Template talk:Martial arts/Archive 1

message: Not sure I agree with linking the "types" (grappling, striking...).  It kind of makes the categories blur to together with the arts.  What do you think? Bradford44 16:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it in to make it more general i.e. why are the arts grouped, maybe turning it into a table rather than straight text might solve this? --Nate1481 (talk • contribs 16:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added the list of MA's to provide an alternative organisation --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 14:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I just added the list of martial arts as a footer.  I prefer this new layout with the links to the "types".  --Scott Alter 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  added unclassified & mixed --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 08:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Re-word P.S. this is also under discussion Here --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 11:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking the "Types"

message: I don't know that Hybrid martial arts belongs on the box.  It doesn't appear to be a martial art like "karate" or "kenjutsu", but rather a category of martial arts that others fall into. On the other hand, maybe the text for the bottom section could be changed to read:
:"Mixed, hybrid, and multidiscipline"
Thoughts? Bradford44 03:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove hybrid martial arts?

message: Shouldn't is be in the varied-tab? Could a distinction between internal and external styles also be made?? Kbarends 06:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me like Hapkido should be moved,; as I understand it, Hapkido significantly incorporates traditional Korean striking techniques, but you should ask on Hapkido's talk page for consensus before moving it.  Regarding your other question, since there are only three generally recognized "internal" arts, and only the Chinese martial arts generally seem to draw that distinction, it is probably too small and specific a category to include, but that's just my opinion, feel free to see if you can find some other people who would like to see an "internal" category. Bradford44 14:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hapkido

message: I still don't like seeing a link to such a messy article displayed so prominently on the template.  How do you feel about replacing the link with the following text?
:Martial Arts Portal
Bradford44 14:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "List of styles" link on the template

message: does anyone thing that the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program belongs on here?
:I took look at the article (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program), and I'm inclined to think that it does. Anyone else? Bradford44 13:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MCMAP?

message: Shall we consider combatives a martial art, or is it just a military term for hand-to-hand combat?  From reading its article, it doesn't seem like specific enough of a term to warrant inclusion in the template as a "type" of martial arts.  It seems more like a word for martial arts. Thoughts? Bradford44 23:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be considered an art - though it should probably be linked from the main Martial arts article, along with Ninjutsu - which again is more of an article about "skills of a ninja" than a specific art, where Bujinkan is the art. -- Medains 09:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combatives