Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts/archive 12

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Martial arts
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction?
Per our guidelines, we of course do not allow titles, etc. used in the articles (i.e. "Master so and so" or "Sensei so and so". But it seems like the "Ranking" section in the  Martial artist infobox contradicts this with the inclusion of "ranking", or at least is being used in some articles as such.  I.E. I've it filled in with "Grandmaster" in some articles. What was the actual intent for including "ranking" and was it to include things like "master", "grandmaster", etc.? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a contradiction. In the articles, we prohibit titles used preceding names.  "Master so and so" is not allowed, but I think having one sentence saying "So and so holds the title of master" is okay.  The purpose of the "Rank" field in Infobox martial artist is for a title such as one listed in Japanese honorifics along with a rank such as one listed in Dan (rank).  I don't think terms like Grandmaster or Master are beneficial to include.  --Scott Alter 03:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Scott on this, stating what rank people hold is different from honorific usage, ideally it should be sorted, but that's a separate (& messy) issue. This was based on Manual of Style (biographies) so stating the existence & using it are separate, e.g. Stephen Hawking is refereed to as Hawking in the article not as Professor Hawking, Dr. Hawking, 'The Professor' etc, but his PHD and his position as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics are noted (& referenced) in the article. --Nate1481 11:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's my question though - some people are simply filling it in with "Grandmaster" and "Master". I'm taking it that should be removed? --Marty Goldberg (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point, for if an art has a formal system like judo then the dan(kyu?) rank or equivalent should be included. I would consider leaving it blank for others bu somtimes allowing it in the info box is the best concession to prevent having to revert changes to 'grandmaster soandso' on every instance in the page... I think we need to make a call here then put that decision in the template docs.--Nate1481 08:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Two brief thoughts: (1) many martial art styles/organisations do not use a Dan ranking system, and in these situations I think it fair to use a title if it can be reasonably established that such a title is commonly used for the subject; and (2) given the notability requirement, it is likely that any subject whose article remains in Wikipedia (after some checking/review) is not some relatively obscure person without just claim to such a title. Janggeom (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood, I'm just concerned with such titles in relation to Chinese martial arts. There are of course no traditional rankings (though some organizations have adopted a structure), but some try and misappropriate the familial terminology as rankings (Sibak, Sigung, etc.) I.E. there is no term for "grandmaster", and Sigung is used by some to refer to that.  There is Sijo, but that's more akin to a family founder, and there can be only one (no pun intended).  So when I see such titles as "gransmaster" in Chinese martial arts articles or infoboxes, I have to take pause and ask where that's coming from. Here's an article that sums it up as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say we ask for cites & clarify this in the documentation, if something is obvious wrong, e.g. the current claimed head who is not the founder is using Sijo remove it with an explanation. Asking for a citation is a reasonable line as there should be one in the article that can just be re-used & if not then it means the article is on shaky ground anyway so finding one will be an improvement. --Nate1481 07:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you find citation for a person being a title that is being self proclaimed? I.E. if there's no term in Chinese for "grandmaster" and you have well known instructors calling themselves that? You can certainly find citation of published resources where they're referred to or promote themselves as such, but I wouldn't call that a valid citation for anything other than they refer to themselves as that. It becomes circular.  Where do you draw the line then?


