Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 9

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

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

If anyone is confused - this was over the sidebar and martialartsproject banner logo changed to a wikipedia logo with a superimposed tao symbol by Mekugi. I have reverted. If anyone feels that the project should have a logo change, the correct place to bring it up is to discuss it here...
Mekugi's logo looks like... Wikipedia-logo-Martial-Arts.gif
The current logo looks like... Yin yang.svg
Discuss -- Medains 15:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
As part of a project I don't see the issue with using the wiki image esp as I imagin it falls under one of the open licences used for most content. --Nate1481( t/c) 10:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
How can something considered a part of Wikipedia violate its own copyright policies? This project isn't a seperate entity to Wikipedia, so it to me it doesn't stand to reason. If someone doesn't like the logo, and all feel it is better off with the old one that is okay...different subject though. I thought it tied together nicely with the theme...although the Dao does show up clearer.
Mekugi 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is not in violation at all. But I think the Taijitu (yin-yang) symbol is clearer or at least more recognizable than the other. If the average person came across the wiki/taijitu symbol, they would have no idea what it is. --Ghostexorcist 12:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Did this discussion die out? I'd say I preferred Mekugi's one as it's more original the yin-yang could be a bit more defined but I prefer it overall --Nate1481( t/c) 14:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I really liked Mekugi's idea, but the actual image wasn't quite crisp or distinctive enough for me. I certainly encourage Mekugi to try to re-work it a bit though, it's got potential. Bradford44 17:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I created a logo based on Mekugi's idea. I think it looks a bit more crisp. Wikipedia-logo-Martial-Arts.png Please feel free to comment and/or change it! - Nmnogueira 17:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
That one is a little more pronounced, so it could work. --Ghostexorcist 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
looks good, both are clear & if is a bit more interesting, can we put it up?--Nate1481( t/c) 09:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
More comments or I'm going to start changing to it as it looks pretty :) --Nate1481( t/c) 16:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work, Mekugi and Nmnogueira. Janggeom 15:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Got board of waiting & change it. --Nate1481( t/c) 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Following a suggestion from Mekugi, I created a new version with transparent background. I think this version suits better when used with non-white backgrounds, e.g. as in Template:Martialartsproject. - Nmnogueira (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Much better, thank you! Bradford44 (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Great! Thank Nmogueira! --Nate1481( t/c) 17:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved {{infobox martial art school}} → {{infobox koryu}}

Hi everyone, just wanted to give you all a heads-up that I moved {{infobox martial art school}} back to its original location at {{infobox koryu}}, due to various discussions that it contained fields inappropriate or redundant in non-koryu applications.

Also, I noticed that {{infobox martial art group}} has been created as a more generic template for martial arts schools and organizations. It looks pretty good to me, though perhaps could use a tweak here or there. Also, if everyone likes, it could be moved into the "infobox martial art school" location once the articles using the old template have been changed to the new one. Bradford44 16:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a rendering problem with {{infobox martial art group}} whereby the logo is drawn outside the infobox, rather than inside it. (The image field, however, works as expected.) I don't have the knowledge to be able to fix this, but perhaps someone else could implement a correction; thanks. Janggeom 13:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I just fixed the image problem. It seems to work now. And I agree with moving {{infobox martial art group}} to {{infobox martial art school}} once the koryu articles have their template changed. --Scott Alter 00:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. Janggeom 15:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are needed

There is a heavy writing of Silat in the last few days. One user insists to separate Silat and Pencak Silat with his/her limited view from one country POV, while others are trying to combine them. A consensus is needed whether to merge or to separate these two articles in order to avoid any unilateral acts in the future. Your comments are needed here: Talk:Silat#Merge_between_Silat_and_Pencak_Silat. Thank you. — Indon (reply) — 08:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion actually appears to be on the Talk:Silat_(Malaysian_martial_arts) page - which is a third article. -- Medains 10:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

{{Infobox martial art group}} vs {{Infobox martial art}}

I see {{Infobox martial art group}} being used for what I see as "types" of martial arts (e.g. Tang Soo Do). {{Infobox martial art}} was created with this objective, so isn't this an overuse of the other template? All the fields include in the martial art infobox are also in the martial art group infobox, couldn't there be a merge between the two infoboxes (the first seems more generic, so maybe delete infobox martial art)? I think there's some redundancy in having two templates which share the same fields. - Nmnogueira 00:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Your assessment of the current state of things is correct. However, in theory the objective is to have one infobox for "types" ({{infobox martial art}}) and one for schools/organizations/groups ({{infobox martial art group}}). In fact, {{infobox martial art school}} is currently being removed from articles using it so that "group" can be moved there. See the section titled "Moved {{infobox martial art school}} → {{infobox koryu}}", above. Please also see Template talk:Infobox martial art group, for a list of things changes I suggested to the template to improve it for its intended use with schools and organizations (as much commentary as possible would be appreciated), which should also have the effect of removing redundancies between it and {{|infobox martial art}}. Bradford44 14:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox 'style' field

From this discussion I have update the template and articles using it, have there been any problems with this. --Nate1481( t/c) 17:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was a good change, keep up the good work. Bradford44 20:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Write Day of the Month.

