Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 13

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

Proposed deletion of Cagepotato

The article Cagepotato, dealing with a mixed martial arts website, has been proposed for deletion. Would someone with the relevant expertise care to visit its deletion discussion and make an argument for its notability, or otherwise? Thanks. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Grand Masters of Taekwondo

I nominated List of Grand Masters of Taekwondo for deletion recently, but there has not been sufficient discussion to reach consensus. Please add to the discussion if you have thoughts on the article. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Following an extension period, the AfD discussion has now closed, with no consensus reached. It looks like the path for now is to clean up the article. If anyone has thoughts on this, feel welcome to post them here or on the article's talk page, otherwise I will probably make a start on cleaning it up in the next few days. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bloated and unnecessary

I am shocked and surprised how many poorly sourced and non noteworthy articles about martial art styles and minor organisations are floating on wikipedia here are some I nominated. I think great scrutiny needs to done on articles here are some I nominated there are many others.


NAPMA,World Shorinji Kempo Organization,PERSILAT

Martial Arts

Tora Dojo,Jailhouse rock (fighting style)

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific about World Shorinji Kempo Organization?[1] Do you want to delete it because it is poorly sourced or because of notability? Note that it would help if this were be expressed in the edit summary. jmcw (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Could you do a google search before attempting deletion? PERSILAT?[2] Feel free to propose some articles here on the talk page and get some consensus please. jmcw (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
To be honest it's partly because they keep cropping up and you get repeated abuse every time you try to get rid of them, at least half the prods you've put up are will be rejected some because of a previous AfD, I've done this myself but don't have time at the moment to go through lots, I would suggest not doing 20+ articles in one go as it tends to get peoples back up that your not reviewing properly, and makes it a pain to try and review them, you may have noticed but jmcw and myself are frequently the people who have tagged the articles for issues or tried to clean them up. The Key issue is that sourcing anything in an area the is historically secretive based on word of mouth is a nightmare, esspecialy when you have people who are trying to sell their art as the latest self defence craze creating fake/dubious sources and cross certifing "I'll give you an honorary 5th dan if you give me one, then we can both claim we're legitimate" sorry for ranting but I've seen it so many times it wares you down.--Natet/c 09:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion Let us make a list of these articles as a subpage here. If we each look at an article, google it, etc and nobody thinks it is worth keeping, let us AFD it 'en masse' and finish it. jmcw (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your reasoning, jmcw, but I think this adds an unnecessary layer of work; we already have lists of potential candidates for deletion in the form of the WPMA Stub class list and the WPMA Start class list (both accessible from the WPMA assessment page). If I am misunderstanding your proposal, though, please correct me. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I find the WPMA assessment page quite good. This suggestion is just a queueing solution for the influx of article to be suddenly deleted. jmcw (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The way I see it if an article isn't referenced by a mainstream journalistic article or sourced from a book with an ISBN number it should be deleted. The onus is on the editor to prove the statements they are making are true. WP:PROVEITDwanyewest (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dwanyewest, of the 2641 article in the Martial Arts Project, 2361 are 'Start' and 'Stub'. Is it your intention to delete these 2361 articles because their current state is not fully sourced? Have you read the essay WP:NOTIMELIMIT? Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines? jmcw (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
And I wanted to work on something else this week. jmcw (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
jmcw, I sincerely doubt it is Dwanyewest's intention to propose or nominate all the Start and Stub class martial arts articles for deletion. I think he is doing valuable work in this project—especially considering that he is not a member. Speaking for myself, I have so far readily agreed with a couple of Dwanyewest's proposals (and seconded them), felt neutral or slightly agreeable about most of them, and only contested a few of them, hence my opinion that he is doing valuable work overall. I think your points about potential state and notability are well made; hopefully, we can strike a good balance in this situation, with the common goal of improving Wikipedia. Janggeom (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
We're all the the same page here (if in different paragraphs ;D) I agree many of those marked need to go, but doing them on mass increases the chance that an improvable one will get lost in the flood. --Natet/c 11:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Please note that I did not de-prod the articles that you had seconded. It is the flood of deletion requests and the uncertainty feeling that the articles will not get sufficient review due to the flood. jmcw (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
jmcw, I appreciate that you did not contest the proposals for deletion that I had seconded—to be honest, the thought hadn't even crossed my mind—but if you had done so, it would not have bothered me at all (in case that might be what you were thinking). I have tried to stay neutral and help bring about a peaceful outcome to this situation. I think it would be far more productive, and also far more pleasant, if we could all work together in a complementary manner. It remains to be seen whether this is achievable. Janggeom (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Emergency fix needed USA Taekwondo

PROD tag removed from USA Taekwondo by me, but this needs fixing now. Bearian (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).--Natet/c 09:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Martial arts articles

A large number of martial arts group articles have been nominated for deletion via PROD, see WP:PRODSUM for Feb 14 These include national sanctioning bodies recognized by international federations under the IOC. (talk) 06:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To be honest after looking thought alot of these need to go,any particular ones you think can be fixed? --Natet/c 09:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I have suggest to the nominator that we do the deletions a bit more methodically : see User_talk:Dwanyewest#Massive_number_of_PRODs_and_AFDs jmcw (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to note that the PROD process is for "uncontroversial deletion ... cases where articles are uncontestably deletable, yet fail to meet the criteria for speedy deletion" (original emphasis, quoting from the PROD documentation). I have seconded some of the recent proposals for deletion, and applaud the effort that others have put into helping clean up martial arts articles recently, but I have also come across cases that I felt needed more care—and I have contested those proposals. As a general request, please take care when using PROD. Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for speculation or essays. There were no reliable sources, and as such constituted original research (specifically WP:SYNTH). If sources can be provided to demonstrate that this is notable in any real-world sense then sources should be added.

