Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 14

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

Sports Notability

There is discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:BIO#RFC:_WP:Athlete_Professional_Clause_Needs_Improvement debating possible changes to the WP:ATHLETE notability guideline. As a result, some have suggested using WP:NSPORT as an eventual replacement for WP:ATHLETE. Editing has begun at WP:NSPORT, please participate to help refine the notability guideline for the sports covered by this wikiproject. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 03:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I put a comment about WP:MANOTE on under WT:NSPORT#Martial arts please chip in. --Natet/c 12:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The debate about replacing WP:ATHLETE with WP:NSPORT is going on at WT:NSPORT#RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline. The martial arts bit never got merged in, (I was thinking about it then decided I'd wait till the drama settled down then was off wiki) but thought it would be of interest. --Natet/c 15:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How famous does one need to be?

Is this edit to Elvis Presley appropriate? __meco (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Could you point out which paragraph of WP:MANOTE would cover Elvis's career as a martial artist? jmcw (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll leave it to the project participants to pass judgment on this issue. __meco (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a reference to his karate [1]

WikiProject Martial Arts vs Martial Arts Category: The Mystery of the Kung Fu Panda

As part of the cleanup effort, I have been using Catscan to search the Martial Arts category for articles tagged with 'notability'. I have also been editing the category tree (removing media articles, fictional ninja, films, etc). I have been wondering why the WikiProject 'Martial arts pages by quality' has not been changing as we deleted articles. I found the link to update the projects data [2].

The WPMA shows 2739 articles. Catscan shows 9153 articles. I was looking at our former GA article Kung Fu Panda and wondering what category brought this into Martial arts. Then the penny dropped:

  • Articles are in the WPMA when they have the tag {{Martialartsproject|class=GA|importance=mid}} on their TALK page.
  • Articles are in the Martial Arts Category when they have a category that derives from [[Category:Martial arts]] on their ARTICLE page.

In general, the two have nothing to do with each other. This is probably why the del-sort for martial arts does not work well.

Catscan and Catscan2

Catscan[3] can search the ARTICLE category tree and look for a tag on the ARTICLE page. For example, 'Martial arts' and 'Notability'.

There is a rewrite of Catscan at Catscan 2 [4] which can search any name space category tree and look for a tag in any of the name spaces. For example, 'Category:WikiProject_Martial_arts_articles' and 'Martialartsproject'.

Catscan2 can search the 'Martial arts' category tree for all articles without 'Martialartsproject' tag on their TALK page. There are today 6839 articles under 'Martial arts' that do not have a WPMA tag on their talk page: I hope to remove some without needing a tag.[5] Someone should tag the Chuck Norris article before he round-house kicks Jumbo.

Catscan2 can search the 'Martial arts' category tree and the 'Actors' tree for the intersection: I am reviewing these ('Actor ABC studied karate until they were 12 and got a purple belt with a white stripe').

I do not know how to search a tree of TALK pages for a tree of ARTICLE pages. For example, search 'Category:WikiProject_Martial_arts_articles' and 'Category:Martial arts'.

Celebrities and the martial arts

If people like Elvis Presley and Robert Downey Jr are sourced from a reliable source that they practice or practised a martial art why then are they removed? Dwanyewest (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been trimming the MA Category tree since spring (Japanese anti-tank gunsites, fictional Ninja, etc). I have recently started reviewing Actors. As per my conversations with User_talk:Nymf & User_talk:Ost316, I have realized that I have been too strict in expecting Notability in MA from actors. As per Wikipedia:Category, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." I will be gentler and expect only sourceable claims to justify inclusion in the MA Category tree. jmcw (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you can't have tried that hard to make sure its veritable before removing them when evidence is clearly there

Ryan Phillippe [6] John Mayer has 3 separate sources stating he practices Krav Maga [7] Guy Ritchie practices Karate and Judo [8] Jesse Jackson, Jr. clearly does practice Kung fu and taekwondo Selma Hayek pratices Krav Maga [9] Jennifer Lopez [10] pratice Evan Rachel Wood black belt in taekwondo [11] Kristin Kreuk does karate [12]

To think you criticized me for not looking at articles properly when I nominate stuff for deletion.Dwanyewest (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

