Template talk:Martial arts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please see:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_arts#MA_nav_boxes --Nate1481(t/c) 08:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What should be included?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Isn't Sambo MMA? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: No such article. Punch and other unarmed techniques are already included, and so is Boxing, to which Fistfight now redirects.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fistfight]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Current criteria is not good enough 

message: 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. 
regards,  
SL401
:It wasn't a C-class or better article at the time. It is now, so I added it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is [[Kuk Sool Won]] not included? 

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

message: What's the relationship and differenct from this sport and Judo?--Pierce (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Paralympic judo 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed that this template should be thematic, not geographical, and may need some rethinking in this regard.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Size of the template

message: 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)
thread_title: Japanese martial arts

message: 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)
replies: text: DonePeter Rehse (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Template Clean-up

message: 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)
replies: text: I've raised a similar issue about this template's structure/categorization, here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kata = Forms, but Forms ≠ Kata 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Point taken.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your explanation and understanding. Cheers..! Gunkarta  talk  16:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Indochinese and Indonesia martial arts

message: 81.104.90.26 (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.   melecie   t 02:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021 

message: 47.25.168.240 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021 

message: This is getting unwieldy. I think it makes sense to split the sports navigation portion to a separate :Template:Martial arts in international sports for all those links. Or just ditch the continental competitions and leave it solely at the Olympics and World Games as worldwide. oknazevad (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split international sports competitions off