Dwanyewest (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That argument wouldn't pass muster on an AfD. You need to read WP:BEFORE #9. (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And that is a shame. An author has no real responsibility to source an article, not even a single source, to throw it into mainspace, but someone needs to do the grunt work to remove it. That's irresponsible and lazy, regardless of what #9 says. Just pushes repsonsibility off on someone else. Sadly, that is one of the more misguided policies that WP has passed. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong with the following I nominated below there have too many articles which have been floating around wikipedia for years with barely two sentences with no third person sources. If an article clearly has no merit what is wrong getting rid of it. I don't see a problem with the ones that are nominated. The number of non martial arts and martial articles which seem to be allowed to survive is ridiculous.

All of the articles I have nominated below I don't see a problem they don't have third person sources and surely the onus is on the editors of these websites to demonstrate their notability as demostrated by WP:PROVEIT

Also although I didn't originally nominate them I feel these articles need to go and yes I did check for independent sources and there were none

British Isles TaeKwon-Do Federation,Leslie Hutchison,World Modern Arnis Alliance,International Zurkhaneh Sports Federation,Tae Kwon Do Times,Shingo-ha yoshukai, Kumite-ryu Jujutsu and Professional Karate Association

Dwanyewest (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Why is anyone even giving him grief about the Prods? Prods are ridiculously easy to remove. Not like having to worry about the outcome of an AfD. From my observation, I've seen a lot of claims of "it's popular" or "it's notable", but a definate lack of sources in many cases. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Niteshift36, you seem to be escalating this situation into a confrontation, and I do not think that this is necessary. When I look back at the comments above (including my own) and the comments on related talk pages, mostly what I see are sincere requests to take a bit more care; that is all. Janggeom (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not escalating anything,. I asked a simple question. I see someone being taken to task over Prodding articles, when de-prodding them is increibly simple. That's how it looks to me and that's what I indicated. Now I have one of your project members starting to complain about me personally in an AfD discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification of your viewpoint. Janggeom (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • BTW, I think it is improper to de-prod numerous articles solely with the message to discuss it here. It almost sounds like articles can't be be proded or AfD'd without running it past this project first. In most cases I looked at, the rationale for the prod wasn't addressed (and still hasn't been here), just being told to come here and discuss it. And in most cases, nothing was done to improve the articles, just the "order" being given to come here. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the problem was not the prods it was how many their were. If their had been 5 then it would have taken very little time to look over them and oppose or second, but with 20+ and no list it takes a while and their is a concern that you may miss one or won't be able spend sufficient time on them to improve them if possible. I can afford 20 minuets to glance though a few but not an hour or more to look at all of them in one go and with a prod time is of the essence. --Natet/c 12:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • But in all fairness, the PROD process is 7 days. None of those would even be gone yet, let alone all have to be de-prodded with nothing but an order to report here and ask permission. For all this sense of urgency, numerous of these articles have sat for 3 years without any work being done on them. But they had to be de-prodded right that second, en mass, with nothing more than a cut and paste answer? That just doesn't sound right. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • A large number of prods in one day with cut and paste non-specific grounds and no edit summaries is not a good method to clean the problem. I agree there is a problem with fluff MA articles. It is the methodology and tempo that cause me to object. jmcw (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • But you don't see any problem with just de-prodding with cut and paste orders to discuss here? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial Arts Talk page. We are attempting to form a consensus before acting. Constructive discussion is taking place. What do you think should be happening? jmcw (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Building a consensus before acting is fine. However, the action was already taken when the prod was placed. Demanding that someone come here and essentially ask permission is not the way to go about it. It gives me the feel that some believe that nothing can be done to those articles without coming here first. While this project might have an interest in those articles, they certainly don't own them and, to be honest, that's the feel I get from that cut and paste de-prodding. I have a big interest in martial arts, but frankly, almost every time I've dealt with this projects members, I've gotten a very territorial vibe. This cut and paste deprodding gives me that vibe too. I can't believe that everyone was too busy that they couldn't have typed a single line in response to the prod or added just one source to an article about something so allegedly notable that it had to be deproded right that minute. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue here is that it's quick and easy to PROD/AfD an article but time-consuming to show notability. The large number of PRODs/AfDs coming all at once feel from this end as though editors are Wikipedia:Gaming the system by quickly and easily creating more fires than can be put out in a short period of time. The lack of evidence that the editors themselves are applying SP:SOFIXIT to themselves only increases that perception. It's true that many schools try to create pages for their martial art that their instructor created and that is only taught in one place. I think we all agree on deleting those. For others the sources may well be primarily in foreign language and not-yet-digitized media. But many, like NAPMA, are easy to check. Another PRODder says above that there are no sources available for Professional Karate Association--sheesh! The PKA was huge in the 1970s and was probably prominently featured in every issue of the major martial arts magazines. It was what gave us Bill Wallace (martial arts) as "Superfoot", etc. Its championships were broadcast on ABC. But having to defend all these articles at once is time-consuming and unreasonable. Please slow down. JJL (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Gaming the system? That's almost insulting. Many of these have sat around, with nobody giving a damn about them for years, but a 7 day warning that it might get deleted is cutting it too close? You keep talking about WP:SOFIXIT, all the while ignoring the requirement to WP:PROVEIT. And providing a few ghits from at AfD isn't fixing it either. Yes, the PKA is a notable organization, but from what I saw, you weren't too selective about what to deprod either. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks to me. I'm not even saying don't deprod them. But would it really be that time consuming to actually type a one line reason why instead of just cut and paste the order to come here and discuss it? Really, in many cases, would it have taken more than 5 minutes to add a source while de-prodding? You came into an AfD and attacked me personally claiming I did not research. That's a blatant lie. I just don't find an obscure book that nobody read to be significant coverage. We can disagree on that, but for you to start making false allegations isn't just an AGF problem, it's plain rude. BTW, with all the commotion in BLP about unsourced ones, one of the most popular solutions is to require adding a reliable source before removing the prod. Wouldn't that be interesting to apply here? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
People were complaining they didn't have time to wp:proveit, few good MA sources are online (and lots of bad ones) and getting the time to go and find the book you remember reading a while back (if you still have it) for each or even half of those will be a large job. Again we're not saying don't prod the obvious junk, but it is always worth a quick google first, and looking at a couple of things that to see if their are hints that the article has potential. The best example I've seen is the implausibly named 10th planet jiu-jitsu (still needs work by the way) which was proded as something made up for fun, but is a real art which is reasonably well known in MMA circles. --Natet/c 09:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on things that Niteshift36 and others have written recently, I became curious and checked the WPMA membership list. According to that list, most of the people participating in this particular discussion are not WPMA members:, Dwanyewest, JJL, jmcw, and Niteshift36. (If anyone would like to join, please feel welcome.) Janggeom (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning the MA Project