All these changes took place before the conversations with the above named editors. I can admit error in judgement. jmcw (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a tricky thing when you look at celebrities and martial arts. A few months ago I was going through BLP martial arts articles and it seemed like most of the TKD related ones were in show biz. I remember coming across articles saying "so and so has a blue belt". Anyway, I let it go to focus on other issues. The problem is with sourcing. If an actor mentions he does martial arts in an interview, it's likely that will be reported (probably without further checking by the reporter). It's then published in the paper or magazine and instantly becomes an independent source when it really isn't. Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I will stop this activity: I think I am not improving wikipedia by reviewing the 300 actor articles category placement. I will find something more productive to do in the other 10,000 MA articles. And please keep some sense of proportion: I was removing category tags, not the articles or claims therein. jmcw (talk) 08:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A few generally-addressed requests: please try to assume good faith, maintain civility, and remember to sign your posts. Clearly, we all have an interest in martial arts, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Let's work together and try to achieve consensus in a positive way. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To turn this into a (necessary?) discussion, here's the question: should anyone who practices a martial art be included within Category:Martial artists? If a celebrity (or someone else) says that they play basketball, should that person be included in Category:Basketball players? What makes martial arts different? Should an article only be within Category:Martial artists if he/she is notable for being a martial artist? --Scott Alter (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Some actors for example are clearly martial artist as well such as Bruce Lee, Jean Claude Van Damme and many others where is the line drawn. Dwanyewest (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't completely thought through a detailed guideline (if it is even necessary), but if an actor is notable/known for performing martial arts in movies, this would make the person notable for being a martial artists, in addition to being an actor. What makes some actors notable, including Bruce Lee and Jean Claude Van Damme, are their martial arts skills as displayed in action movies. These people probably became actors as the result of their martial arts background. What makes other actors notable (including Ryan Phillippe, John Mayer, Guy Ritchie, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Selma Hayek, Jennifer Lopez, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Evan Rachel Wood, and Kristin Kreuk) has nothing to do with their martial arts skills. For these people, the fact that they practice a martial art is more of a point of trivia, and not what makes them notable. They became famous actors for their acting skills - nothing related to martial arts. The line can be drawn following Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability#Martial artists. This should separate out your two groups of people...if they fit the criteria, they are notable for being a martial artist. If they do not fit the criteria, they are not notable for being a martial artist. --Scott Alter (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
My suggestions for future guidelines: We must beware of PR fluff from padded promotional bios... Why did the actors have their MA training, and for how long, and with whom? Actors playing an action role will get a few weeks of training by a coach, and may themselves have had dance-like "stage fighting" training during their education, but that likely won't make them notable martial artists for our purposes. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are gonna be drawing guidelines on non martial artists I understand action movie stars who have had like Michael Jai White and Wesley Snipes who are notable for performing martial arts in their movies are acceptable.

But what about people like Elvis and Criss Angel who both claimed to have incorporated their martial arts training as part of their performances in their respective careers.

Does Sarah Michelle Gellar count as she practised taekwondo and presumablely used her skills in Buffy where alot of martial arts was used in the show.[13][14]

