Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 7

Request for cooperation

Hello, I am a member of the WikiProject Council. I wanted to know if you may consider placing the banner {{Inter-Project Cooperation}} on your project's page? You may include there projects as i.e. WikiProject Japan or other you cooperate with on a routinely basis. By doing this you may be contributing to inter-project cooperation and understanding. Thank you Daoken 21:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, WP:Japan & mil history are the main one's i've come accross Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:19, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Would a member of this WikiProject implement it please? Daoken 14:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of Macrons

There is an interesting discussion at Talk:Kenshirō Abe with a regard to the insertion of macrons into article titles. I think this is a larger issue that may need some further discussion with respect to Japanese martial arts as a whole and I guess even more general. I have no strong opinion either way but do think a clear policy would be a good thing.Peter Rehse 01:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Having copy-edited some karate-related articles over the last two weeks, I have found inserting macrons to be tedious and time-consuming, and they probably won't be rendered properly in some (many?) people's WWW browsers … but the finished product looks beautiful. I couldn't vote either way, but I agree that a policy is in order, whether it be for article titles only or for article content as well. Janggeom 16:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a policy in place. Loanwords never get macrons. Non-loanwords always get macrons, even in article titles. Although you wouldn't refer to a person's name as a "loanword", the same similar standard for "loanwordness" applies, emphasizing how widely published that person't name is in English literature without macrons. Kano Jigoro is a good example of wide publication, especially self publication, in English, without macrons. See WP:MOS-JP. I don't think that Kenshirō Abe is on the same order of macronless ubiquity as Kano, and I'm glad the macron stayed. Also, pretty much all modern browsers (most notably internet explorer and firefox) display the macrons correctly. Bradford44 18:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhee Taekwon-Do

Has been nominated for Good Article Status.Peter Rehse 13:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA; thanks to VanTucky for the review. Janggeom 04:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wing Chun

Added to cleanup. The article is just plain ugly although it contains quite a bit of information.Peter Rehse 10:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a warning Wing Chun (tsing Tsun, _ing _un etc.) has soemparticularly complex linage issues be careful to check sources (some of which are heavily biased) when getting involved here. Will have a look when I get time (I keep saying that about articles but rairly do... har-hum) --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Shōtōkan-ryū

Added to cleanup list - there was an existant tag. A little care and the article would be B class.Peter Rehse 08:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have started copy-editing this article, but it could do with a critical revision by someone knowledgeable on Shotokan-ryu. Janggeom 03:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up this article (copy-edited and wikified), but it needs references in its Kumite and History sections. Janggeom 09:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

To Do List and Nav Box

I fixed the To Do list so it doesn't list the entire table of contents of the talk page and also moved the pages listed requiring sources to the Nav Box. I think this list is dated but it was hidden before. A big problem is the Nav Box is getting too long - not sure what to do about that. Perhaps we should move both the Cleanup and Sources articles to the Todo list.Peter Rehse 09:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Article Promotion to A class

I am assuming the statistics in the todo list will be automatically updated as soon as a bot gets around to it but with Aikidos promotion to FA class there are no articles in the A class category, even though it says 1. I see A class as a means of identifying FA potential articles and think this is a good time to review the GA class and see if any fit the criteria. I see the article on Jigaro Kano as A class and the only thing holding me back on Yamashita Yoshiaki is its length. When I promoted the Aikido article I did it on the basis that it underwent a further peer review after GA promotion. Any thoughts on the process or the current GA articles.Peter Rehse 11:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I did the lazy bit & auto reviewed them as a start. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 11:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Moo Duk Kwan

In short HELP! Moo Duk Kwan seems to have been changed form a general art article to a specific school one i'm now tidying but not sure if this is a hijack due to linage wars...--Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In a quick search on "Moo Duk Kwan" just now, every school that I looked up appeared to be affiliated in some way to the worldwide organisation described in the article. This is somewhat surprising, given that most other Korean kwan from that era have divided into many separate schools (e.g., Oh Do Kwan) rather than remain unified, as far as I know. If Moo Duk Kwan has remained unified, that would seem unlikely—but certainly not impossible. Regardless of the facts, I do not think that the opening sentence portrays a positive image of Moo Duk Kwan ("Moo Duk Kwan is a registered trademark owned by …"). I think of Moo Duk Kwan as one of the key Korean kwan from the 1950s–1960s that played an important part in the development of modern Korean martial arts, not merely as "a registered trademark" (even though that might be true as well). Janggeom 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

After looking around a bit more, I have found an organisation (UK Tang Soo Do Federation - Moo Duk Kwan) that uses the Moo Duk Kwan name but does not appear to be affiliated to World Moo Duk Kwan Inc. The article itself notes various political problems in the section on "History according to Tae Kwon Do Moo Duk Kwan." It appears that there are Moo Duk Kwan schools that are not part of World Moo Duk Kwan Inc., after all, so the article as it currently stands mainly reflects one organisation's viewpoint (albeit this does appear to be the organisation of the original Moo Duk Kwan founder). Janggeom 15:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, will see if I can get them to talk about it, may suggest starting a separate page new page. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I modified the article quite a bit a short time ago and added a disambiguation. Feel as though there should be two articles at this point. The Moo Duk Kwan article should be removed with a redirect to the disambiguation page. There should be in turn TWO separate Moo Duk Kwan related articles on Wikipedia as follows...