Suggestion As per Janggeom comment above about WPMA assessment page: There are 1,030 Stub articles. Let us put up one a day alphabetically for AFD. All the fluff will be gone. Repeat with the 1,335 Start articles. jmcw (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Since I was asked...It's a start, but I think one a day is too slow. You're looking at roughly 2300+ articles. (not even taking into account the ones that are past stub or start, but still of debateable notability) If 10% are "fluff", that's still over 7 months to clean them up, not taking into account the ones that will be started in that 7 months. I know clean up is an on-going, never-ending process, but one a day sounds like an awfully slow pace. Would 2 a day be that big of a strain? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So what happens to the deprodded articles its all well and good saying that it should be discussed here but has anyone made any attempt to fix any of them or place any additional sources few if any. Also user JJL criticised me for nominating Professional Karate Association I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that if an individual is going to take the time and effort to create an article to at least go to the effort of providing some basic and notable third person information whether that be via the internet,specialist magazines such as Black magazine,Inside kung fu etc. Plus like I said before I feel the onus is on the author who is writing an article to verify what they are saying is true. As per wikipedia's guidelines WP:PROVEIT Dwanyewest (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not only where is the attempt to fix them, but where is the discussion? I see a lot of "you shouldn't do this", but not much discussion about "I think this is notable, here's why and here's how I intend to make it better". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I believe that at least two articles a day be reviewed at the bare MINIMUM I can agree to that. It just erks me that are some clearly self promotional articles hanging around on wikipedia for years with little done about it or worse unnoticed look I just today Kyoshi Shihan Tom Slaven,Leslie Hutchison,Krav Maga Survival, Japan International Karate Center. You can't honestly be telling me the all those articles I just highlighted are noteworthy Dwanyewest (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
    If you had said that User:CTKD5 created two articles without third party references, I could have more easily agreed. More analysis and less innuendo, please! jmcw (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The point is it seems anyone can create a martial arts article or non martial arts on wikipedia article without reliable sources or sources independent of the subject or depend on primary sources. If anyone questions this its seems to be as an argument, trust me because I say so but do nothing themselves to improve the article. In the case of article National Association of Professional Martial Artists it was a genuine mistake and I am sorry but it had only primary sources on the article and if an editor can take the time to write an article s/he can also take the time find sources to demonstrate notability. Just because I made a mistake doesn't invalidate the other articles I nominated for deletion. If the issue I did too many I am willing to slow down but since I have written this I have discovered several more articles which would be candidate for deletion. Surely they must be a better way to ensure articles are of decent standard once they are published.
I am not suggesting I am perfect wikipedia contributor I more than anyone know that. But if I can create an article with basic third person info why is so difficult for other people. If someone claims an martial art or organisation is notable and on some pages write vast information is written the subject if they know so much surely at the BARE MINIMUM they can find 1 or 2 sources independent of the subject to prove its notability.Dwanyewest (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Your point is the same that I made above. An author can throw a 2 sentence article into mainspace without a single reliable source (or even unreliable ones). That is incredibly lazy and rude. Then, someone will scream about WP:BEFORE if it gets nominated for deletion. No effort needed to publish it, but work needs done to remove it. Everyone wants to forget about WP:PROVEIT. Personally, I'd be ashamed to have my name attached to authoring an article I was too lazy to bother sourcing. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I do not disagree with Dwanyewest or Niteshift in philosophy. I see two separate problems here: new pages and the 2600 articles we (all of us who work on MA Project) have inherited. For the new pages, WP:NPP is the proper cure. For the 2600 articles, well, I don't know how long other people search for reliable sources: I spend about an hour with google, bullshido and my books per article. I agree some batches of articles go quicker. 2300 articles for me would be a full-time job for a year. To delete two articles a day would be two people full-time: do you feel the quantity of work involved? Do you not AGF for some of the authors who have not yet met your standards? jmcw (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest, I don't spend an hour, nor do I have any intention of it. If I show up a lack of gnews returns, mostly non-RS's on ghits and not much in google books, I'm starting to smell lack of significant coverage. (And I do very specific searches). I don't bother with Bullshido because their reliability has been disputed. Finding people talking about it isn't productive to me if I can't use it as a source. I worry strictly about sources, not popularity.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't imagine Bullshido as a reliable source but as peer review...The are quite uninhibited at cussing foolishness. I give up searching sooner when I see a bad report in Bullshido. jmcw (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is exactly right. There are two separate issues: 1.) Editors should create good, sourced articles, and 2.) AfD/PROD should not be used to enforce that. Doing the latter is taking deletionism to the point of law enforcement. The hot issue right is now is the massive number of AfDs/PRODs being launched simultaneously. The martial arts pages on WP weren't created in 7 days and can't be processed in 7 days. To those asking why people are not adding sources into articles, I say, slow down and maybe it might happen. Right now it's a triage situation. By the way, many of us have AfD'ed many martial arts-related articles. I certainly have. No one is asking for a waiver on WP:N--what's being asked is that AfD not be misused as article improvement. The enthusiasm for deleting BLPs is spreading over into new territory where it doesn't belong. There is no time limit on a minimally-sourced article on an obscure martial art. JJL (talk) 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is not new found enthusiasm spilling over from BLP on my part. I nominated a number of them about 7-9 months ago. Actually, how it happens on my part is I am at an article or list for some reason (in this case List of martial arts ) and I see something on there that makes me curious. I go to the article and see it is a 2 sentence, unsourced ghost of an article. I do a little searching and decide if I should nominate it for AfD or not. Then I go back to the list and repeat until I get tired of looking up crap and call it a day. Like pulling a thread and watching stuff unravel. So please don't insult me by acting like I just got the idea from BLP and decided to bring it here. Nobody said there is a time limit on minimally sourced articles. The problem is, most of these aren't minimally sourced. They're completely unsourced. I still have trouble accepting that this was so dire that you couldn't take the time to type out an actual reason you were de-prodding instead of issuing a cut and paste order to come here. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • To what edit are you referring when you say I didn't "take the time to type out an actual reason you were de-prodding instead of issuing a cut and paste order to come here"?JJL (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean you personally. I was using the project "you". I should have worded that better. But if you'd like to talk about your personal actions, maybe these edit summaries would be a good topic: "tired of playing whack-a-mole with editors AfDing random articles" Or how about this one, directed at me: "keep, and stop trying to get others to search the web for you". I already told you that your claim that I didn't search is a load of bull, we just disagree on what significant coverage is, so we don't need to rehash that. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • We can add this edit summary to your list of uncalled for sarcasm, since you want to make this about you personally: "kp--and check sources before nominating (DYODW)". Apparently you have difficulty accepting that some people don't feel mere mentions rise to the level of the significant coverage that WP:N requires (not suggests). Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I confess: I was the one who mass deproded Dwanyewest's mass of prods. We both did cut and pastes jobs. I did not order: I said Please in the edit summary. jmcw (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • "Clear promotion" is easy to get rid of, just slap a {{db-advert}} on the article, and an administrator will evaluate and speedy delete it. I delete alot of articles that way. (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Fester? I have not seen a wikipedia article fester. jmcw (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I was about to say the same as above--that one thinks an article is "festering" rather than that it's a seed (recall, WP:REDLINKs have been shown to help WP grow, for example) indicates a very different view of the site. JJL (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not a horticulturalist, but last time I played in the dirt, we pulled weeds to help other things grow. That hour that User:Jmcw37 said he uses to look for sources on that 2 line, unsourced "work of art" could be used to improve genuinely notable articles too. Just a thought. Another suggestion: Something that had a lot of support in the BLP discussions was moving unsourced articles to either the authors page (with a note explaining the issues) or moving it to the WP:INCUBATOR for a week or two and let them work on it there. Both options gave the opportunity to improve articles before they end up in AfD.Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Question Does anybody know if it is possible to 'hook' into NPP for articles recently marked as category Martial Arts? We could start doing speedy deletes as soon as these bad articles are created. jmcw (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No, but I think I know someone who might. Let me ask them. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:BOTREQ is definitely the way to go. Perhaps you can ask Article Alerts be modified to also list newly tagged pages? (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If the agreed standard is two nominated deletions a day I feel we have a long way to go and that articles really aren't monitoredproperly. Because I just had a casual look for martial art articles and again its been stated, nominations should not be hastily done and if nominees weren't so eager sources may eventually be found. I feel its complacent because I found these articles and some have been around since 2005 and no sources from books or magazines or news journals have been added. These articles are again endemic of what I mentioned earlier articles which are either one sentence or not even sourced. Team Brasa,Tai chi softball,Swimming dragon,Solo baston,Tongkat Silat Dwanyewest (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Festering, endemic Wikipedia articles? Perhaps we need a biological disaster-handling crew here. jmcw (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Jmc37 you can make as many jokes as you like but If I nominated any even one of those articles I just recently mentioned you or JJL would complain let sources be added or its notable. In spite of the fact some articles are barely one sentence or sourced and in some cases have been around since 2004.Dwanyewest (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Dwanyewest, I really agree with you that there are too many low value articles. I feel frustrated that you seem to want an instant solution to a huge problem. There are no Wikipedia:Cabals here (unless you and Niteshift have formed one<GGG>). Let us all keep AGF and trying to find a way that we can all live with. Note the above bot request for MA NPP. jmcw (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree that length of time unsourced is a good yard stick, esp when in 2004 sourcing requirements were more lax and the editor(s) who originally created it have left. That said if we start with the oldest and to speed up the process from one article a day (which also leaves the weekend issue), take a batch (say 20 a week) look though & if they were obvious speedy candidates, template them up, (I just did with the TKD Power advert) then look at the rest for which ones need a bit of goggling to be decent stubs & leave them be, if anyone wants to pick up a couple as a project then fair enough leave those, remainder get prod or an AfD dependent on if their is any doubt/debate. This would let us work though them at a decent rate but let everyone see what was going on. --Natet/c 09:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I know you're joking, but for the record, we've had no off-wiki communications and as you can see from talk pages, the only communications we've had were my reminding him that one article couldn't be prod'd and my listing to him some pages I'd nominated. That said, I am very encouraged at the direction I see this going. If the follow through continues, it will improve the project and WP as a whole. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I will go with any ad-hoc solution that balances quantity and quality. I do think there is merit in doing AFDs on all the 'Stubs': we open to the rest of Wikipedia and bring our project up to wiki standards. I would just like some time to work on other things over the next few years (especially an essay on MA source reliability) jmcw (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like we have a plan forming so... --Natet/c 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