If people who study martial arts who aren't per say aren't full time martial artists then why is Vladmir Putin allowed in the Russian Jodoka. Dwanyewest (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the only categories that should be listed are ones that the subject is notable in, primary occupations, and factual ones (like school attended or nationality). (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I admit I don't know what WP policy is on categories (or if there is one). However, I tend to agree with the previous post and I like Scott Alter's basketball player analogy. As for some of the other queries, I'd say if a category might be applicable to the subject's overall notability and the martial arts connection is independently sourced, then let the category remain. Papaursa (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we get to form the consensus to determine the category requirements. Jmcw started the process by which we may be able to form a coherent policy, and I also would like to turn his experience above into a profitable one if possible. Martial arts articles in general are a largely neglected backwater of Wikipedia, as martial arts interested editors tend to be less interested outside of their own specialties and we thereby often don't get a consensus on subject-wide issues.
Our problem here is, as I see it, that anyone can call themselves a martial artist. Hell, anyone can call themselves a 50th Level All Time Greatest Ever Exalted Grand-master from Whose Nether Regions the Sun Perpetually Shines if they want to. Some people may actually have trained 40-50 years with reputable teachers and become almost universally respected and admired. Some may train martial arts for themselves because they like it, and use it incidentally in their careers, but it isn't what they are mostly known for. Others may be outright frauds looking to empty their students' wallets as quickly as possible, others indeed may have once seen part of a Bruce Lee movie and have decided that qualifies them to teach kung fu. How should we categorize these cases for the purposes of an encyclopedia article? Do the shysters or PR agents get a free pass to get lumped in with the actual professionals? This is as good a time as any to make the choices, here, for our Wikipedia Martial Arts Project guidelines, our grading system, for inclusion into descriptive categories, if any.
So, I ask for everyone's opinion: do we report by inclusion claims without comment, or report them differentially? Should we flag the category somehow to note if the celebrity claims such a status for themselves or whether they have verifiable training and perhaps subsequent credentialing? Or do we have strict requirements that allow only rigorously documented cases of traditional training into the category. Do we want multiple categories, martial artists and martial arts students, for example? It would be too much to have a category of martial arts wannabes, I suppose...
For the nuts and bolts of forming a template, we have examples of guys like Jackie Chan and Jet Li where we know a) where and when they trained b) who their teacher(s) were c) who else of their contemporaries may have trained with them as classmates and d) what notable exhibitions (including ranking, if any) of their martial training they may have subsequently made. In the case of a guy like Putin, who is notable for something else, he also has well-attested Judo training that meets WP:V in most of the above proposals. What do you think? --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia:Category, "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." We no not need notability but we do require reliable sources. A press agent's handout or the 'Brush Hill Monthly Local News' is not acceptable. jmcw (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about verifiability not accuracy Dwanyewest (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How should this template be dealt with, delete or keep?

I originally created Template:Kung Fu schools to be similar to something like Template:Korean martial arts or Template:Karate but seems to have gone wrong should be deleted or should we try and fix it? Dwanyewest (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI : Proposed merge of Seiyu Oyata, George Dillman, Ryū-te and Ryukyu Kempo

Any help or comments would be appreciated: Talk:Ryukyu_Kempo#Merge_discussion_2010. jmcw (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


In the ancient Latin (Roman) Empire, a rudus was a presentation version of wooden practice sword. It was given as a symbol to gladiators who earned their freedom, whether by buying it or by length of service in the Holy Arena. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Jujutsu article title

An ongoing discussion on which romanisation to use for the title of jujutsu --Natet/c 12:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Wuxia

FYI, there is a proposal for a WikiProject about Wuxia, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals . (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

how notable is notable

How many criteria does someone have to meet to be considerd notable. Woould one article be enough?Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by 1 article? One article about someone doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. However, if you mean how many criteria listed at WP:MANOTE need to be met, I'd say it depends on which criteria and how solidly they're met. For example, I'd say winning one world championship is sufficient, IF the championship was won against competitors from around the world and not one of the many "world championships" that were won by competing against practioners of a particular style in a local or regional tournament. Even a national title wouldn't be sufficient by itself. That's just my opinion, of course. Papaursa (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Its this person Michael G. Foster. Notability is based on 1. a single artciel in Black Belt Magazine, 2. Founder of a notable style (not established yet), 3. Finalist (major issues here as there seems to be some major contradiction in what he has won). So it all rest on this single artciel (at this time).Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe there are now several BB magazine articles and enough evidence to keep the article. See my comments at the AfD discussion.Papaursa (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
My concern is that apart from the one in depth article is that much of the BB stuff is massively contradictory (as well as not being article about him, but about competitions he has taken part in, as such these do not establish notability). So my question remains how many criteria does someone need to pass notabiltiy is one articel in a magazine enough?Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

MA notability issues

I just did a catscan on martial arts articles tagged for notability and found a number of films, TV series, video games, and even a teenage mutant ninja turtle article. I thought someone set things up earlier this year so that these types of articles wouldn't be in the MA domain. If I knew how, I'd fix it, so I'm asking someone with more WP knowledge to handle it.

