-to-hand combat? From reading its article, it doesn't seem like specific enough of a term to warrant inclusion in the template as a "type" of martial arts. It seems more like a word for martial arts. Thoughts? Bradford44 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be considered an art - though it should probably be linked from the main Martial arts article, along with Ninjutsu - which again is more of an article about "skills of a ninja" than a specific art, where Bujinkan is the art. -- Medains 09:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

systema

I think systema should be moved to the mixed. Any thoughts? Tkjazzer 15:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The lead section of the article explains that its primary focus is on body manipulation and takedown skills:
"It focuses mainly on the six body levers (elbows, neck, knees, waist, ankles, and shoulders), while also teaching pressure point application and takedowns."
Bradford44 14:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is not that useful, in fact just placed an {{advert}} tag on part of it, but seems more grappling based then anything else, even if it includes other bits, similarly to Jujutsu --Nate1481( t/c) 14:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
If you watch the DVDs from www.russianmartialart.com, you'll see that systema is much more than grappling. There is a lot of striking as well. If you take a class near you, you'll see this as well - it supplements any martial art style well. Tkjazzer 17:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)