A plan

We catscan to generate a list of 20 articles (to start with) and put the list at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts/article_review. Then work though them arguing debating as we go ;) Any that aren't speedy-able of savable get sent to AfD at the end of the week. We could also suggest anyone list ones they've come across and want more eyes on or any newly added to the MA category. This will only work if we all pitch in on the review side, comments saying "googled" with hit numbers & link any likely leads, and a recommendation (Speedy/Improve/AfD). It all sounds kind of bureaucratic but if we AGF and do a bit each then it should clear-up the back log steadily. --Natet/c 14:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As a start/trial run shall we list those prodded or mentioned above for the first weeks list? --Natet/c 14:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good start. Personally I have little use for Prod's, but nothing is perfect. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. jmcw (talk) 14:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Nate, could you put some description of the process at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/article_review? Helpful if we have others join us. jmcw (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Natet/c 15:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
By the way, CatScan seems able to look for tags (such as {{notability}}. What if we send the scouts ahead to freely mark articles with such a tag? jmcw (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
This is just getting better...--Natet/c 15:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

After an incredible amount of messing around I've put the page up with some templates & other bits. (There is a small nest of redirects with spelling mistakes sorry...) --Natet/c 13:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that I am trying to do my part to make one MA-related article better. I recently added some historical information to the Eagle Claw page to show a clear distinction between history and legend. The page still needs a lot of work, though. There is a huge lack of citation. 99% of the current sources are what I just added. I have left an ultimatum on the talk page that if certain huge claims are not sourced in the next couple of days, I will delete them. I get the feeling that some amateur researcher is using wikipedia to publish their findings on the subject. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

BJJ photo opinion needed

I've been working on finding a new picture for the main BJJ page. I've been in contact with a photographer who took some very cool shots at various World Jiu-Jitsu Championships. Long story short, he was willing to donate a few to our project.