Also, there are a number of MA articles that were tagged for notability issues being discussed at AfD. Many of them are from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review. Thoughtful input would be appreciated. Papaursa (talk) 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This [15] put all the media back under the Martial Arts category. Feel free to revert it. jmcw (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have written to the person who re-added the media to the MA category [16]. jmcw (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed Media from the MA category and added a comment against future changes. jmcw (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Another notability question There are a lot of articles about judoka that won a single medal at the Asian games that are tagged for notability. What do people think the standard is? WP:MANOTE is a bit vague on this, so I'm looking for some more opinions. Papaursa (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not be inclined to create these articles myself, but I respect that other contributors might have the interest to start such articles. A few questions I consider are: (1) If we have articles on people who are noteworthy for single events (winning an Olympic medal, being awarded a military medal, etc.), should winning only a less notable award render a subject unworthy of inclusion? (2) Are we going to start valuing awards or achievements relative to each other (e.g., 1 Olympic medal = 3 non-Olympic international medals = 10 national medals)? (3) Are we prepared to accept that some articles will only ever (realistically) be Start or Stub class articles, or do we only want to keep articles that have a reasonable prospect of becoming C class or higher? These are not questions I am necessarily posing to anyone else, just a few questions I ask myself. Janggeom (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review : are we finished?

I have put up (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Article_Review#Added_July_21) what I believe to be the last un-reviewed articles with notability tags. There are still a lot of AFDs backlogged from previous weeks. What are your opinions of the Article Review? Have we cleaned out the fluff? jmcw (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to keep this going for a little longer because new articles keep cropping up that are tagged for notability. It's like the unreferenced martial arts BLP articles--the first notice posted here said there were 105 articles. With work that was reduced to 38, but when I looked again last week it was back up to over 100. I've been working on reducing that, but it's an ongoing process. I feel the same way about the notability issue. Papaursa (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly! It is now just one more ongoing process: the accumulation of past fluff is gone (or scheduled to go). I personally would like to re-focus on article development again. jmcw (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Have you tried the 'Martial Arts New Page Patrol' from above on this page?[17] It is a good way to keep up with recent changes under the MA category tree. jmcw (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, although I kind of gave up on it a while back when someone put in scores of judoka each with 1 line giving mainly just their name and nationality. I've decided that fluff and undocumented articles can be created far faster and easier than they can be removed, so I'm wondering if it's worth the effort. Papaursa (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the Article Review has achieved a lot, and I applaud Papaursa, Jmcw, and others who have worked on this over the past few months. I do not think the task will ever be finished, because we will always have new 'fluff' being created. We are not a large WikiProject group, so I think it is important for us, at least as individuals, to keep our enthusiasm up so that the project as a whole retains some forward momentum. If some task is not to your taste, move (back) to something that is—at the very least until the enthusiasm is back. This is what I have done. Janggeom (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixing the MA Project tree: there are today 6989 articles under the Martial Arts category that are not part of the Martial Arts Project because they have no template on their talk page.[18] This is a one-off piece of work that would greatly benefit the MA Project. jmcw (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not being on much of late jsut came back & saw this discussion, I've been try8ign to resurrect a script that may help with this it was widely used @ one point but i can't seem to get it working agian, if any of you have any java experience you will likly have a lot better luck. --Natet/c 16:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that the good-faith effort of the cleanup project was for nothing. The committee of three deletionists are AFDing the discussed articles anyway.[19] [20] [21] My trust in this project is damaged. jmcw (talk) 12:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Jmcw (but this is to some extent an 'open letter' so I am posting here), I don't agree with your assessment that the project was 'for nothing.' As someone who contributed to that project a little, I have to say that I learned a lot about how things work here (whether individuals or processes), and that has helped me to use my time on Wikipedia more efficiently and, in my view, more constructively. If you feel that the project was a waste from your perspective, I encourage you to use the experience in a similar way—work out what you enjoy doing here, and who you are able to work constructively with, and pursue improvement of Wikipedia from there. Just a few thoughts, intended with respect and in good faith. Janggeom (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! jmcw (talk) 01:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, I am unknowingly part of a deletionist committee. I won't apologize for my votes (which are often, but not always, for deletion)--I make a judgment based on the sources I find and that others bring to my attention. I admit that if someone puts up an article for deletion, I don't scan the articles for review. I look at the article in question and search the internet and my very limited collection of magazines. If someone had reliable sources showing those subjects were notable, I didn't see anything posted at the AfD discussion or in the article. I merely want to make this project better, I have no desire to upset anyone. This project has a small number of active members and I assume we're all working towards the same goal, although we do have our disagreements. Papaursa (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I think assuming good faith as much as possible will help alleviate disagreements, while recognising that there will be some situations in which people will just have to agree that they disagree. Different people will have different views on what is respectful language, what is valuable, and so on. As far as I can see, everyone who posts here regularly is making a constructive contribution to WPMA, even if the ways we go about it might be different or our opinions might be different. On that note, I would like to say that I particularly respected Niteshift36's decision (some time ago now) to join WPMA and 'put his money where his mouth is' when it came to doing some work to help improve articles. I've issued invitations to other contributors to join WPMA, but most of them (not involved actively with this group) have tended to just sit back and criticise rather than actually do something to help. Janggeom (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Action International Martial Arts Association

