This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) at 00:11, 29 July 2009 (question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:11, 29 July 2009 by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) (question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Martial arts and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
Misplaced Pages 0.7 articles have been selected for Martial arts
Misplaced Pages 0.7 is a collection of English Misplaced Pages articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Misplaced Pages talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Misplaced Pages 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Contradiction?
Per our guidelines, we of course do not allow titles, etc. used in the articles (i.e. "Master so and so" or "Sensei so and so". But it seems like the "Ranking" section in the Martial artist infobox contradicts this with the inclusion of "ranking", or at least is being used in some articles as such. I.E. I've it filled in with "Grandmaster" in some articles. What was the actual intent for including "ranking" and was it to include things like "master", "grandmaster", etc.? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think this is a contradiction. In the articles, we prohibit titles used preceding names. "Master so and so" is not allowed, but I think having one sentence saying "So and so holds the title of master" is okay. The purpose of the "Rank" field in {{Infobox martial artist}} is for a title such as one listed in Japanese honorifics#Martial arts titles along with a rank such as one listed in Dan (rank)#Modern usage in martial arts. I don't think terms like Grandmaster or Master are beneficial to include. --Scott Alter 03:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Scott on this, stating what rank people hold is different from honorific usage, ideally it should be sorted, but that's a separate (& messy) issue. This was based on Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (biographies)#Honorific prefixes so stating the existence & using it are separate, e.g. Stephen Hawking is refereed to as Hawking in the article not as Professor Hawking, Dr. Hawking, 'The Professor' etc, but his PHD and his position as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics are noted (& referenced) in the article. --Nate1481 11:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
That's my question though - some people are simply filling it in with "Grandmaster" and "Master". I'm taking it that should be removed? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- I see your point, for if an art has a formal system like judo then the dan(kyu?) rank or equivalent should be included. I would consider leaving it blank for others bu somtimes allowing it in the info box is the best concession to prevent having to revert changes to 'grandmaster soandso' on every instance in the page... I think we need to make a call here then put that decision in the template docs.--Nate1481 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Two brief thoughts: (1) many martial art styles/organisations do not use a Dan ranking system, and in these situations I think it fair to use a title if it can be reasonably established that such a title is commonly used for the subject; and (2) given the notability requirement, it is likely that any subject whose article remains in Misplaced Pages (after some checking/review) is not some relatively obscure person without just claim to such a title. Janggeom (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Understood, I'm just concerned with such titles in relation to Chinese martial arts. There are of course no traditional rankings (though some organizations have adopted a structure), but some try and misappropriate the familial terminology as rankings (Sibak, Sigung, etc.) I.E. there is no term for "grandmaster", and Sigung is used by some to refer to that. There is Sijo, but that's more akin to a family founder, and there can be only one (no pun intended). So when I see such titles as "gransmaster" in Chinese martial arts articles or infoboxes, I have to take pause and ask where that's coming from. Here's an article that sums it up as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd say we ask for cites & clarify this in the documentation, if something is obvious wrong, e.g. the current claimed head who is not the founder is using Sijo remove it with an explanation. Asking for a citation is a reasonable line as there should be one in the article that can just be re-used & if not then it means the article is on shaky ground anyway so finding one will be an improvement. --Nate1481 07:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- How do you find citation for a person being a title that is being self proclaimed? I.E. if there's no term in Chinese for "grandmaster" and you have well known instructors calling themselves that? You can certainly find citation of published resources where they're referred to or promote themselves as such, but I wouldn't call that a valid citation for anything other than they refer to themselves as that. It becomes circular. Where do you draw the line then?