 * About the closest thing to a "Grandmaster" in Chinese martial arts is the "Jeung Moon Yan" or gatekeeper, a person chosen to be the "head teacher" or keeper of the family, where they receive the family's inherited documents, altar, etc. until they pass it on some day. In comparison, there's no way some of the "grandmasters" in the Yip Man family for instance, have any sort of documentation from Yip Man proclaiming themselves a made up descriptive.  However their followers will most likely use circular reasoning and point to these people's websites or articles on them where they are referred to as "Grandmaster so and so".  If its a self-proclaimed title, not native to the language or art, I'd call that more advertising then anything then if its included here.--Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as the usage & equivalent is concerned, if they don't hold a rank leave it blank :) if they have an alternate rank use that rather than 'grand master (see grandmaster (martial arts) for why I think it's generic use is bad. On self proclaimed ones, I think the best we can do is have sources that it is commonly used, this will effectively discriminate against those who have only done so recently and/or who have few students, so seems fair... Then if you are a self proclaimed grandmaster (or equivalent) you have to do without the rank in the box.--Nate1481 10:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Karate
I have re-written the lead of the article and I believe that finally all the tags have been removed from the article. In line with the goals of Focus articles for Summer-Autumn 2007, could I ask the general MA community for comments on the article and to consider an upgrade to B Class? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks fine for a b-class to me, promoted... --Nate1481 10:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you! jmcw (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Cai li fo
Anyone have time for a clean up project on a CMA article? --Nate1481 09:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been quite a bit of rewriting and reorganization of this article since the request for cleanup by Nate1481 posted his query. How can this article be submitted for grading? Please advise me of the procedure. Thank you. Clftruthseeking (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cai_li_fo added internal link. Clftruthseeking (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Large sections of text in the article do not have any sources, and there are structural and formatting improvements needed. I have assigned the article Start class for now. Janggeom (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Crane
Should the Crane (martial arts) become a redirect to Fujian White Crane? Now it is redirecting to crane which gives not much help for the use of the word crane in martial artes topics.--Stone (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think so. You're right in creating the redirection of Crane (martial arts). The only question in my opinion is whether to link it to Fujian White Crane or Lama (martial art). If you look at both pages, Fujian White Crane has the line: "This article is about the Fujian style of White Crane. For the Tibetan style, see Lama (martial art)." and Lama (martial art) does not. I think redirecting to Fujian is the correct choice for now. In the future, maybe a Crane (martial arts) disambiguation page is necessary. Not sure... Ryt 007 (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Recognized Content
I improved the recognized content section of this project's article page. I assessed the 3 unassessed articles. Retiarius is now a Featured Article-class article. Gladiator is now an A-class article. List of fictional organisations in Wuxia fiction is now a Start-class article. Feel free to discuss or change. I just didn't want them to remain unassessed.

I also updated the "articles by quality statistics" chart. It was not up to date, and apparently you have to manually change the numbers. I changed FA articles to 5, GA to 7, unassessed to 0, added A class, total, and assessed. I hope my numbers are right. They may not be...

I also added links to the quality assessment guidelines and the quality stats chart pages to the main project page. They could not be found anywhere on our pages, so I put them there for easy access. Should help a lot.

I also added Retiarius to the FA article list, and Kung Fu Panda to the good article list. Ryt 007 (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dim Mak
This article needs some serious work. Please take a look.Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have spent a few hours trying to make it flow and added some new material.--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wong Shun Leung
I have revised Wong Shun Leung, which is currently listed in our project's Cleanup list. Please refer to the article's discussion page for details. The article should now be ready for reassessment. Janggeom (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. Impressive work. I'd like to assess this article as B-class. If no one objects or replies within 3 or 4 days, I will make the change. I believe it is B-class because of it's substantial, accurate, and thorough content. It is missing some very small things that would make it most likely an A class article, which does not make me consider C class because these details are minor. ~  Ryt 007  &#124; Talk 12:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback. I think the article is very far from an A class article for a few reasons, including lack of reliable sourcing and lack of information on the subject apart from his martial arts career. You might consider comparing the article to existing martial arts B class articles, as a fellow editor once encouraged me to do in a similar situation with a different article. I haven't done this comparison for this article myself, so this is just a general comment on my part. Janggeom (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Great work on clean in up all the articles I had done some editing on Wong Shun Leung before giving up & it is really good to see it as a balanced readable article I'd say defiantly a B-class i.e. it needs some work but is well on the way. --Nate1481 10:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice article - it reads well. Why is it marked as needing additional sources? almost every sentence has reference. Agree on the B-Class rating. jmcw (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Very well everyone. I have given the article a B-class rating. Thanks for the advice Janggeom. ~  Ryt 007  &#124; Talk 12:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the refimprove tag, the article does need reliable sources for verification. Of the 37 references given, most are on-line sources that are either personal or organisational websites, or claim to reproduce magazine articles (but don't give a proper reference, including date, volume number, etc.). If several of those magazine articles could be verified and cited fully, that would be justification to remove the refimprove tag, in my opinion. This is one of those areas where Wikipedia policies and our field (martial arts) clash to some extent, since a lot of our information seems to exist only as personal recollections. Janggeom (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