I started this article ages ago, when I was a new editor. I now question the notability. Please advise. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, you could probably merge the article with that on Hee Il Cho. If you are planning to expand the article, I think you could make a case for notability. Janggeom (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Either way it needs a clean up, sourcing to bebo is not a good start... --Natet/c 08:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Lee (Australian Martial Artist)

Bringing this relatively new article to the projects attention. It has only been in 'article' space since 03:53, 25 August 2010. It had not been added to any categories, which I have now fixed. I have also tried to wikify it, and removed titles ie 'Hanshi' and 'Grandmaster. I have tagged it as cites missing, using primary sources and notability.

At the least, the name of the article seems not per wp:MOS ie. Peter Lee (martial artist) seems more correct.
220.101 talk\Contribs 10:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've proposed it for deletion --Natet/c 11:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Grappling (martial art)

New article seems to be POV fork of Grappling more reviews please.--Natet/c 10:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for photographs and images

To help address the many requests for photographs People-photo-bot has moved article talk pages from Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of people and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of sportspeople to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of martial artists if it contains the templates {{WikiProject Martial arts}} {{Martialartsproject}}. Members of this project are invited to address the requests for images listed. Please note that some articles may now have an appropriate photograph and that the need-image flag has simply not been removed, this can also be checked using the Image Existence Checker link on the category page. If a page has been incorrectly moved please inform me on my talk page.--Traveler100 (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Why no assistance on the Human Weapon

I need help with the Human Weapon I feel the articles should've been merged by now. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a sensible merge. I give my support and will do the merge if supported and nobody else wants to handle it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Martial arts nominations

I dunno if this project is still active my nominations see to ignored any interested to voice there opinions to keep or delete. This is is the list of articles I nominated United States Chung Do Kwan Association, National Women's Martial Arts Federation,International Kung Fu Federation, International Zurkhaneh Sports Federation, Kenyukai (Uechi Ryū), Shingo-ha yoshukai,Sankūkai. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that after the good effort displayed during the Article Review, article deletion is not many peoples top priority. We will do a clean up again - feel free to tag articles as notable so that they will be considered by everybody during the next review. jmcw (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that you didn't tag them and list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Martial arts. I know that's where I look for martial arts articles up for AfD. Papaursa (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Martial arts articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Martial arts articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Idea: new article "Gracie vs. Kimura"

The match between Helio Gracie and Masahiko Kimura was historically significant and is currently redundantly described in each individual's biography. How about a new article for the match? Shawnc (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the articles on Hélio Gracie and Masahiko Kimura and found that there are only a handful (three or four, at a glance) references for the match itself. I agree that the match was historically significant in this context (20th century martial arts), but don't think that the material warrants a separate article unless we can expand the content and provide more references. I haven't done a search myself yet; this is just initial feedback on the idea, based on the content already in the articles mentioned. Janggeom (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The only issue is one of redundancy: any edits made to one is not automatically reflected on the other. One approach is to edit one and copy it to the other. Speaking of the lack of expandability, the article Wong Jack Man is about an indivudal who is notable only for one match with another notable individual, and citations are even more lacking.
I've found several articles about boxing and martial art events with zero citations: The Brawl for it All, Carnival of Champions, Cotto vs. Corley, Vale Tudo Japan 1994. Shawnc (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Slight improvement to the Asian martial arts page

I have been in a loooooooooong discussion with a newly registered user who refuses to believe historians have debunked the theory that Bodhidharma created Shaolin Kungfu. They have constantly deleted cited material from Asian martial arts (origins) which they have claimed on different occasions to be "false" and or "biased." I have warned them that if they persist in this behavior, I would contact an admin to deal with them. I think my constant expounding of policy, lightning quick counter of their evidence, and the superiority of my sources are starting to get through to them. Whether they choose to believe it in the end, however, is yet to be seen.