Here is a list of the dontated files:

I and Nate1481 both agree that the Vella vs. Rominho shot arguably shows the clearest technique, with the Kimura attempt in the Lepri vs. Gracie also a good demonstration.

I added the Vella/Rominho pic to the BJJ page with caption for now, but obviously this isn't a final desision, nor is it up to me. Take a look at these photos and see if you think any of them (or anything else) would be better fit. If so, I'd encouage you to change my change! Buddy23Lee (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Olive branch for the Inclusionists and Deletionists

We seem to be stumbling into an Inclusionists/Deletionists war. Wikipedia at large has never solved this difference of views. Exceptionally for wikipedia, everyone here agrees that articles should be deleted. There is a lot of good faith here - let us not lose it - we need it for the 2,300 article cleaning effort. Could everyone take a deep breath and back off a little? Especially the personal issues (Including myself with jokes)? jmcw (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The bot people suggested a great tool CatScan [3] that could help to prioritise the cleanup. Documentation at [4] and Questions at [5] jmcw (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And to show good faith, I have speedied Chun'be. jmcw (talk) 11:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Which did not work(: . jmcw (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not a big fan of olives but alright ;D #A plan is above. --Natet/c 14:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing I'm one of the so-called deletionists (despite the fact that I'm gathering sources right now to source an unsourced MA article that I started looking at as a candidate for deletion, but found a couple of good sources for). In any case compromise is good and I think the ideas about clean up being floated are very promising. And there has only been one member show open hostility towards me, so avoiding that shouldn't be a big deal. Jmcw is right in pointing out that this is a rarity that a project has so much agreement that some articles really do need deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Bad first impressions on one side can produce bad ones on the other but that fact you are willing to talk & not just start deleting more and more is better than many. As an aside JJL is also really good a finding decent sources so will be really helpful in fixing up the saveable. --Natet/c 14:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There's a lot of crap out there and I'm in favor of getting rid of much of it too. The idea of a first pass through that's being suggested here is a good one as many of us will be able to look at something and say either "heard of it, potentially sourceable" (as mentioned above, the oddly named 10th planet jiu-jitsu is a good example where a martial artist might know of it and hence view it quite differently than someone else) or "none of us have heard of it, unlikely to be notable" quite quickly. This triage process should get a bunch of articles no one thinks are salvageable out quickly and then allow for concentration on the possibly-notable batch. Incidentally, I think much of what we're talking about can be simply redirected (without a merge). Redirects are cheap, and then if someone later wants to make a case for article they can do so by reversing the rd. JJL (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Funny you should bring up 10th planet. I've heard of it, but I'm still debating how notable it actually is. The system doesn't seem terribly notable and the founders bio seems kind of inflated. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Lets look for the fluffiest stuff first. jmcw (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Passing news mentions ([6]) though it's always a question whether they refer more to the gym or the art (which is taught at other gyms), and Eddie Bravo's several books are presumably sources, but a merge is certainly not unreasonable. I'd lean toward leaving it separate--the art/gym/Rubber Guard are enough meat for it. Concur about fluff first. JJL (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Fluff 1st sounds good. (why can I see that phrase coming back to haunt me...) On 10PJJ it gets quite a lot of mention around UFC events as Joe Rogan is a student of Eddie Bravo (he's even in the books), but I'd agree this kind of think is a different type of topic. (see you on that talk page?) --Natet/c 15:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Asking for assistance

I'm going to see how the project works.......I tagged a couple of articles for lack of sources, using primary sources or that they were written like a press release. They are, unfortunately from the same author, a student of the system who is getting territorial about it (also a minor WP:COI problem). The author simply keeps removing the tags, usually without changing anything in the article. There was some success in Tactical Hapkido Alliance. I finally convinced him that the glowing bio material about the founder goes in the bio, not in an article about an association. My most pressing question on this is the linking of a lot of individual schools websites. To me, it looks like promotion and like it conflicts with WP:EL#ADV.
This brings us to Tactical hapkido. No major issues, but I'd like to see the removal of the styles own website as a source and perhaps the "legal advice" part about how canes can be carried in the airport removed.
Now the founders bio, Barry Rodemaker. The vast majority of the sources are primary sources that him (or someone in the chain) controls. A lot of the sources are podcasts that I feel might be at odds with WP:EL, not to mention the RS issue. What are your opinions on these as sources? And there is a number of questionable "halls of fame" I'd like an outside opinion on. What do you guys think?Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I looked at Tactical hapkido and didn't see 1 reliable source in the article that actually dealt with the topic and not the founder. In fact, several of the links gave me errors. As for Barry Rodemaker, or anyone else, I believe primary souces can be used, but they need to be supplemented with third party sources. I admit to having some skepticism about anyone who becomes an 8th dan after doing martial arts for only 20 years, but I'm old school. As for "halls of fame", I view many of them as just a money grab. Personally, the first thing I'd check is to see if the honorees are from a variety of countries. To me, the more countries represented, the more legitimacy it has. If people are coming from around the world, taking the time and money to travel, then the honor must have some value. Papaursa (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm cautious (and skeptical) about a bio that is almost fully primary sources. A primary here or there is one thing, but the lack of third party sources, especially significant ones, bothers me a lot. As for halls of fame, you're right, most are just made up and I suspect several of these ones are. I haven't done the research yet, but I'm guessing there isn't going to be much info on the "Martial Arts Masters, Pioneers & Legends Hall of Fame" or the "Warrior of Honor International Hall of Honor" outside of their own websites. And we know the game........induct some actually famous people (who get mailed their certificate) in order to give an air of legitimacy to the "hall of fame" that is little more than a geocities website and a PO Box. I swear, as I read the list of 4 8th Dan, 1 7th, 1 6th and 12 halls of fame, the name Frank Dux went through my mind. And that is not a good thing to me. So what do with do with these articles? Can we systematically remove stuff sourced with unreliable sources? BTW, I tagged them with COI tags. The main editor (User:Tmartialaa) having a name that is the same as one of the schools URL ( is too big of a coincidence to me. If he starts edit-warring, I'll go to COIN and see what they say. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I've added them to the Requested Reviews bit of our new article review page, I'll try and have a look later. --Natet/c 09:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Barry Rodemaker was an article I tried to nominate weeks ago, I hope people can see I don't just nominate articles for the sake of doing so, I hope this can be sorted because other articles related to this person are also of a similar quality Dwanyewest (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tactical hapkido and Tactical Hapkido Alliance are no better Dwanyewest (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Martial arts magazines need serious make over