What is missing from Outline of martial arts?
Philosophies. An combat art has an addition level above "physically defeating other persons" to protect the character/soul of the warrior. jmcw (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Martial arts reference standards
Martial arts reference standards: this has been on my to-do list as a wiki essay. Compared to western sources on information, most Asian sources have some cultural and historical problems. 'Don't speak badly of the deceased' comes to mind. The Boxer Revolution and WW2 destroyed a lot of paper. Secret societies do not leave many academic quality notes.

The core content policies are WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. We don't have several hundred years of English-language, academic-quality sources for martial arts: who do we as editors trust? As editors, we know there are terrible puff articles founded on self-placed advertising - these must go. At the other extreme, why do many here trust Mark Bishop for WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV?

In the academic world, one submits to peer-review to garner a good name to obtain position, prestige and income. I think in the capitalistic niche-market of martial arts books, a publisher's good name is his source of profit. I tend to trust publishers, rather than authors.

Note that wp:author is not a policy but a guideline. I do not often find it useful in the MA field. I accept that some people would delete the majority of the current Wiki MA articles because they do not meet strict academic standards. I myself would find wiki editing much less interesting if these strict standards were observed: they would produce as trivial wiki articles as the puff standards. A middle way is often difficult to find.

Opinions, please! Who do you trust? jmcw (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is also mentioned in the section above; A project essay acknowledging the issue & providing some helpful hints on spotting good & bad sources where top quality ones are unavailable would be a great start to improving sourcing (and somewhere to point new editors). We will need to go carefully to avoid contradicting WP:RS but what we need to say it "sourcing MA articles is a pain due to the lack of independent written sources and the tenancy for students to right puff pieces in good faith" (I think back to what I put in my a uni JJ club description when I was just getting in to it...) A bit on how to use primary sources correctly (we may be able to crib this & expand from elsewhere) would also help --Nate1481 16:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Although WP:AUTHOR is not policy, "it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed" and I think we must give it serious consideration. Here's the thing: I wonder if we're really justified in carving out exceptions for authors, such as at nominated page, in our field? Every author writes in some field, and so essentially every narrow interest group on WP could argue for a looser interpretation of the standards. I fear that lowering WP:AUTHOR in "our" area is essentially navel-gazing; so many others could argue for that in their own areas. For interest, I see it often raised for elements of fiction in which fans are synthesizing conclusions (or sourcing them to discussion groups) and claiming that the lack of third-party coverage is an obstacle that can't be overcome.
 * Reference standards for sources for other articles is another matter. On the one hand I agree that it's hard to find good sources...on the other hand, the pure amount of legends and outright BS in martial arts history is all the more reason to follow WP policies and guidelines. Not every art will have been covered by a Mark Bishop, Mark V. Wiley, Robert Smith, Donn F. Draeger, etc., but a book on an art is a source on it and after that it's a matter of comparing different sources per WP:RS. Some types of sources are preferred; some aren't acceptable. I'm not sure we need, or can truly justify, different standards. JJL (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what I ment, excluding debates on a specific source, we all broadly agree on what kind of sources are good & bad that club websites are of extremely limited use, as is any book written by 'Supreme Grandmaster Sensei Sifu Awesomeness 30th dan'... whereas a BB magazine article or a Judo reference site etc. are useful but not definitive. But all would be border line from a WP:RS front, but trapping some of this suff along with know neutral authors and good sites to look at in an essay would be a good reference both for novice editors and for us. --Nate1481 09:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting a specific list of sources--books by well-repsected authors highest, JAMA high on the list (and it's hardly perfect), BB lower, web sites lowest? That could be helpful if it wasn't contentious--everyone would want their own grandmaster's book at the head of the list. JJL (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, a list of know good sources already in sue that might be used elsewhere would help, but what i was suggesting was more a "WPMA: guide to souces" saying things like "club websites claims are not a good source", and "sites that talk about the art broadly (e.g. a general TKD site rather than an ITF, ATA etc one) and are not part of a school are ok but not ideal." It would need careful wording but might save us all time in the long run. --Natet/c 16:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The martial arts are well-written about. Some of the website references I deleted might be okay. However, I tried looking up these references to find any information about them and could not. That, to me, means the site is not notable. Also, if there's nothing written about the website, it probably is not stable. This may not be the case with fightingarts, but I'd like a consensus on what it stable, reliable and quotable. The martial arts articles are heavy targets for spam and badly written cruft. I'd like them to be better articles. That's not asking too much. There are plenty of good, reliable resources on most martial arts techniques. Just because they aren't on-line, in English, doesn't mean we should lower overall the quality of martial arts articles on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Delope
The article Delope has just recently been tagged with the WP: WPMA template as unassessed. I rated the article start class, however I am unsure whether or not this article is directly related to the WikiProject Martial Arts. It is directly related to the Duel article, which is definitely under Martial Arts, however it currently does not contain any information about martial arts, only modern warfare, I guess. I'm not sure, any comments or suggestions would be welcome. ~  DominusMichael  &#124; Talk 13:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