Anyway, I have been complaining about the terrible state of the article for some time now, so I decided to do a little spring cleaning. The original article was a terrible jumble of information. Ninety percent of the Indian section belonged to that of China. There was an entire section devoted to Bodhidharma at the very bottom, very little of which had anything to do with martial arts. Some information was repeated numerous times in different sections. Sometimes one mention of the same material was cited and the other had a fact tag on it. I did my best to combine all information into their most relevant sections and deleted as much unnecessary material as possible. Here is what it originally looked like. Please compare that to its current state.

Despite the improvements, the article still needs work. For instance, the Indian and Japanese sections (I created the latter) are almost nonexistence. There is no information for Korea or Thailand at all. I would appreciate it if editor's knowledgeable in those areas could contribute in any way they can. Thanks. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 06:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

George Spiro Thanos

Could anyone help improve this new article a little? Thanks,  Chzz  ►  10:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

New article

I have just written a draft of my first article (User:Astudent0/Randall Kleck). I would appreciate it if people would look at it for notability, sources, categories, etc. I also have no idea how to do the talk page properly. Astudent0 (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a couple of sources and made some minor edits. The article appears to be well sourced and world titles usually seem notable to me. Unless other editors chime in, I'd say go ahead and put it out in the main space and let people edit it from there. Papaursa (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations on your first article, Astudent0. I was going to take a look and try to provide some feedback, but have been delayed in doing so. Since the article is now published, I will provide feedback there. Janggeom (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback and help. I've tried to fix the problems you pointed out. Astudent0 (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Mayra Conde

The article on MMA fighter Mayra Conde has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since November 2008, which is the current focus month for the BLP rescue Project. I've tried (and failed) to come up with reliable third party references that I can feel confident about, apart from one article which may even be a copyvio itself (I've asked User:Moonriddengirl to look at that issue). I'm posting here in the hope that someone from this project with more knowledge of the subject might like to take an interest in sorting this one out.--Plad2 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Junior Judo Championships

User S048linari has created articles on the latest European and World Junior Judo championships. I was under the impression that junior achievements (and hence events) are not generally considered notable. If they're not notable, I'll put them up for AfD but first I wanted some other opinions on my understanding of junior events. This user has apparently created a number of articles on junior judoka that have been speedied or PRODed. Papaursa (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they're notable. If winning them doesn't make you notable, how can they be notable? However, I do see articles on other junior championships, like the European Junior Chess Championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astudent0 (talkcontribs) 13:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Kickboxing records

I've been working with improving a little Su Jeong Lim's article. I stumbled upon a problem that I'm unable to overcome. Lim's record it's quite more extensive than what I've been able to find in reliable sources. Unfortunately, I've been unable to source most of her fights outside Japan. She has record of 22 fights, 18 wins (8 KOs) and 4 losses before 2009. Since I only have that record but not detailed information, and since I cannot possibly know if they all are professional matches, I simply decided to ignore them. But I want to eventually add them since she won some of her Muay Thai titles in those fights. Does anyone know of a good website that keeps women's kickboxing records outside Japan? It doesn't really matter in which language it is. What I need is a reliable way to find information about her opponents because only her fights in Japan are fully followed by Japanese media. I've been unable to find information about her previous fights in South Korea or Thailand prior to The Khan Series 1.

I apologize for making this question here instead of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kickboxing but, since that project is inactive, I was left with no option. Jfgslo (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Kickboxing isn't an area I can help you with, regrettably, but I just wanted to say that you've probably come to the best place to ask these questions. WPMA is not a large project (in terms of number of active members), but hopefully someone here will be able to help you soon. Janggeom (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I looked at, but I didn't see her profile there. I didn't look for any opponents she might have faced. My other suggestion would be to check the websites of each organization she's fought for. For example, I found her 2 fights for K-1 at their website. That might help you check both her record and those of her opponents. It's tedious, but that's the best I can think of off hand. Papaursa (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
That's what I'm looking for, her full record, with organizations and opponents. I was able to track down her fights in The Khan series because that information appeared in the Korean Wikipedia. But that's the only fight outside of Japan recorded there and it's only the first with the Australian. Even the Japanese version only has her fights in Japan. That's why I'm looking for a website in any language where I can know in which event or with which organizations she fought. I'm sure there is some sort of record in some Thai or Korean publications, but searching randomly will get me nowhere. I already tried that with Korean websites and most of them only mention her records and profile, but not where or with whom she fought. It is particularly hard to look for that information in Korean because there are three other notable Koreans with the exact same name and the search results always get mixed up. But my expertise in kickboxing and Muay Thai is limited, so perhaps someone could direct me to more detailed publications where I could find her record. Jfgslo (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sambo records prior to 2005