- I'd say we ask for cites & clarify this in the documentation, if something is obvious wrong, e.g. the current claimed head who is not the founder is using Sijo remove it with an explanation. Asking for a citation is a reasonable line as there should be one in the article that can just be re-used & if not then it means the article is on shaky ground anyway so finding one will be an improvement. --Nate1481 07:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Understood, I'm just concerned with such titles in relation to Chinese martial arts. There are of course no traditional rankings (though some organizations have adopted a structure), but some try and misappropriate the familial terminology as rankings (Sibak, Sigung, etc.) I.E. there is no term for "grandmaster", and Sigung is used by some to refer to that. There is Sijo, but that's more akin to a family founder, and there can be only one (no pun intended). So when I see such titles as "gransmaster" in Chinese martial arts articles or infoboxes, I have to take pause and ask where that's coming from. Here's an article that sums it up as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- Two brief thoughts: (1) many martial art styles/organisations do not use a Dan ranking system, and in these situations I think it fair to use a title if it can be reasonably established that such a title is commonly used for the subject; and (2) given the notability requirement, it is likely that any subject whose article remains in Misplaced Pages (after some checking/review) is not some relatively obscure person without just claim to such a title. Janggeom (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- About the closest thing to a "Grandmaster" in Chinese martial arts is the "Jeung Moon Yan" or gatekeeper, a person chosen to be the "head teacher" or keeper of the family, where they receive the family's inherited documents, altar, etc. until they pass it on some day. In comparison, there's no way some of the "grandmasters" in the Yip Man family for instance, have any sort of documentation from Yip Man proclaiming themselves a made up descriptive. However their followers will most likely use circular reasoning and point to these people's websites or articles on them where they are referred to as "Grandmaster so and so". If its a self-proclaimed title, not native to the language or art, I'd call that more advertising then anything then if its included here.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- As far as the usage & equivalent is concerned, if they don't hold a rank leave it blank :) if they have an alternate rank use that rather than 'grand master (see grandmaster (martial arts) for why I think it's generic use is bad. On self proclaimed ones, I think the best we can do is have sources that it is commonly used, this will effectively discriminate against those who have only done so recently and/or who have few students, so seems fair... Then if you are a self proclaimed grandmaster (or equivalent) you have to do without the rank in the box.--Nate1481 10:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- About the closest thing to a "Grandmaster" in Chinese martial arts is the "Jeung Moon Yan" or gatekeeper, a person chosen to be the "head teacher" or keeper of the family, where they receive the family's inherited documents, altar, etc. until they pass it on some day. In comparison, there's no way some of the "grandmasters" in the Yip Man family for instance, have any sort of documentation from Yip Man proclaiming themselves a made up descriptive. However their followers will most likely use circular reasoning and point to these people's websites or articles on them where they are referred to as "Grandmaster so and so". If its a self-proclaimed title, not native to the language or art, I'd call that more advertising then anything then if its included here.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Karate
I have re-written the lead of the article and I believe that finally all the tags have been removed from the article. In line with the goals of Focus articles for Summer-Autumn 2007<g>, could I ask the general MA community for comments on the article and to consider an upgrade to B Class? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks fine for a b-class to me, promoted... --Nate1481 10:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you! jmcw (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Cai li fo
Anyone have time for a clean up project on a CMA article? --Nate1481 09:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Crane
Should the Crane (martial arts) become a redirect to Fujian White Crane? Now it is redirecting to crane which gives not much help for the use of the word crane in martial artes topics.--Stone (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- I think so. You're right in creating the redirection of Crane (martial arts). The only question in my opinion is whether to link it to Fujian White Crane or Lama (martial art). If you look at both pages, Fujian White Crane has the line: "This article is about the Fujian style of White Crane. For the Tibetan style, see Lama (martial art)." and Lama (martial art) does not. I think redirecting to Fujian is the correct choice for now. In the future, maybe a Crane (martial arts) disambiguation page is necessary. Not sure... Ryt 007 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Recognized Content
I improved the recognized content section of this project's article page. I assessed the 3 unassessed articles. Retiarius is now a Featured Article-class article. Gladiator is now an A-class article. List of fictional organisations in Wuxia fiction is now a Start-class article. Feel free to discuss or change. I just didn't want them to remain unassessed.
I also updated the "articles by quality statistics" chart. It was not up to date, and apparently you have to manually change the numbers. I changed FA articles to 5, GA to 7, unassessed to 0, added A class, total, and assessed. I hope my numbers are right. They may not be...
I also added links to the quality assessment guidelines and the quality stats chart pages to the main project page. They could not be found anywhere on our pages, so I put them there for easy access. Should help a lot.
I also added Retiarius to the FA article list, and Kung Fu Panda to the good article list. Ryt 007 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Dim Mak
This article needs some serious work. Please take a look.Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Wong Shun Leung
I have revised Wong Shun Leung, which is currently listed in our project's Cleanup list. Please refer to the article's discussion page for details. The article should now be ready for reassessment. Janggeom (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wow. Impressive work. I'd like to assess this article as B-class. If no one objects or replies within 3 or 4 days, I will make the change. I believe it is B-class because of it's substantial, accurate, and thorough content. It is missing some very small things that would make it most likely an A class article, which does not make me consider C class because these details are minor. ~ Ryt 007 | 12:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your feedback. I think the article is very far from an A class article for a few reasons, including lack of reliable sourcing and lack of information on the subject apart from his martial arts career. You might consider comparing the article to existing martial arts B class articles, as a fellow editor once encouraged me to do in a similar situation with a different article. I haven't done this comparison for this article myself, so this is just a general comment on my part. Janggeom (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Great work on clean in up all the articles I had done some editing on Wong Shun Leung before giving up & it is really good to see it as a balanced readable article I'd say defiantly a B-class i.e. it needs some work but is well on the way. --Nate1481 10:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nice article - it reads well. Why is it marked as needing additional sources? almost every sentence has reference<g>. Agree on the B-Class rating. jmcw (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Very well everyone. I have given the article a B-class rating. Thanks for the advice Janggeom. ~ Ryt 007 | 12:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Regarding the refimprove tag, the article does need reliable sources for verification. Of the 37 references given, most are on-line sources that are either personal or organisational websites, or claim to reproduce magazine articles (but don't give a proper reference, including date, volume number, etc.). If several of those magazine articles could be verified and cited fully, that would be justification to remove the refimprove tag, in my opinion. This is one of those areas where Misplaced Pages policies and our field (martial arts) clash to some extent, since a lot of our information seems to exist only as personal recollections. Janggeom (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)