Talk:Jiu jitsu

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Martial arts

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles

Redirect to Jujutsu

This page should really just redirect to Jujutsu. "Jiu jitsu", Jiu-jitsu, Jiu-Jitsu and Jiu Jitsu are just traditional (obsolete) Hepburn romanization transcriptions of the word jūjutsu (柔術). Jūjutsu is the general concept of Japanese unarmed figthing, consisting of several styles, one of which is Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu as seen on Jujutsu#Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 07:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJJ is often referred to as simply 'jiu-jitsu' by practitioners and in the contect of MMA, using this spelling. I think differentiating here makes sense as all the other variants direct strait to jujutsu. BJJ is related to jujutsu through Judo and has some key differences from the Japanese forms, most notably the focus on ground work and use of sparring. A simple redirect could cause some confusion as those expecting to arrive a the BJJ article would not understand where they were. While I can see the argument to redirecting to the BJJ section I do not think it would be the best solution, a Dab header would be needed if this was either type of straight redirect. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Europe, many practitioners refer to their jujutsu style as jiu-jitsu. In Denmark and Germany jiu-jitsu usually refers to various styles of self-defense and ju-jutsu to German Ju-Jutsu. Its impossible to avoid confusion all-together, so the best cause is to establish a sound foundation. Both "BJJ" and "German Ju-Jutsu" are types of jujutsu, even if their origins are more complex. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 09:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly why this should be a dab not a redirect. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links/Maintenance with 104 incoming links, which means that as a dab it is in itself confusing. I've fixed a fair number of them, but often there's too little context to decide what was intended. Jiu-jitsu is ambiguous because it is a general term, and in these cases an article about the subject in general is preferable (i.e. jujutsu). Disambiguation could be done with a "Jiu-jitsu (disambiguation)" page. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 10:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed a large number of these with AWB and many if not most were from MMA fighter pages and referred to BJJ, as this is commonly referd to as simply 'Jiu jitsu' when announcing fighers styles, to someone not familia with both a simple redirect would have been misleading. More pages like this are likley to be created, mosly by peopel not familiar wiht wikipedia so this needs to be a DAB. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a redirect and a seperate jiu-jitsu (disambiguation) seem odd, as this would need to redirect to jiu-jitsu (disambiguation) for it to be useful which would be self defeating, i.e. creating a page for no reason, this page is not an article and there need to be a dab with the same title). This page provides ample information to people who know what they are looking for, and for those who are don't it links to the relevent articles for further details. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All possible variations of jiu/ju (-/ ) jitsu/jutsu should redirect to one page "jujutsu". That page can have a hatnote to a disambiguation page, if needed. The problem is that this dab has many incoming links, so it should definitely not redirect to another dab. I don't see any real need for the dab, though, since the confusion could easily be addressed on the Jujutsu page. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 12:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it works best as a dab. If someone types in jujutsu then they probably know they're looking for JJJ, but otherwise (and maybe even then) they should see a dab. JJL (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dab cleanup

I have performed the requested and needed Dab cleanup, without attention to whether the proposal to make the Dab into a Rdr has merit. If you feel the current revision of the Dab does a poor job, discuss that in this section. Editing a Dab page is a very different task from editing an article, and one editor has just demonstrated their incomprehension of those differences. The apparent contention about the direction of the accompanying page makes the complexity of the Dab'g issues more difficult, and is likely to make editing of the Dab by the disputants harmful. Please bring your reasons and concerns here on the talk page.
--Jerzy•t 09:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stripping an page to two links, with no explanation as to which is which (on two related topics), then coming to the talk page saying that people are incompetent and should edit elsewhere dose not seem helpful. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read the disambiguation Manual of style in detail before hence my initial mistakes, I just did and then edited the page appropriately. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With only two things to disambiguate, it still seems that a hatnote would be more efficient. Jiu jitsu can redirect to jujutsu (because outside the u.s. it usually refers to jujutsu), and the Jujutsu page can have the {{redirect}} hatnote (using the {{Redirect|REDIRECT|USE|PAGE}} syntax), the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu page can use the {{otheruses4}} hatnote, and this page becomes redundant. Bradford44 (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly in favor for that. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 11:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]