Template talk:Martial arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Martial arts page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming
Archives: 1

Martial arts portal	This page 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! You may also wish to read the project's Notability guide.	Chinese Manual of Style - Naming conventions Japanese Manual of Style Korean Manual of Style - Naming conventions Biographies Manual of Style
Template	This page has been rated as Template-Class on the quality scale.

Archives

till august 2007

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Fistfight

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)