Template talk:Martial arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Martial arts (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is part of the Wikipedia Martial arts Project. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

What should be included?

Currently the template included every thing from 'start' class up, is this sensible of should we restrict it to 'b' class and up, as it is getting very full. --Nate1481( t/c) 17:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By my count there are currently 83 articles in the template, how many would be removed and how many would remain if we changed to a "B-class or better" standard? Bradford44 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please see:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts#MA_nav_boxes --Nate1481(t/c) 08:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Sambo MMA?

Sambo is listed as grappling in the box, but it includes punching and kicking, so I think it should be listed as a mixed art instead of grappling arts. --RisingSunWiki 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


Stale: Moot issue.

Sorry but the article is big enough, it's not a start anymore.

Yes it has no English references but: 1. It all was referenced and translated. I sat the whole day and made shure every claim has a source, I brought the quote, and translated the quote. 2. The article is to big to be a start.

It's not a FA, not a GA, and not an A. But it's for shure a C. Kostan1 (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment is not the about length of the article but about it's quality, and currently there is not a single source accessible to the majority of readers of editors on the English wikipedia. I there fore agree with Bradford that it is not yet a c-class article. Please look at the definition of the different classes and examples here --Nate1481(t/c) 13:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
But that means that even theoreticaly that article cant turn into a C-class. Not only that, when Bradford reverted me the article was realy weak. But now all the quotes were brought and translated. Now the claim that the general Englsih speaker cant't check it is not true, for who I translated all for few hours? It's all in English now. Lets hear more voices. If people oposse now, I revert myself. Kostan1 (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No such article. Punch and other unarmed techniques are already included, and so is Boxing, to which Fistfight now redirects.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Pahlavani, Kurash, Koshti

Hello, I would like to discussion the inclusion, removal, name, and anything else in relation to these grappling arts and the template in question, the hope of avoiding any form of edit warring. The Scythian 17:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair request, so the following is my opinion on each of those:
  • Pahlavani - overall, it's a solid Start-class article, but lacks the depth necessary to be C-class. For example, there is virtually no detail regarding the actual techniques practiced and strategies employed, and the references leave much to be desired, and there are not enough of them. See Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu for a good example of a C-Class martial arts article.
  • Kurash - It has no references. This is an absolute requirement for C-Class.
  • Koshti - First, there is no article at Koshti, it is a redirect. Second, it redirects to Wrestling in Iran, which is clearly a stub. Third, "Wrestling in Iran" is more of a "style" of Wrestling (which is a "type" of martial art, and already in the template), not a "type" of martial art.
Thus, in my opinion, none of these belong in the template, which sets the threshold at C-Class and above, until they have been improved. Bradford44 (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, and I would like to work on the Pahlavani article, and expand on it with sources. So, that will be my next major project. Thanks for the explanation. The Scythian 19:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Current criteria is not good enough

You can't list articles on a navigation box because of quality. I came to this template looking for navigation and I couldn't find things I wanted, this template is to serve for navigation and therefore quality of the article should not be a factor for inclusion. —Borgarde 02:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The criteria were discussed by members of the martial arts project and felt that c-class (i.e. the lowest class that has been generally gone over and problems marked out) was a good line as it meant that the spam articles could be deleted on sight by anyone and anyone wanting to actually improve wikipedia and not just promote their (possibly non-notable) art would likley stick around long enought to get an article to c-class (not a high target). Also all the 'big' names Karate, Takwondo, Boxing, judo, Wrestling, wing chun... that the majority of people have come across are already at that level, there is also the 'List of martial arts which is a comprehansive list of articles (this should possibly be linked). Could you suggest an alternative criteria?--Nate1481 11:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is Kuk Sool Won not included?


I can't understand why this major Mixed/Hybrid Martial Art system is not included in the list of world wide hybrid martial art systems.

I am not an exponent of this martial art system so it cannot be suggested that I am biased. It is puzzling why it is not on the list.

Kuk Sool Won is an extensive and one could say complete martial art system.

I am sure most readers would agree it belongs on this list. I have tried to edit the list to add it but it is rejected.



It wasn't a C-class or better article at the time. It is now, so I added it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  02:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Kobudo added

Hello, I added Okinawan Kobudo to this list. --RedZiz (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

About Paralympic judo

What's the relationship and differenct from this sport and Judo?--Pierce (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but the article Paralympic judo does not meet the inclusion criteria clearly listed below the template. --Nate1481 10:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, since you think Paralympic judo is not belongs to Judo, please give me a resonsible reason.--Pierce (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you mean buy that. As far as I can tell you think that as Judo is on Paralympic judo should be too? The difference is that the article on Judo is more developed & this template is aimed at including the best articles as a way of keeping it to a sensible size.--Nate1481 15:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It's normal for nav templates of this sort to have inclusion criteria, and to not include either lower-quality articles (a measure of article development, not topical importance, though the latter often determines the former in practice), or essentially redundant/subtopical ones (Paralympic judo is just judo adapted to a particular context, and is linked to from the main Judo article).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


