Category talk:Chinese martial arts
 | This category does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Untitled[edit]
Please use this page to discuss opinions regarding the categorization of Chinese martial arts.
Category:Chinese martial art styles didn't quite work out the way I thought it would so Category:Chinese martial arts is now used as listing of styles instead, and Category:Chinese martial art styles has been left to oblivion for the time being. I have instead made an experiment of creating a Category:Chinese martial arts terms as an evolvement of Category:Martial arts terms. Will be interesting to see how it works out.
- Wintran 11:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As Chinese martial arts have many unique styles and weapons I really like the idea of having a separate Category:Chinese martial arts. So far I came up with two subcategories that I consider useful, namely Category:Chinese martial art styles and Category:Chinese weapons. The reason I made those two subcategories are because I know they will eventuelly cover a lot of articles, so we don't need to mess up Category:Chinese martial arts with complete lists of styles and weapons. A great thing about categories is that we can move all "List of" articles into categories, such as moving all styles from List of Chinese martial arts into Category:Chinese martial art styles. Future additions could be additional subcategories in Category:Chinese martial art styles that divide the styles into "internal" and "external". I have been a bit lazy and not added many articles to the categories yet, I'll do that later when I have more time. If you don't like this categorization idea please tell your opinions in this matter. If you like the idea, feel free to start adding articles to these categories, or you can add additional subcategories that you feel are necessary.
- Wintran 23:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Categorization options[edit]
What would everyone like to see for categorization:
- 1) All wushu styles placed directly under Category:Chinese martial arts, as well as under the appropriate subcategories.
- Pro: Easy to find articles, non-controversial
- Con: More redundancy, category may become crowded.
- 2) All wushu styles placed only under subcategories of Category:Chinese martial arts such as Category:Traditional wushu and Category:Contemporary wushu.
- Pro: Less redundancy.
- Con: More difficult to find articles, potential categorization problems.
- 3) Others (please specify)
Shawnc 03:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would prefer the first option, but the second option would also be OK by me if others prefer it. My reasoning is that we don't have a big rush of people (unfortunately) writing articles on Chinese styles, so crowding isn't a problem, at least yet. --Fire Star 20:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
- I currently prefer the first option as well. Category:Traditional wushu seems unnecessary to me. Shawnc 11:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
- There seem to be some people who exhibit authoritarian tendencies when it comes to categorization. At least when I tried to do something with spiders I got a lot of flack from a czar. I like the idea of a list of nested categories at the bottom of an article. For instance, there are several variations of Xingyi, so Xingyi could be a subcategory of Neijia. Neijia could be a subcategory of Empty-handed techniques, Empty-handed techniques could be a subcategory of Chinese Martial Arts, and the top category could be Martial Arts. With such a strip of nested categories available, the reader could easily jump to the appropriate level. Some might want to zoom way out and go from Xingyi to Martial Arts, and some might only want to zoom to Neijia quan. P0M 19:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would prefer the first option, but the second option would also be OK by me if others prefer it. My reasoning is that we don't have a big rush of people (unfortunately) writing articles on Chinese styles, so crowding isn't a problem, at least yet. --Fire Star 20:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
BLP!!![edit]
I just finished going over the bio for Kwong Wing Lam. It was a mess! The guy's a notable sifu but with no refs and all kinds of unsubstantiated historical claims... It should be AfD'd in accordance with WP:BLP. It needs attention. I'm afraid similar sifu bios may prove equally problematic. I'd suggest people read WP:BLP before listing their sifus. Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)