Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 18

Morihei Ueshiba

A push to get Morihei Ueshiba up to FA status has started with a request for Peer review.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear of a martial arts article due to be submitted for promotion; best wishes for that endeavour. Janggeom (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Now closed.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Shoei Miyazato

I came across this article and neither it nor my search found much in the way of significant independent coverage, but it seems like he might be notable. I would like to hear from people more knowledgeable in Japanese martial arts than I am.Mdtemp (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No mention of him in 100 Masters of Okinawan Karate by Hokama Tetsuhiro. Okinawan Karate by Mark Bishop mentions his teacher Katsuya Miyahira. jmcw (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Recognized in many Spanish language newspapers, refs added. He is shown as a student of Miyahira in Bishop and was actually his senior student for many decades until he split in 1996. Thousands of students in South America. Training partner with Seikichi Iha. The Ukulele Guy - Aggie80 (talk)

Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit

• image:Grandmaster Wong Kiew Kit.jpg
• image:Double Dragons Carry Pearl.jpg

have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Size of the template

An unknown user has taken it upon themselves to expand the martial arts template almost indiscriminately. I am not so sure that is a good idea as it would start to mirror the manav by country template which is horrible. I was in the mood for a mass revert but I see edit war so I would rather discuss it at the template talk page first.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Japanese martial arts

I also created a template for Japanese martial arts which does need populating. I took for inspiration the template for Chinese martial arts.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Dave Lowry (martial arts)

Came across this article where, it turns out, I added the only source over 3 years ago. I just added some tags and was thinking about putting it up for AfD. I'm not seeing notability, but I thought I'd come here first and ask others if his writings were notable. Papaursa (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed them but that does not mean it is notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• I regard him as a reliable source because other authors I regard as reliable sources refer to him. I have never come across a magazine with an article on who is a reliable source for Wikipedia. jmcw (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Even if he is a reliable source, and I don't know if he is or not, does that make him notable? Is there coverage about him? Papaursa (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:WPMA/N, there is no mention of authors. In Wikipedia:AUTHOR#Creative professionals, the first entry "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." works for me. jmcw (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

What about "5.Author of significant book(s) on their style; - e.g. a book that is recommended study for the art (e.g. by an organisation they do not lead) or by someone who is an artist from a different style and/or school, but beware vanity press."? Of course that may not cover authors of historical books, but I'm OK with your reasoning--if those citations are from reliable sources. If you've got some examples, please add them to the article because it looks pretty weak right now. Papaursa (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Shaolin Wahnam Institute

Article recreated after AFD Shaolin Wahnam Institute. I would appreciate more eyes on this article. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I saw that already. Almost put it back into AfD since it was in 2009 that the last AfD was done including the original reversion of the redirect. I would even suggest that a straight out deletion occur this time and will submit it some time today. The article itself seems to be an exercise in web hosting and the "Institute" itself really is not notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Done.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaolin Wahnam Institute (2nd nomination) is the right path for this jmcw (talk) 14:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

MA authors

I have often thought we could improve the project if we had a list of generaly accepted authors/sources. When explaining notability and reliable sources to a new editor, it would be valuable to have a list of sources to recommend. We do not (in general) have academic roots to MA. To write an article on "Great MA authors" would be POV and OR - to develop a project recommended list would not. What books do you have in your library? Why do you consider them reliable sources? jmcw (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Notability of Carter Hargrave

I do not see any strong references that I recognize. In some 'Grandmaster' organizations, rank can be purchased. Could someone knowledgeable in Jeet Kune Do comment on the quality of this articles references? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Although he doesn't seem to meet WP:MANOTE, when I first looked at his article I thought there would no trouble meeting WP:GNG. However, when I looked more closely there was less than first met the eye. Much of the coverage was local and referred to his being inducted into martial arts halls of fame and obtaining his grandmaster ranking. Previous consensus is that merely being in one of the myriad HOFs is not sufficient to show notability. As for his rank--it appears that the U.S. Martial Arts Assn. will test you for any rank for any martial arts style for a fee [1]. They will also certify you as an instructor in any style. The International Kung Fu Federation is based in Azerbaijan and will also certify your rank--apparently taking you from 1st dan to 10th dan in 9 years (1 year at each dan rank)--see the "IKF ranking system" at [2]. I have no knowledge about his JKD expertise. Papaursa (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

He should be AfD'd just for that picture. I have the same feeling about notability but my opinion is biased by a strong anti-posserness.Peter Rehse (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Subject easily meets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG for notability. He is listed on the board as a Master in the International Kung Fu federation as a notable Kung Fu Master from the Bruce Lee line for JKD , not that he received ranking from them, so its a valid third party source. As for the United States Martial Arts Association, they certified MMA Frank Shamrock http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Shamrock so there should be no issue if they confirmed Hargrave's rank or issued him a certificate, and they too are a valid third party source that is listed in other Wiki articles as references. AzzuriItalia3 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