10th planet jiu-jitsu
Was created & tagged as a hoax (unsurprising with a name like that) I've made it into a good stub, but it should be easy to bulk out to a C or B if you have some free time --Natet/c 07:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it practiced widely enough to be notable apart from its creator? I'd be inclined to rd it to Eddie_Bravo. JJL (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's up for debate, a little work & I'm sure it would be to big for a section but as it is now I can see no real objection to making it a section with a redirect. I had come across it from MMA & know it quiet well so am not the best to make the call. --Natet/c 15:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I question the notability. How exactly does it pass WP:MANOTE? Niteshift36 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * NAGA record would cover the success in competition, and quite a few UFC and other MMA fighers train there, so i'd say well on the way. It is defiantly worth the merge as a section and as I said it will probably get to big if someone works on it. --Natet/c 10:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Asian martial arts (origins)
I have reverted this series of edits that reduced 54 refs to 6 and overtly referenced "Gracie, Renzo; Danaher, John (2003). Mastering Jujitsu. Human Kinetics" in the text almost to te exclusion of other opinions. Please let me know if i have got to far, but as I remember it, this article had a somewhat turbulent past and was the result of a merge form 2 POV forks. --Natet/c 15:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Daitō-ryū Aiki-jūjutsu
I have done a GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found that the article does not meet the current GA Criteria. My assessment can be found here. It is a very strong article but there are a couple of issues that give me concern. I have put the article on hold for a week pending work. I am notifying all interested projects and editors of this. Should you have questions or concerns please contact me on my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Alysh stub, reassessment of Cornish wrestling
I've added a stub on Alysh, a.k.a. belt-wrestling. Also, I came across the Cornish wrestling article, and noticed that it was still classified as a stub. I upgraded it to 'start'. Nath (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bullshido
Not drama for a change... A user has suggested renaming it Martial arts fraud, more opinions at Talk:Bullshido would be appreciated. --Natet/c 08:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Merger proposal of Wing Tsun and Wing Chun
Would like people from the project interested in participating in the ensuing discussion of the proposed merger. Head on over to Talk:Wing_Chun. Thanks. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Obnu Bilate
Expert help has determined the facts here - much thanks Moswen Baruti.