I propose that we pick a day, extending from australia time to whenever (so it would be more than 24 hours) where we all research and try to improve 1 article. Have the article be well known in advance so we all have time to research it. Then on that day, we all try to make our edits and see if we can improve the article. Thoughts? Tkjazzer 01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Not such a good idea - since having a day to make the edits will tend to cause edit-clashes. Certainly pick an article one month for improvement in the following month (so you have a month to research, then a month to make the edits and discuss them - and those not editing can drop by and make suggestions for improvement in the talk page). -- Medains 10:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I have done some editing and added citations to Isshin-ryū. I have removed {nofootnotes} and {external links}. Could someone take a look and maybe assign a class? I think it is at least a start-class now - any comments on what it would take to get it to b-class would be appreciated. jmcw 08:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking good did an Auto review on it i'd say it's up to b and definitely so if you can fix those few of things --Nate1481( t/c) 12:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Advanced commando combat system

Input would be useful, just to make sure it's not just my over-active imagination seeing puppets and advertising. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Puppets, maybe. Advertising, the whole tone of the article is very "civilian bad, military good" - it needs a rewrite. Especially since about half of the article is lifted with little editing from the second reference! The references could also do with a spring clean, the commendations for the Rao's have little relevance to ACCS - I'd drop all the references, simply due to the difficulty verifying authenticity of scanned letters. (Copying this to the talk page) -- Medains 09:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Also note that some of the letters are from one Rao to the other... --Nate1481( t/c) 11:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I'd guess that the "Prof Dr Deepak Rao" at the bottom of the letters is not a signature as might be expected from a western letter format, but the address of the recipient ready for the letter to be folded -- Medains (talk) 10:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability of "Japanese kickboxing"?

New stub for the project on Japanese kickboxing. Doesn't seem notable to me, as it's just about how kickboxing is conducted in Japan. VanTucky Talk 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It dose look like it would be better as a sub-section of Kickboxing if anywhere. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

New stub

I seriously doubt that Nippon Shorin Ryu Kenpo is notable, but I am not in the mood to deal with it right now. VanTucky Talk 22:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Techniques, notability and stub articles

Hey guys, I just noticed that Beng Quan was created a couple of months ago. Whilst Xingyiquan is my style, I don't think that an individual technique merits its own article. I am also wary about such articles forming an "instruction manual".

Before putting it up as an AfD, I thought I'd canvas the project and see if we can set some guidelines. When is an individual technique notable? What should we do about technique articles that already exist?

I've had a quick poke through other technique articles, and though some have an illustration or picture - very few merit even "Start" class.

Thoughts and comments? -- Medains (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As a section in Xingyiquan techniques or in the Xingyiquan article it might be good, but probably not worth its own article. A group of techniques like Sweeps (see below in about 5 mins) could make an article especially if its inter-art, or a list of techniques related to an art, as mentioned above. Lots of Judo throws had their own articles, most in a bad way, combining them would also be a good plan as it preserves the info to be linked to, but doesn't leave dozens of half written articles. Nate1481( t/c) 14:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a great question: what makes a technique notable? Obviously punch and kick are notable techniques, as those subjects are generic and universal. However, at present, there are specific articles for techniques such as front stance and knifehand strike (which at least cover multiple nationalities, as well as obeying WP:ENGLISH), but what about the literally 100+ List of Kodokan Judo techniques and List of Danzan-ryū techniques? Admittedly, most of the techniques in those lists have probably been included or discussed in dozens or more books written about these martial arts. That would satisfy notability for most subjects. Should we impose a higher standard? My suggestion (elaborating on Nate's) would be that instead, we make an effort to merge the various techniques into English-language categories with English-language article titles, such as Hip throw or Shoulder throw, etc... That should cover 90% or more of the techniques, and the really odd techniques that are unclassifiable can keep their own articles (if there are secondary sources supporting notability). Bradford44 (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

D'Antonio David

Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article D'Antonio David, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of D'Antonio David. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 14:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

There is already a brief discussion on Talk:D'Antonio David#Should this page be deleted about the template. --Nate1481( t/c) 14:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I came here from there. I wasn't aware if the project was automatically updated with details of PRODs. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 17:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Not it's not, it should probably be added here but it's not automatic. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah! OK, I've come across deletion sorting before whilst initiating Afds but never understood it, thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 12:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sweep (martial arts)

Just merged the take down & the grappling move as the were both tiny and this avoids duplication, could do with a clean/check up though --Nate1481( t/c) 15:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox koryu revisited

I've been working on {{infobox koryu}} in my sandbox, rewriting the code for it from scratch so that it uses wikicode instead of the mix of wiki and html that it currently uses, and to make it a closer visual match to our other infoboxes, such as {{infobox martial art}} and {{infobox martial artist}}. I've eliminated the "nationality" field, which is unnecessary now that the template is exclusively for Japanese schools. I've also eliminated separate fields for dates of birth of the founder and current headmaster, with the intent that they merely be included inline in accordance with relevant manual of styles, instead of in separate cells. I've also added fields for the location that the koryu was founded, as well as its current headquarters (which will often be in the same physical location, but have a completely different name). I've also added a field for "assimilated schools" which several articles were inelegantly trying to squeeze into the current template. Unfortunately, I've also created at least on problem, which is that my new version of the template is creating whitespace at the end of the "arts taught" section. Apparantly, I don't have the wikiskills to figure out how to fix this, so help is appreciated. At any rate, the new template is located at

and a list of parameters, and side by side examples of the old vs. the new version can be seen at:

Any input is most appreciated. Bradford44 (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better, the white space isn't to bad but no idea how to fix sorry, is this any use? --Nate1481( t/c) 11:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Soo Bahk Do

This edit here from SooBahkDo was placed on Soo Bahk Do and Tang Soo Do. I removed it and this notice was placed on my talk page. I then contacted SooBahkDo here and received a reply what should be done? Harland1 18:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of important issues with regard to that edit.
  • It is important to understand that any legal threats contained within that post are essentially meaningless insofar as wikipedia or its editors are concerned. A trademark can only be infringed when it is used in connection with the sale of goods or services. Obviously no commerce is going on here, so there is nothing wrong with writing the names of or otherwise discussing Soo Bahk Do, Tang Soo Do, or Moo Duk Kwan to our hearts' content.
  • Despite the abrasive manner in which the editor in question has proceeded thus far, at least one point raised has merit. If an article is about an organization with a registered trademark, should this be noted in the article (sans legal threats, of course)? MOS:TM provides no guidance on this point, except to say that it is inappropriate to tag terms with ™ or ® (the purpose of these symbols is for the trademark owner to warn potential infringers - they are irrelevant to non-owners). My conclusion is that it would be appropriate to note, in a single sentence, that "X" combination of words is a registered trademark of "Y" person or company, IF a reliable secondary source is provided; preferably an actual registration number or code with the appropriate U.S. Government office, not just a claim on the organization's website.
Bradford44 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, it is listed on the US Patent and Trademark Office: --Cubbi 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
link is (annoyingly) auto-logon sensitive so won't work but I found the same things, how dose this work with logos? p.s. posted this before I saw this discussion, as I was running out of ideas & legal threats are generally bad. --Nate1481( t/c) 11:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's have this discussion exclusively at Talk:Moo Duk Kwan#Trademark Discussion, and not continue it here. Bradford44 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

American Taekwondo Federation

The article American Taekwondo Federation appears to be basically an ad for a Las Vegas Taekwondo dojang, and possibly will be deleted. However, the article may contain some content that we wish to include in other articles. (However please check for copyvios first.) -- Writtenonsand 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The only apparently original content in this article appears to be advertising (note the use of registered trademark symbols). Janggeom (talk) 13:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


I've been tweaking our guide lines again, can you guys have a look, the next step when we are all happy would be to try and get it as a formal policy we can cite in AfD's etc. Link --Nate1481( t/c) 12:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

POKE Any problems? If not can some one tell me how to get them as a sub policy please. --Nate1481( t/c) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
No problems... I've put up an RfC on the notability page to get some feedback in order to get it adopted as an official guideline. -- Medains (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of martial arts-related topics

Could do with a clean up & decide if we need to keep or delete it as its a bit o a hodge-podge of things at the moment --Nate1481( t/c) 10:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Broken links at BJJ.ORG

Does anyone have any suggestions what to do about all the broken links to BJJ.ORG that are in many of the articles? They all redirect to For example, go to Roger Gracie and click on any of the four links under the heading Gracie lineage. --David Broadfoot (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Kadochnikov's Systema

It appears that there is some controvery in the Kadochnikov Systema martial art. It appears that Kadochnikov founded an international organization with Vadim Starov, then Kadochnikov left that organization and wants Starov to remove the use of his name to his website, martial art system, etc, etc.

Please read the statement here (scroll down for english version): which is from the forums of the official site:

It appears that is the organization that Kadochnikov left and is now run by Vadim Starov. also see Starov's site:

I propose that we recruit some Russian Wikipedia Project(s) to help us with the translations from the official Russian websites so that we can get the real story about this controversy in the Martial arts world. I ask you to please help. I, personally, think it is wrong to use someone else's name when that person left - that is just me, though. (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I've found: Tkjazzer (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Running & hidding

Just to let people know I'm going into hiding till January (been on to much & access will be difficult over Christmas) Though I'd post here as it's where I'm most active, may still be on email occasionally --Nate1481( t/c) 17:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sherdog a reliable source?

There has been some discussion on whether or not sherdog can be considered a reliable source for wiki articles. Perhaps some discussion should take place here. --Mista-X (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

slightly more recent update of Mr. Hess

this will probably be deleted but a friend at my work brought up that he fights mma and it brought to memory an overweight, cocky, assistant teacher i had my senior year at a continuation school. he liked to brag a lot about his fighting skill and also mentioned that he was undefeated, i told my coworker his name and he knew all about john hess —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

An amusing anecdote, but hardly evidence supporting or opposing a deletion of the article ;) We're not going to delete your comment on a whim, though it will probably get archived soon since the talk page is becoming long again. -- Medains (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)