Black Belt (magazine) really needs additional sources. These articles articles I see no reliable third person sources and I think should be deleted Inside Kung Fu,GRACIE Magazine,Journal of Asian Martial Arts,Kung Fu Tai Chi Dwanyewest (talk) 22:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are exceeding what we have agreed to in this project. Journal of Asian Martial Arts should be deleted? jmcw (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Black Belt and Inside Kung Fu are two of the biggest, longest published magazines in martial arts. JAMA has been around about 15 years. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
JAMA is a known source for scholarly research on martial arts. It has more value than the average MA magazine. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the sourcing on these articles is poor (like so many of the martial arts articles), but in this case I believe these articles need work, not removal. Papaursa (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough I don't have a problem Papaursa Dwanyewest (talk) 15:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Current AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samurai Aerobics. I'm not sure if this really belongs under this project, but it's using a MA template. Oddly, I'm fighting to keep this. It needs work, but there are sources for it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Week of the review: February 25

I have put up 20 articles from catscan for week February 25. Some suggestions on using tags and catscan well:

  • Mark any article for our review with the notability tag.
  • If the article survives our review, we delete the notability tag and replace it with the Reimprove tag or the Unreferenced tag.

This will make it easy to find 20 fresh articles a week. Comments/suggestions? jmcw (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What about a category 'MA Project Review 2010'? Mark every article after we are finished. jmcw (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have sent articles to AFD (for example Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aikido_Federation_of_Azerbaijan) marked with {{subst:delsort|Martial arts}}<small>—~~~~</small>. They do not show up in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Martial_arts. Anyone see what I am doing wrong? jmcw (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Annoyingly you have to add them manually as {{Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aikido_Federation_of_Azerbaijan}} I use the deletions sorting plugin thing that dose it all for you. --Natet/c 12:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Tool is here it requires twinkle to work. --Natet/c 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Got it sorted - thanks! jmcw (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinions on this article?

I took a look at List of koryū schools of martial arts. The topic seems notable, but the article is a mess. All 24 sources are from the same author. I tagged it as a single/few source article. Even with the 24 sources, about half of the entries are unsourced. A lot of them are unsourced redlinks that tell us nothing about what the art even is. What do you all think about removing the unsourced stuff and doing general clean up on it? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the list itself is notable. Some of the sources listed here [7] might help. Perhaps this is case where redlinks can help WP grow? I dunno. JJL (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure some of those redlinks are notable. And the article needs a lot of work. But at this point, I think the high number of redlinks are making the article look bad. The article needs more sources. If I get a chance, I'll see what I kind find at the library. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Martial arts practitioners → Martial artists

FYI: proposed renaming of Category:Martial arts practitioners to Category:Martial artists, and the same for three sub-categories.

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 2#Martial_artists, where your comments will be welcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fight history of Bruce Lee

FYI, Fight history of Bruce Lee has been nominated for deletion via AfD. (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Review

Everyone happy with how this is going? Any suggestions on ways to improve/ tidy up the layout? It seems to be working but 3 weeks later seemed a good time for a quick check-up.--Natet/c 14:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  • So far so good. Do we want to decide when to act on our recommendations? End of the week? Two weeks? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • A week is fine by me as long as there are a bunch of obvious ones (in either direction) in each list, as has happened so far. If more borderline cases come up it may take more time. JJL (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm satisfied with how it it going. Niteshift, I would say that after the week, if there has been no opposion to deleting, anyone could start the AFD. jmcw (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess I wasn't clear. It's not that I'm dissatisfied. I just didn't think it was fair to depend you to have to do the moves, AfD noms etc. So I was wondering at what point was acceptable so I could perform some of the tasks too and take some of the load off you. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks! AFDs are new to me and have taken me a lot of time. I need to figure out some things with CatScan also. Feel free to jump in - I don't own the process here. jmcw (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, the third week batch Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review/3rd_March_2010 has not received many comments. I would leave it up in the fourth week, if there are no objections. jmcw (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think leaving this up makes sense, but start the AfD on any that have been done, we all need to keep the momentum going. May I suggest we drop the number for the next list to 15, as we seem to have been bordering on overloading with 20. --Natet/c 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm ok with the current number and in the next day or two, I should be able to clean out the ones reccomending AfD. The merges are what will take the work. Redirects shouldn't take much time either. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough, would a list of 'to merge' articles bee a good one to pull out and just add too the? If it gets too big we can take a week out of the main run and go for those. --Natet/c 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok, so far, I've gotten to some of the redirects and a couple AfD's, as have some of you. Overall, I'd say this is working out pretty well. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • May I suggest we not list movies or TV shows? Those may fall under other criteria and I would rather focus on actual martial arts articles. Papaursa (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That sounds reasonable to me. I see too many projects trying to fold too many things in under their umbrella. There is a new project on pirates and some editor was trying to make the article on ninjas part of the pirate project because in some cartoon "ninjas are traditionally mortal enemies of pirates". Um, yeah.... Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It seems that long ago, the category Martial Arts was non-fiction. Many, many subcategories have hacked themselves onto the MA category tree in the usual random Wikipedia manner. I'm trying to separate the media into its own category. All the film/tv/manga/fiction articles should disappear from the MA project. CatScan will work better. jmcw (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It even makes a difference in the article reviews we're doing. Lots of boxing, fencing, movies etc. Am I safe to assume that the consensus here is to remove the MA project tag from articles like manga etc if we run across them? Not planning a campaign by any means, just if I run across it in my normal editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to remove 'incidental' martial arts things, very little manga dosent included some MA bits but what would people say about things like Enter the Dragon (ironical not listed currently) where, they were highly influential on the western view of martial arts. --Natet/c 16:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Interesting point. I tried to think of another movie with that kind of impact and failed. My gut feeling is that fiction doesn't belong under this project. Papaursa (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If it is iconic, like the Lee films, I don't have an issue with it. But then it becomes debateable about what is or isn't. I'd say eliminating fiction sounds like the easiest o abide by. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
  • So the rule is skip fiction. With a caveate that if if influences the real world if can be included on those grounds.
On a side note the only other ones I can think of are the Karate Kid films, they distanced martial arts from combat (I won't rant I promise...)