1.) Tang Soo Do (including Hwa Soo Do, Tang Soo Do Moo Duk Kwan, and Soo Bahk Do)

2.) Moo Duk Kwan Tae Kwon Do (including history up until the break away from Hwang Kee)

Thoughts appreciated User5802 18:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that a reader unfamiliar with Moo Duk Kwan would find a single Moo Duk Kwan article more helpful than two separate Moo Duk Kwan articles (even if there have to be some links to the Tang Soo Do article and vice versa). If a group were to start using a name that didn't include "Moo Duk Kwan" then I think that a separate article would be justified. In writing this, I acknowledge that I know relatively little of the detailed history of Moo Duk Kwan. Janggeom 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

New subpage for loanwords

This is a notice that I created a new subpage for the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Loanwords for discussion and listing of words that we have discussed, and accepted or rejected as loanwords. I thought it might be helpful because I've seen so many arguments lately as to what words should be italicized, what words get unconventional romanizations, and other things related to whether or not a particular word is a loanword. Please check it out, and use the talk page for debate. I started it off with a small list and some guidelines (nothing controversial, I hope). Also, the shortcut for it is WP:WPMA/L, and I also created shortcuts for our other two subpages, Assessment, at WP:WPMA/A; and Notability guidelines, at WP:WPMA/N. Bradford44 01:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Skimmed & looks like it will be a useful resource, noticed that it has been set up for expansion. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Martial arts timeline

Needs an overhall and expansion without getting into specific histories of individual arts. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Propose moving the list of participants to a sub-page

Anyone have any strong feelings about moving the list to Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Participants. The list is over 100 now, and although that's something to be proud of, it does clutter the page a bit. Also, would anyone oppose me culling it some? I have a feeling there are quite a few inactive accounts listed. For example, I could remove all names that haven't made any contributions anywhere on wikipedia in at least 12 months (or some other acceptable benchmark, and anyone who was still around watching but not editing could feel free to re-add their name)? I was also imagining that space could be put to better use by having a list of categories and sub-categories in a manner similar to, but more comprehensive than, what currently appears at Portal:Martial arts/Categories. Bradford44 01:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good plan to me. need to make it easy to add people though, maybe separate active & inactive lists? --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was going to leave the "Participants" section where it is, just replace the list with language to the effect of "If you'd like to join the project, just add your name to the list of participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Participants." That should make it easy enough for people to add themselves. Bradford44 14:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WP Korea has a separate Participants page with both active and inactive participants listed. I think this would be a good model to follow; it is clear who is active and who is not, it is easy to edit back and forth as needed (active to inactive, or vice versa), and it maintains recognition of past contributors. I would not be in favour of removing past participants' names unless with good reason (e.g., if their main 'contribution' was vandalism). Janggeom 06:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Janggeom, having separate lists is a better suggestion than deleting inactive members. So what should the cutoff be (I think it can be less, now that nothing is being deleted - six months? three?)? Bradford44 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing the page; I think six months (as noted on the new page) is a fair guideline. Janggeom 03:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

the list of categories is very helpful

I never would have found the "martial arts terms" category without the list. Thank you! Tkjazzer 20:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, Bradford44; thank you for this useful section on the project's homepage. Janggeom 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

a fun biography project: Hwang Jang Lee

Hello all,

I just watched (for fun) a 1981 Martial art film with Hwang Jang Lee, TKD expert, called: Kung Fu - The art of High Impact Kicking (Hwang Jang Lee) 1981. http://img2.hkflix.com/images2/art/w/wvdvde18002.jpg

It was a really fun watch and I thought his article would be a great collaborative project. Does he have any famous students? Etc etc. Maybe we could bring his bio up to quality standard. Any thoughts? Tkjazzer 02:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Choi Hong Hi

I have started rewriting Choi Hong Hi. This article has had sparse editing over the last few months and, from what I can see, was a much-debated article before then. From my research, I believe that it is well worth having a good article on Choi in Wikipedia, and I will be working towards this goal. Those of you familiar with taekwondo history will be aware of the controversy surrounding Choi (Father of Taekwondo, a somewhat important figure, a relative nobody, or a traitor … depending on whom one asks), and it is because of this that I am posting my intention here. Janggeom 16:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article looks like it is coming along nicely. User5802 18:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on Martial Arts School Template