As with my previous request with kickboxing, I need some help with Sambo records, specifically records before 2005. I would like to verify information of the Emelianenko's brothers and Andrei Arlovski articles, because, although their accomplishments are referenced in several external sources, none of them has information of opponents and mostly just recycle information. Starting 2005, the FIAS has the results and complete information about the events. But there is no information prior to that year. Could someone point me out to some website or publication that keeps records of Sambo competitions prior to 2005? It doesn't matter if it's in Russian or in any other language. Just that it has full information about the competitions. Jfgslo (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yin and yang

The martial arts are those arts which pertain to the god Mars.
Boxing and fencing, for example, come to mind in this regard.
Several decades ago, some Oriental practices were grouped under the term "Oriental martial arts". In the 1960s, we used to say "karate and judo" since that was all of the common ones then. It was judo class I went to around 1969.

The stub:

uses yin and yang.
Why don't we use a more accurate and appropriate symbol, such as two guys sparring? Or even the god Mars?
Or, if fencing is not included in this, make it clearer what is included?
Thanks, Varlaam (talk) 07:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A similar question was asked of the overall project's symbol a long time ago. There was (if I remember) a long drawn out discussion on the matter. I don't remember if an agreement was ever reached.
Yinyang theory was prevalent in the Japanese folk religion of Onmyodo. So, it could also be used for Japanese martial arts. But, in the end, I really don't care what symbol is used to tell you the truth. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
What a can of worms the two words 'martial' and 'arts' produce.
  • Wiktionary[22] defines 'martial art\ as a 1933 translation of the Japanese word 'bu-jutsu'. Many on-line dictionaries concur: most mention 'oriental', 'karate' and 'judo': 'oriental martial arts' is a bit redundant. Donn Draeger tried to introduce the term 'civil arts' because he believed only arts actually used in warfare should be covered by the term 'martial arts' (thereby excluding boxing and MMA<g>) - his usage has not caught on. If we want to go back to Roman roots, we would need an icon with two naked men facing each other with spears.
  • Category:Martial_arts which derived from Category:Combat, Category:Individual_sports and Category:Spirituality_and_the_arts.
  • Category:Combat_sports derives from Category:Combat, Category:Individual_sports and Category:Sports_by_type.
  • WikiProject_Martial_arts is derived from WikiProject_Sports.
  • WikiProject Boxing and WikiProject Fencing are derived from WikiProject_Sports. They are free to use any symbol they like.
I am open to a new symbol but the yin yang does not seem inappropriate to WikiProject Martial arts to me. The problem seems to stem from where the {{Martialart-bio-stub}} is used. jmcw (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I think the Yin-Yang symbol does the job well enough, though I do not by any means claim that it is perfect. There are problems with trying to define a 'more accurate and appropriate' symbol because these are very subjective criteria—no symbol will be accurate or appropriate enough for everyone. Since the existing symbol is well established, it should remain unless this project group reaches consensus that it should change. Just my view. Janggeom (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem is that the yin and yang concept and symbol are more closely related to Chinese Taoism and other similar philosophies and religious views than to non-Chinese or modern martial arts, like Capoeira, Sambo, Savate, Sanshou or Judo. When the symbol is seen without reading the text, it evokes something different from martial arts in my opinion. It is related to martial arts that are based on the belief of qi like Tai chi chuan but not to modern or non-Chinese martial arts, like the ones I mentioned before, so I believe it's kind of misleading. How about a symbol using the first image in the article Martial arts? Jfgslo (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
The only problem I have with your suggestion is that the picture would be completely indistinguishable when shrunken down for the stub tag. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
How about a variation of that image in white silhouettes with a black background or vice versa? Here are some other suggestions. Check the first two to show the type of style that could be used with the first image I suggested: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
These are concept suggestions, to give an idea about possible styles, not that we should use any of these copyrighted images. Personally, I'd favor an image with two people in combat because it's closer to the general objective of martial arts as defined by the Wikipedia article: to physically defeat other persons or defend oneself or others from physical threat. Jfgslo (talk) 20:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
How would you distinguish between Martial arts and Combat Sports? I think of MA as having some philosophical/spiritual component rather than pure body beating. I don't find the current Martial Art article very representative of the full spectrum of martial arts. jmcw (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
That's not actually true for all of them, like modern or non-Chinese martial arts. But indeed, we would never be able to cover all the martial arts with a single symbol because we would be leaving out the ones that involve weapons and those that barely follow the self-defense concept. But the idea is to find something that represents better the martial arts as a whole than the current yin and yang symbol, which only represents a specific area of the Chinese-martial arts and that is in fact more related to Taoism than to martial arts. That is, of course, if editors in this project agree to change the current icon. Any other suggestion? Jfgslo (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I like the picture (bottom right) from Jfgslo's fifth link of the guy holding the Katana. The picture from the link is pretty small and still recognizable. But it remains to be seen how recognizable it would be when shrunken down for the stub tag. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 05:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I like it more than the current yin-yang. jmcw (talk) 08:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
That image is free which means it could be used directly. About the size, that is not a problem because the image I used is only an example of the vector image, meaning that there is no loss in quality when resizing. They are freely available here. The images are in a single EPS (Encapsulated Postscript) file which means they need to be open with a vector graphics program and edited.
However, although free, I'm not sure if the image is free for commercial use as well, which might impede using it directly. Of course, any other editor can alternatively create a similarly themed image. Other similar set is available here, which explicitly declares that the images are free for commercial use and that also has a guy holding a katana. Could someone who has Adobe Illustrator edit these images to show them individually to see how they look and convert them to SVG? Jfgslo (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Theo De Gelaen can you help?