--Natet/c 15:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I've done some editing to the category tree and the fiction should now be separate from the non-fiction. CatScan works quicker with a better formed tree. jmcw (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

For all to do:

  • Scouting: Look over the shorter MA articles (CatScan[8]) and mark cantidates with 'notability' tag.
  • Martial Arts New Page Patrol: A list of articles created or tagged under [[Category:Martial arts]] in the last week is available via CatScan at [9]. Feel free to edit, tag, speedy, prod or afd the new articles. jmcw (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Review, continued

  • I would like to make mention of the vast amount of grunt work that Niteshift36 has been doing on the past weeks Article Review (merging, afd, etc). Thank you, Niteshift! jmcw (talk) 10:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There are today 225 articles with notability tags.[10] I see the elimination of these 225 articles as a goal for the article review process. I think cleaning out this backlog of articles is good but rather boring work. We should repeat this process yearly/periodically. jmcw (talk) 10:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I know this isn't a high priority item for most people, but second opinions are welcome. You don't have to have an opinion on every subject, but if you have knowledge on any topic your input would be appreciated. I view this as a chance to get rid of the martial arts junk and keep the good stuff. I focus on this because it's where I can contribute. I make the best determinations I can, but second opinions help me determine what I should put up for AfD. Papaursa (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
  • And kudos to Papaursa: he has been very active and helpful! Thank you! jmcw (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Over the past week or so, I have approached the review from a different angle, going through all the WPMA Stub class articles and reclassifying them (e.g., Redirect, Start) or adding tags (e.g., Notability, Unreferenced) as seemed appropriate to me. While this process was not completely consistent, hopefully it will make it easier for us to identify the most appropriate candidates for deletion. Janggeom (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I notice that we have a backlog of articles needing review. Unless anyone expresses a preference otherwise, I will try to get onto some of those and add recommendations on that page rather than the weekly list pages. I also notice that some articles (e.g., Asian Taekwondo Union and Australian Kendo Renmei from 25 March 2010) don't appear to have made it through to the "Leftovers" section, so will try to get onto those, too. Janggeom (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through and added several articles to the Leftovers section that don't appear to have been followed up. Feel welcome to correct any errors I might have made; thanks. Janggeom (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New source for Martial arts?

I was looking for some refs for McDojo (I'm starting work on it again, life was to simple lately...) and came acceros this looks like it might be usable in the main MA article, and other high level ones, for some bits. It is quite broad in scope and has refs for looking for more sourcew too. --Natet/c 09:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the only high quality source I ever found on Mcdojos [11] Dwanyewest (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Lee

Edit war starting and pov/agenda accusations flying any volunteers? to referee, I've got to head out. --Natet/c 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I peeked at that the other day. I'm staying out of it. There are so many dubious sources used in that article that isn't sad. Then there are the obscure offline sources (some of which I question), the sources in Chinese, Turkish and any other damn language. Ugh! And the POV warriors are out in force there. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Judo record in Infobox?

Howdy folks! I'm working on revamping an article about a mixed martial artist and judo practitioner. This person's judo career is more notable than his MMA career (several wins in Judo tournaments). Therefore, I figured it would be good to put his Judo record in the infobox. The problem, there's not a place for it. The standard martial artists template has spots for MMA, Boxing, Kickboxing, and Amateur records. I'm not terribly familiar with Judo. Would it be included in Kickboxing? Or perhaps are Judo competitions normally considered amateur events and thus goes there? Any input would be appreciated. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not kickboxing, one is pure striking the other pure grappling... the infobox should probably be updated to include Judo and wresting options, you may want to cross post to WP:MMA.--Natet/c 19:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