There appear to be different opinions about where to place aikido in this template. Does anyone have a reference from a high-ranked aikido teacher that aikido is 'grappling'? jmcw (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's break this down. Aikido cannot be omitted from this template, period. It's a featured article and a prominent martial art. So it must be restored. It doesn't fit well in weapons at all, as the vast majority of the techniques are preformed without a weapon. It is referred to as grappling in the article and listed as such in Template:Grappling. Looking at the Talk:Aikido archives, there is some recognition that it's not a perfect term, but the majority of contributors are in agreement that an art principally based on locks and throws is better called grappling than another category. It's not ground-based like judo, but stand up grappling is still grappling.
Indeed, you were the only one that vociferously objected. Also, I find your request to appeal to authority a logical fallacy; the POV of an insider is a poor one to maintain NPOV. Listing aikido as a grappling art is hardly OR, and your insistence as such is incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
A template without references is OR. Asserting that something must be in a template does not create WP:truth. Differences of opinion of editors should be resolved with reliable references. What reliable source asserts that aikido is grappling? jmcw (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Many, but I readily admit its not a perfect fit. If categorizing based on techniques, a throwing-and-locking art does fit a broad definition of grappling. The "qi" category is a good one, though. I think it's a good compromise. oknazevad (talk) 02:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you! I am glad we could include these other arts and I am glad we could move this forward. jmcw (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Maybe a little late to join the fray but Aikido is a form a jujutsu - it's parent art is Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu after all - and jujutsu is widely considered grappling. There should be no problem finding references to support that - I can find one from Kenji Tomiki easy enough. Qi itself is not really a technique no matter how you define it and although I understand the discomfort with grappling - qi has similar problems. Both can mean very broad or very specific things. I personally would not be unhappy calling it a Hybrid art (Kenji Tomiki classed Aikido techniques as Grappling and Striking) and would also be happy replacing Qi with Internal.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Here is the diagram I was thinking of http://homepage2.nifty.com/shodokan/en/. Actually if you look at it Aikido is not wholly encompassing grappling which he seems to feel requires a closer distance. So perhaps Hybrid is better. I still think Internal is better than Qi if you include those Chinese arts in the group.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no problem with naming it 'Internal' rather than 'Qi'. Over the past year I have objected to the dichotomy that every weapon-less martial art is either 'grappling' or 'striking'. Last June User:Dbachmann did a nice job of refreshing the template (and the community) and removing the dichotomy. May 15, the 'Striking' entry was re-introduced and the assumed dicotomy returned. I hope the new entry 'cures' the dichotomy for longer<g>. jmcw (talk) 10:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Calling it Hybrid would explode into a huge debate so let's just call in Internal and see how that is accepted. I find it hard to get worked up about a template but understand how hard it is to sometime fit all the pegs.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Just to clarify, the reason I re-added a striking section was the complete absence of a link to the general karate article. This posed two problems: first, the only specific karate link was to sport karate only, which hardly covers the breadth of the art, making the navbox incomplete; and secondly, because such a link is called for in the template's own documentation. In other words, the template is supposed to contain such high level links and omitting them kind of defeats the purpose. While I acknowledge that some may not like to do such, it is pretty conventional to classify martial arts in such a fashion, and Wikipedia should reflect such common classifications; it's hardly OR to do such. But a seperate category for arts whose focus is more internal does better reflect the nature of the arts, so an internal category is a good choice.

No critic was intended and I think we have fundamentally resolved the past problems with a third category. jmcw (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Size of the template

An unknown user has taken it upon themselves to expand the 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. Following the stated guidelines would help clear it up. I was in the mood for a mass revert but I see edit war so I would rather discuss it here first. For example I don't think this is the place to list all articles on wrestling when just Wrestling will do.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

@PRehse: Agreed that this template should be thematic, not geographical, and may need some rethinking in this regard.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:43, 13 June 2015 (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)

Template Clean-up

Resolved: The Bangladeshi martial arts stub was deleted, and now just redirects to Bangladesh.

I agree that Bangladeshi martial arts really does not belong on notability grounds but the argument that there are other non-C articles in the template has and will be raised again. I am going to start a clean-up of sub-C.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

DonePeter Rehse (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Hm. Might be a little too thorough. Some of the links removed, while not the best articles, are pretty fundamental concepts (like "punch") and probably should remain for completeness sake. It's definitely odd for there to be a link to kick but not one to punch. oknazevad (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Granted - I never got too bothered about the C requirement for that reason. Of course those articles might be promotable with little or no work. I just looked Punch (combat) is definitely promotable.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Kata = Forms, but Forms ≠ Kata

I'm sincerely shocked that within the template, training>forms, directs to kata. Where then does that leave taolu? It seems that the make-up of this template is in serious need of revision to make sure it's relevant to martial arts as a whole. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

@InferKNOX: I've raised a similar issue about this template's structure/categorization, here.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Two propositions for more helpful categorization and navigation

FYI: Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere

Please see WT:MARTIAL#Two propositions for more helpful categorization and navigation, which could affect the content/structure of this template.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  00:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Indochinese and Indonesia martial arts

Recently I have added a link to Indonesian martial arts into this template. I wish to keep it there since it has been expanded significantly, completed with more references. I have no problem on keeping Indochinese martial arts in this template (unfortunately the article is only a list), but I heard to be placed into this template it need to be at least C class article. I hope no more deletion on Indonesian entry again into this template without any explanation or reasoning. Thank you... Gunkarta  talk  15:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I hadn't noticed the Indonesian article had been re-evaluated. It's a C, so it belongs. My bad. oknazevad (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I just re-evaluated it - it had come along way. I would err on the side of C but one thing that bothered my was that at one point we had articles on India, China, Indochina, Indonesia and that really seemed skewed. If Indochina had been a C (which its not) I think we would have to choose.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Why would we have to choose? India, China, Indochina and Indonesia are different places, just with some similarity of names. Which itself is just euro-centric colonial legacy. Frankly, the term "Indochina" was not of local origin at all, largely the result of colonial arrogance and dismissiveness of local cultures, and fallen out of use in the main. So I don't think we need it, really, but not because of the similarity of the name, but because it lumps together things in a questionable fashion. oknazevad (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Point taken.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation and understanding. Cheers..! Gunkarta  talk  16:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)