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation
As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Joe Blythe
Up for AfD at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bobby_Joe_Blythe

BJJ ranks
New series of article son BJJ ranks I suggested a merge, opinions please:Talk:Black belt (Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu)--Natet/c 09:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Robin Gieseler
Any opinions on whether this guy is notable? I don't know whether the "Gracie Nationals" are significant or what "Pan American Championship" it is he placed second in. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sanuces Ryu
Sanuces Ryu should be listed under American Martial Arts since it is a martial art that was founded in the United States by the late martial artist, Dr. Moses Powell. Could you please list Sanuces Ryu under American Martial Arts? I'm sure a lot of Sanuces Ryu practitioners would like to see that art listed under American Martial Arts. Thank you.99.53.107.199 (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Machida Karate
The page Machida Karate either needs a rewrite and references or it needs to be deleted, any thoughts?

(also posted at WikiProject Mixed martial arts) --Phospheros (talk) 21:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I added new links anyone wish to look can make a decision if its acceptable.

Dwanyewest (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong action cinema
Hello crew! The Hong Kong action cinema article related to this project has been nominated for Feartured Article removal. If you have comments regarding the FA review, discuss it on the review page. Cheers!

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu ranking system
New article mainly done by User:Buddy23Lee, I've been though and it looks great, but more eyes on something can find the elusive typos etc. Thanks --Natet/c 09:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns related to your project
This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. There are instructions for participating on that page. Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"It's Showtime" events
I see there are four "It's Showtime" kickboxing events listed on Wikipedia, one of which is up for AFD. The events seem to have some notable kickboxers participating, but these events are just individual fight cards. I don't see how they differ from the many other kickboxing events held around the world. Could someone please explain to me why they're notable? Thanks. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Help please: World Genseiryū Karatedō Federation
Anyone interested in taking a look at this one? I am on the brink of nominating it for deletion as there does not appear to be the required "significant coverage" in reliable sources, and it has become a battleground for splinter groups (check the talk page). So before I send it to Afd, anyone want to attempt a rescue? – ukexpat (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've spent an hour looking for third-party references for the terms Shukumine Gensei Taido. Amazon has nothing. Google has wiki and primary sources. Our brothers at Bullshido have taido mostly listed in their comedy forum. Assuming Good Faith, I feel that this article belongs in the Japanese language wiki where there might be third-party sources. jmcw (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Martial Arts Barnstar
I have been trying to debug the date substitution code in the WPMA Barnstar template so that the date the template is invoked, in each individual instance, is recorded correctly. I have not found a solution yet, so have edited the template to allow for manual entry of a date. The three fields you need to enter are now: your name, your message, and the date (all three fields as text). I notice that the template seems to have changed since its inception, even before my edits. If those who received this barnstar would like me to update the award on their talk pages (so that all the data display correctly), please let me know on my talk page—I will not update your award without your explicit approval received in advance. (Apologies for any poor formatting in the meantime.) Thank you. Janggeom (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I created a Kung Fu Template
I created a Kung Fu Template anybody who wishes to change it feel free.

Dwanyewest (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bad template, not neutral. Biased selection of styles, without any sources. Seems to play with the Shaolin's myths, without historial serious references. The former title "kung fu styles" shows the lack of consistency... Let's take a look at List of Chinese martial arts and the Chinese martial art article to learn... A template "Chinese animal styles" may be usefull, but not this David Carradine's explanation ! --Irønie (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have based on the template on a function similar to the karate template that template does not have every karate style on it. If I divided the template into categories such as striking, grappling would that satisfy critics. I will be modifying it over the next 2 days.

Dwanyewest (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Krav Maga needs a rewrite
Imi Lichtenfeld need additional information and Krav Maga really needs a rewrite because the information is of questionable quality.

Dwanyewest (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tidied up Imi Lichtenfeld and rewritten Kobi Lichtenstein. Janggeom (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ashida Kim on AFD page
Is there a reason that the Ashida Kim article is still listed on the martial arts AFD page? Papaursa (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the reminder of how silly wiki can be. Be Bold if it bothers you. jmcw (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Took your advice. Hopefully I didn't screw anything up. Papaursa (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)