I just saw the comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryuichi Murata about WP:MANOTE and was a little irritated, but wanted to check that everyone else felt that the current criteria were about right, I was heavily involved in drafting them and I'm not sure many of the original contributes still edit much other than Janggeom. Also would it be worth looking at getting this in as an official WP:guideline or if this is just hassle? --Natet/c 09:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what's involved in making it an official guideline, but those notability criteria seem reasonable to me. If others have changes they'd like to suggest, I'd be happy to discuss them. Papaursa (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I can tell you guys it is never going to happen. The movement is for less guidelines, even ones with strong support can not gain consensus WP:FICT has been promoted to a guideline and then back to being contested numerous times over the 4 years I have been working on it. You have The GNG and you have Athlete anything beyond is to much. Ridernyc (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I like the idea of very specific guidelines. I dislike seeing some rapper, for example, who miserably fails WP:MUSICBIO, but one time, 5 years ago, someone wrote an article about him and he squeaks by under GNG. Some categories, like martial arts, have circumstances that can be unique to that category. Who better to determine the inclusion criteria than the projects? All that said, guidelines always take a back seat to policy, so what is the advantage to making it a guideline? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
WPMA/N looks fine to me; the standard note at the top makes clear what it is and how it may be used. I suspect that any effort expended on proposing it as Wikipedia guideline documentation, whether successful or not, might be better spent on martial arts articles. Janggeom (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I suspect you are correct. The editor is complaining mainly because it's being used against him. I've been in a number of AfD's where WP:MANOTE was used and never remember seeing it questioned. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with this. Plus from experience I can tell you right now that without major work it would never be accepted as a guideline. What tends to happen is by the time you get to consensus it just mirrors the GNG, for example "A large number of students" would never be allowed in any guideline. These guideline really get tested at AFD you guys can spend years thinking you have a consensus and the second it used in AFD editors will show up here and rip it to shreds. Ridernyc (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
It has been used plenty of times in AfD, and is not ment to be a set of rules with 'you must have x student to be notable' just points to look at. I thought that guidelines were just that, guidelines i.e. things to help guide you. Listing points to consider seems exactly the spirit of a guideline to me "guidelines are meant to contain best practices for [following a policy]". Looking at the bureaucracy around them it's probably not worth it, however I disagree that pointing out specifics areas that GNG would never cover, as far to detailed, is not useful. I also saw your post here Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_To_start_Cleaning_Old_Notability_Guidelines, again could you clarify why this essay is out of date? --Natet/c 16:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've also seen it used plenty of times and I know I've used it no less than a dozen times, including mentioning it in nominations. You're the only editor I've seen complain about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming in late on this discussion but I would like to make three comments. I believe that these guidelines represent the consensus of the MA project editors. I find the guidelines very useful for the education of new editors. And lastly, WP:IAR. jmcw (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Kenshiro Abbe

The Kenshiro Abbe article has been listed under WPMA's requests for peer review for more than two years. A few days ago, I set out to review it, but ended up rewriting it. This, of course, puts me in the position of not being able to independently review it now. Would anyone here like to review the article? I should note that Catfish Jim and the soapdish has provided helpful references, and has also joined WPMA recently. He has expressed concern about the inclusion of some sources, as noted on the article's discussion page. The article had been nominated for GA class in 2007, but was not promoted. Janggeom (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now nominated this article for GA review. Janggeom (talk) 07:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Xtzou has kindly reviewed the article, and has promoted it to GA class. Janggeom (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu

Could somebody take a look at Jee Shim Weng Chun Kungfu? The sourcing needs improvement, there have been requests for better sourcing for over two years now. Woogee (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and dig up more, I know there's been a number of articles on it over the years in Inside Kungfu and Wushu Kungfu magazines, as well as coverage in some of the magazines out of Hong Kong. It's current head Andrewas Hoffman also has been covered in those magazines, so it shouldn't be a problem regarding him either. The wing chun museum reference is a notable one, they've been covered in numerous magazines and books. Please keep in mind though, that article exists after a long and lengthy debate and negotiation over at Wing Chun over the usage of the Weng Chun/Wing Chun characters, which you may or may not be familiar with. Personally, I'm more concerned with something like the recently added Hek Ki Boen Eng Chun Kungfu --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

In the past week I have posted a number of articles for deletion. Frankly, I always feel like a bad guy when I post an article because I'm trying to get rid of someone's work. I'd appreciate it if people would take a look at the topics and post comments. I don't care if you support or oppose the deletions, I'd just like some additional feedback. For one thing, I'd like to get a better idea of the standards used. I'm especially curious about what people think of the Palace Fighting Championship article. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for Review Requests

I put up 4 articles for PROD because I didn't see claims of notability and one editor removed them all saying "take to AfD if you like". Before I do that I thought I'd get additional input, so I'd like the following articles to be on the next list for the Article Review--Contemporary Fighting Arts, Kissaki Kai Karate, Francombat, and World Federation of Kickboxing. Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Will do. jmcw (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. By the way, I have no problem if you put them up on the MA Review page yourself. jmcw (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

European Karate

As there are European Swimming federation pages like here, , I was thinking to make these for Europe, but for Karate. Would that be okay? There is this site: [12], and this wiki page: European Karate Federation, which would be a start. (LAz17 (talk) 04:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)).

Hello LAz17, WPMA is currently on a drive to delete martial arts articles that do not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, so one suggestion might be to make sure that any new articles you create stand sufficiently well with regard to notability. There are also some martial arts-specific guidelines that you might like to consider. Trust this helps. Janggeom (talk) 08:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Shotokan - May 2010

Anonymous editors have been filling the Shotokan article with opinion text recently. Charlesdrakew and I have been independently reverting these, but the tide is against us. Assuming you agree with the assessment of the situation, would anyone with rollback privileges be able to help? Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons (UBLPs) aims to reduce the number of unreferenced biographical articles to under 30,000 by June 1, primarily by enabling WikiProjects to easily identify UBLP articles in their project's scope. There were over 52,000 unreferenced BLPs in January 2010 and this has been reduced to 32,665 as of May 16. A bot is now running daily to compile a list of all articles that are in both Category:All unreferenced BLPs and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Unreferenced BLPs. As of May 17 you have approximately 109 articles to be referenced. The list of all other WikiProject UBLPs can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons/WikiProjects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at WT:URBLP or at my talk page. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have conducted a cursory review of each article in the list. I have updated tags (e.g., some articles did actually have references, but still had the unreferenced tag) and classifications (e.g., some articles with no references had been promoted to Start class, but Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment indicates that articles should provide enough sources to establish verifiability to qualify for Start class). Not everyone might agree with my assessments; feel welcome to reclassify or discuss. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I spent this weekend going through the MA unreferenced BLPs. I at least looked at every one of them--some I put up for CSD or PROD, many I found sources for, and others I left because I couldn't easily find sources but the subjects seemed notable. I skimmed the cream. Hopefully, people with better references or particular subject knowledge will look at the remaining articles. Papaursa (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Should Matthew Ahmet have an article

I was considering designing a Matthew Ahmet article because he was coach on Superstars of Dance and apparently the first non Chinese to teach Kung Fu at the Shaolin Temple. I just thought I better ask in case it got deleted [13],[14] [15],[16] [17], [18], [19] Dwanyewest (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)