The article on Theo De Gelaen has been tagged as an unreferenced BLP since August 2008, which is the current focus month for the UBLP Rescue Project. I have doubts as to whether he meets WP:WPMA/N and I would be grateful if someone with better knowledge of martial arts could take a look. He's clearly written the books listed but I haven't found any reliable sources so far. The article will be nominated for deletion if it continues to be unsourced.--Plad2 (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we delete all stub-class and start-class articles?

The guideline Wikipedia:ASSESS#Grades describes Start-class articles as articles in need of reliable sources. Stub-class articles are weaker. The example article Wikipedia:ASSESS#Evolution of an article - an example at C-class (point 8) has no sources (reliable or otherwise).

A current argument being commonly used at AFD [23] is that if an article does not have reliable sources, it cannot have established notability or verifiability and therefore should be deleted.

Could I ask the community for opinions? Should Stub-class and Start-class articles that do not satisfy WP:V be deleted? I see this as continuing the work of the Spring Cleaning of 2010, where we cleaned the worst of these articles. jmcw (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the processes we have on Wikipedia generally work well enough; no system will be perfect. My preferred defence against deletion is to improve the nominated article, if I have the time and the inclination to do so. Janggeom (talk) 13:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't been as involved lately, but....IMHO, there is no blanket answer. Admittedly, I tend to think that articles that don't establish notability don't belong and I take a dim view of editors creating half-assed articles with zero sources (then expecting others to come do that grunt work for them). However, that said, I think that there is always an exception and that having a blanket "policy" would ignore those exceptions. I think the Hunt for Fluff was a very good idea and made good progress. We improved some things, merged others and cleared dead wood. And I agree with Janggeom that if you think it's worth saving, improve it and that makes it harder to delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I believe articles need to meet both WP:N and WP:V, regardless of what class they are. I've seen some well documented start class articles. I prefer fixing an article, if I can find independent sources that show notability to me, to putting it up for AfD.

Unreferenced BLPs - December 2010

Some of you might be interested in helping with providing references for articles in a current list of unreferenced biographies of living persons (who are associated with this project) or, alternatively, nominating some of them for deletion. Thanks for any assistance you might be able to give. Janggeom (talk) 13:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Should movies be part of the project

I was wondering should genres such as Martial arts film and Wire fu be part of the project and martial arts actors I just wish to clarify peoples thoughts. Dwanyewest (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In March 2010, discussion within WPMA led to the suggestion that fiction be excluded from the scope of this project. I believe that was the most recent general view. If we use that principle, the topics you listed should probably not be included, as I understand it. Janggeom (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
As a fairly new, and sporadic, editor I looked at the previous discussion and agree that fiction shouldn't be included in this project. Jakejr (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Martial arts equipment for deletion

The article Martial arts equipment is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martial arts equipment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jeepday (talk) 17:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)