He is well known in Kenpo circles as well as in the Jeet Kune Do area of martial arts. There are multiple news article / third party sources on him. I could understand if there was just one article or source, then a dispute on notability would be warranted, but with so many news sources and other third party sources it looks as if he exceeds the notability standard set forth in the Wiki GNG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG. I dont know if he would meet the WP-MANOTE standard, he is head of a martial art (American Combat Kenpo) but I don't see any documentary on that art. He heads a Jeet Kune Do organization / association, and has done so for a long time but again I cat find any independent story on that so the MANOTE would be questionable, but I think he gets the WP-GNG for notability. Wikifan115 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The Jeet Kune Do world has little to do with standard martial arts as a whole, and as such most of the martial arts WP editors have little to no experience whatsoever in the art, or what to think of the references, and have no basis to judge the subject Jeet Kune Do article. The flag on the article pretty much sums up the problem that most editors don't know the subject and don't recognize the references. That does not make the references any less valid. What the editors must understand is the nature of the art and the instructors. They for the most part are not a party to many articles or publicity. They can be hugely notable in the field, yet have almost no citations. Many of the main players in JKD are not even mentioned on WP at all or until they die, and the articles would be deleted if they were still living due to poor references. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Wong and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Poteet -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Yimm_Lee ,while very notable, and crucial to the history of JKD, would not meet WP:MANOTE or barely meet the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GNG if at all. For this subject (Hargrave) to have this many valid references that I feel exceed the basics for the notability in WP-GNG is out of the ordinary for the Jeet Kune Do teacher. --Flaviohmg (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I remain unimpressed with the sources. Notability on WP is clearly defined, and it's not by people in a small circle of devotees saying he's notable. However, this is not the hill I choose to die on. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Lineage Expansion under Kuo Lien Ying

There are many disciples under Kuo who have received the full transmission of his teachings and I would like to recommend Kwok Wo Ngai and his top student, head of Kwok Family Lineage Dr. G. S. Torres. http://www.phoenixdragonkungfu.com

His credentials are authentic and he should be mentioned in this article for people to find him as he is the current head of lineage and the hands down the best, most certified lineage holder of the complete Guang Ping Yang Tai Chi Chuan system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.77.120 (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Systema

As per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Systema, I have attempted to merge Ryabko's Systema into Systema. I have also attempted to add plenty of sources to show that Systema meets WP:GNG. I would appreciate it if other editors took a look at my work and fixed/improved upon it.

It looks much better - thanks! jmcw (talk) 20:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Much as I don't like the idea of a ban in this case I really see no alternative but to propose one. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Topic Ban (Martial arts) for Kontoreg and comment if you will either pro (yes you are right) or con (you are way to sensitive).Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Frank Massar

Could I ask for more eyes on the article Frank Massar? It reads like a fan site but I do not want to come down too harshly on a new editor. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I know from the AfD discussion the article's creator is obviously a fan, probably a student, so there's a COI issue. However, it's also clear that Massar meets WP:GNG--I added the original media coverage section. So the article could probably use some clean-up, but it should not be up for another deletion discussion. Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Ninja#Gorbylev

I invite you to participate in the discussion. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

T'ai chi ch'aun lineage tree templates

Hi guys, I made a number of lineage trees for t'ai chi ch'uan, depicting the passing down of the art through the generations. I was propagating the trees to various sub-pages, but then realised it may be better to make a template page for each tree, that the respective pages will simply link to, in order to display them on each page. That way, an amendment to a tree would be immediate on all the pages, without needing to re-edit each page. Is this an appropriate way to go & if so, please can someone tell me what I have to do to get this done, or point me to the necessary information, as I'm not familiar with how to go about it. Thanks in advance. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just looking at that today with the same thought. The lineage tree format does not really fit into any template I have seen before but yes if it could be done it wold be a far more clever approach. I like the way it looks now and would prefer anything we come up with maintains that. My wiki limit has been reached today but I will see if I can help tmr if you have not managed it by thenPeter Rehse (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This was easier than I thought and risking wrath of wife please take a look at Yang-style t'ai chi ch'uan. I just created a template and moved the chart into it. It looks exactly the same.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi and thanks, but umm... you seemed to have jumped the gun a little. The page creation is not what I'm unsure about, it's all the linking into the categories, etc, that I want to have done correctly from the start. Also, the naming of the template pages has to be contextually accurate, in this case it should have been "Yang-style t'ai chi ch'uan lineage tree". I'll have to make a page move and go from there, but thanks for your enthusiasm. ;) ~ InferKNOX (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