Don't like this template at all. Think it consumes way too much of the article and should be a simple infobox like Template:Infobox_martial_art, more thoughts appreciated User5802 18:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I created Template:Infobox_martial_art_group, based on Template:Infobox_martial_art with some minor differences. Feel free to use this instead of Template:Infobox_martial_art_school. Implemented first use in American Karate Black Belt Association (AKBBA). I intend to expand on this template, so thoughts appreciated User5802 19:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. This infobox has also been discussed before (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 4#Infobox martial art, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 5#.7B.7Binfobox martial art school.7D.7D, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 6#Proper infobox usage). As per the suggestion of Bradford44 here, I also recommend moving Template:Infobox martial art school back to Template:Infobox koryu, and only using it for Koryu schools, as it was originally intended. Then, your new infobox could be used for schools/styles/organizations/groups. and could be renamed to Template:Infobox martial art school (or something similar). --Scott Alter 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

fist article?

I just learned two new fists while experimenting with a 5 dollar ninjistu class, where would I find info about all the different fists and hand orientations in martial arts? The fist article is only a definition. Suggestions? Tkjazzer 21:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

strike (attack) has some information on different hand orientations User5802 01:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that hand orientations could be expanded, but I do not know enough to do so. Also, pictures could be added. Tkjazzer 01:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is difficult to do without getting perilously close to an instruction manual.. references are also a problem. -- Medains 15:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Link a MA article to the same article written in another language

I know this is possible. I have have seen it in a template somewhere. The template read something like, "you might be able to improve this article by checking out the article on the french version..." or something like that. I think there are cases when this would be useful. Can anyone find this template or does anyone know what I'm referring to? Tkjazzer 01:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:ECHO. Bradford44 01:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Translation request placed for French Bassai article to English Passai

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation/Bassai Tkjazzer 06:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you try to modify the link to the English article on the translation page, it takes away all of the comments. Please do not modify the linked page unless you are translating it and are updating the status or commenting. Tkjazzer 06:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Move request

Thought people might like to participate in this move request: Hane Goshi → Hane goshi. Please discuss here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradford44 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese weapon arts?

From what little I know about martial arts, many weapon arts tend to be taught separately from unarmed martial arts. However, I've been unable to find any details about specific Chinese weapon arts, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. That suggests to me that either they are very obscure, they are taught concurrently with unarmed techniques in many systems (in a manner not mentioned or given a few lines at most by many of our current articles on the CMA), or they no longer exist in a formalized context. Am I off my rocker? Do we need expansion on this field in our articlespace? What's up? -Toptomcat 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

From my personal experience, weaponry tends to be taught as an addition to unarmed martial arts (or certainly under the same banner) - making it difficult to separate a "weapon art" as a whole except as small isolated forms which don't really have enough verifiable material available to justify articles. Some arts have integrated weapons also, making categorisation a nightmare. I don't think we've restricted ourselves really. -- Medains 15:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

New stub

Recently I have created the stub for Baduanjin qigong. I have quite a bit of expansion in the works, including taking some photos, but I really need Chinese characters. Thanks VanTucky ^Talk 01:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Joining the project

I would like to join this project. Angie Y. 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the project, just add your name at WP:WPMA/P. Bradford44 20:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Userbox problem

The userbox code contains and extra line break (<br>) that was causing weird formatting issues. I created my own template which moved that line break to the noinclude section. The resulting code is as follows:

<div style="float:left; border:solid #808080 1px; margin: 1px;">
{| cellspacing="0" style="width:238px;background:#8b0000"
| style="width:45px;height:45px;background:#ffffff;text-align:center;font-size:11pt;color:red" | [[Image:Yin yang.svg|40px]]
| style="font-size:8pt;padding:2pt;line-height:1.25em;color:red;" | This user is a member of the '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts|<span style="color:#3399dd">Martial arts WikiProject</span>]]'''.
|}</div><includeonly>[[Category:WikiProject Martial arts participants|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
<noinclude><br/><br/><br/>This template will categorize articles that include it into [[:Category:WikiProject Martial arts participants]].</noinclude><noinclude>
<!-- Image is on GNU Free Documentation License -->
</noinclude>

I would suggest that we change the userbox here to avoid that extra line break (I didn't want to change it without consulting everyone else). The line break forces a non-optional break after the userbox, meaning that nothing can follow it in a table or other scenario while being formatted correctly. WDavis1911 23:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you should feel free to be bold and fix it. Bradford44 14:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well I changed the userbox so that it the formatting is similar to the majority of other userboxes, that is, it doesn't force a carriage return afterwards anymore. This will probably break the formatting on those who created work-arounds or were depending on that carriage return (just add a <br> afterwards if so). Userboxes should allow the user to decide whether they want that carriage return afterwards, and the former caused problems if you wanted anything to come directly after the userbox (like another box). Anyway, hope this helps more than hurts :) WDavis1911 16:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)