After researching the history of other templates, I think I got the gist of what is necessary, so I'll handle migrating the rest of the that trees I made for taijiquan, thanks. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It was just to get you started. I know categories need to be added and the rest are yours.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. It gave me the kick I needed to get going in the right direction & it's been progressing well, since. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said - I seem to have had the same idea at the same time so happy to help - let me know if you do need some but with this sort of thing it is best one person does a grand sweep and they are your creations. CheersPeter Rehse (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Empty Source

I defer to your expertise project, but this article looks like non-notable nonsense to me - what say you? Empty_Force - " The very concept of the technique is but a piece of what is possible with the mastery of Telekinesis." --_nonsense ferret 21:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well it passed an AfD debate although barely. It could be re-submitted - the term is only referenced to one author but a quick check shows that its use is broader.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

OK I think this is worth taking back to an AfD debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty Force (2nd nomination)Peter Rehse (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Mulan"

The meaning of "Mulan" is under discussion, see talk:Mulan (disambiguation) -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Systema merged into Russian martial arts

I see that Systema was recently redirected and merged. I just undid that edit because I believe consensus was to have an individual article on Systema. If I'm wrong, then someone can reverse my undo, but otherwise it might be a good idea to keep an eye on that article. Papaursa (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Ambiguity about origin of martial artist vs martial art

The metadata for the Persondata template has me at an impasse. I have generally deferred to "Chinese martial artist" for the short description, since I've been dealing with Chinese individuals that are practitioners of Chinese martial arts. The issue is, however, that "Chinese martial artist" has several of potential meanings:

• martial artist that practises a Chinese martial art
• an individual of Chinese nationality that practises any martial art
• an individual of Chinese decent that practices any martial art
• all of the above or any combination thereof.

I would thus like to ask which context to use in the short description, whether it's the person's nationality, decent or the martial art they practise that should be written. I would also like to recommend that some sort of list be made on the WikiProject Martial arts page of what the appropriate set of answers are for the Persondata short description. That is, if an individual is of Japanese decent, lives in Britain & practises taijiquan, is the write-up to be:

• Japanese martial artist;
• British martial artist;
• Chinese martial artist;
• Japanese taijiquan practitioner;
• British taijiquan practitioner;
• Japanese-British martial artist; or
• Japanese-British taijiquan practitioner?

I think specifying the martial art may be a mistake though, as an individual may practise multiple martial arts. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The way the categories are set up it is the nationality of the practitioner followed by what they are practicing - Persondata should be the same. In the example above Japanese taijiquan practitioner makes the most sense.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I too would go with the subject's nationality. Whether to call your test case "Japanese", "British" or "Japanese-British" depends on the details. If the individual is Japanese and just happens to live in Britain at the moment, I'd go with the former; if she's British born to Japanese parents, the latter. Personally I'd try to avoid "mixed" terms unless the mixture itself is somehow significant. Huon (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to shed light on how to go about it, guys. How about if the individual practises several different martial arts? ~ InferKNOX (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with using the subject's nationality, where nationality is based on citizenship, if known. If they've studied several martial arts, I'd say, for example, they're a "British martial artist that has studied taijiquan and Krav Maga" (or words to that effect). Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to keep it short. The Persondata example, Magellan, gets no more than "Sea explorer". At that level of detail, "British martial artist" will do. Huon (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry, but I was thinking about actual text not the abbreviated synopsis of the infobox. For that it might be reasonable to not even put in the nationality since other fields contain place of birth, death, etc. "Martial artist" seems sufficient for a nutshell summary. Papaursa (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason I ask is because I feel, as it is metadata, it may be detrimental to make it too vague and/or too specified. For example, describing Sun Lutang as "Chinese taijiquan practitioner," will be too specific in that it will ignore his baguazhang & xingyiquan presence, despite the fact that his greatest point of recognition is founding Sun-style taijiquan. At the same time, describing Chen Fake as "martial artist," may be too vague, as he is known for Chen-style taijiquan. I also feel that in the case where the metadata is used in searches, it may either cause (from the example above) Sun Lutang and Chen Fake to be listed in different search results (in the case of being over-specific), despite being common to taijiquan, or be in search results with too many hits (in the case of being too vague).

I will stick to "[nationality] martial artist" for the description, based on the feedback you guys have given me & in the interest of striking a balance between being specific & not excluding/separating the martial artists from their arts and/or those in the same category. Thanks. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Large deletion of T'ai chi ch'uan's long-standing health section

There is a discussion happening by WP:FT/N#T'ai chi – neutrality & sourcing regarding a huge deletion of the health benefits section on the taijiquan article by Alexbrn ^talk, on the basis that the "content was out-dated, superseded, or poorly-sourced".
Please join the discussion. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)