Template:Vital article

	Tai chi was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 8, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed March 11, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

China B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

	Martial arts B‑class
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Martial arts. Please use these guidelines and suggestions to help improve this article. If you think something is missing, please help us improve them!Martial artsWikipedia:WikiProject Martial artsTemplate:WikiProject Martial artsMartial arts articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Baosen19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I must have missed when the name of the page changed to Tai Chi without chuan or quan (the boxing). The English name "Tai Chi" (specifically) can NEVER be the encyclopedic equivalent of "Tai Chi Chuan," the martial art, boxing style, or general form of western exercise. Tai Chi is a philosophy. The alternate page suggestion is also terrible as the "philosophy" points to a page called "Taji (phiiosophy)" I will crusade the Tai Chi page because must have in the name the boxing function chuan or quan... or boxing (ugh). "Tai Chi" alone means the Taoist creation philosophy, and the epoch that follows the nothingness of Wuji. It is the Yin/Yang symbol "Tajitu." It is the harmonized opposites that give birth to the four emblems. Tai Chi by itself cannot denote the exercise encyclopedically because Tai Chi means something else. It's fine to use Tai Chi in colloquial speech to connote the exercise or whatever people think it is. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For one of many times this has been discussed before, see Talk:Tai chi/Archive 4#eb / Naming_Revisited.--Nø (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That archive is from 2011. Where is the recent discussion? I know I looked at this page within the last couple months and it did not have just "Tai Chi" as the title. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's another from 2014 here: Talk:Tai chi/Archive 5#Page move. I believe the actual move is this edit [1]. I do not understand page moves in wikipedia well enough to be sure, but I don't think it has been moved since. Anyway, I have before supported a more "correct" naming of the article (including the fist, and preferably using pinyin), but the primary argument for "Tai chi" is that it is the most widespread designation used in English language text, and I guess that is true. Incidentally, I have repeatedly defended the view that the article on Pascal's triangle should be named thus exacly because it is the most common designation in English, and not renamed to reflect the facts that Pascal did not invent it and that it has different names in other languages (though those names are no more fair as they give credit to others who likewise did not invent it). This naming principle is enshrined in wikipedia's rules; what can be discussed is to what extent it is true that tai chi is the most common designation. But if I were to write a novel where tai chi was mentioned in passing - say, because the protagonist passed some strangers in a park doing tai chi - I'm pretty sure that's how I would write it, and how an editor would ask me to write it.--Nø (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page cannot be called "Tai Chi" for the same reason the Baguazhang cannot be named "Bagua." If you order Peking Duck that's what you have to call it; you can't just order Peking because you still want duck. Calling the martial art "Tai Chi" doesn't work when the foundational philosophy upon which the martial art is based is called Tai Chi. Differentiating the philosophy from the martial art by spelling one with pinyin and the other with the Wade-Giles just doesn't cut the mustard.TommyKirchhoff (talk) 20:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAMINGCRITERIA criterion 3 is in support of your view, but WP:COMMONNAME, interpreting those five criteria, arguably supports "Tai chi". On the balance, I still think I personally would support a spelling of "Tàijíquán" (but accents, spaces, hyphens and transscription are negotiable), with redirects from other all other reasonable spellings of those three syllables, while spellings of only the first two syllables should redirect to the article on the philosophical concept - of course with a hat-note in the article on the concept to the article on the martial art. I guess we agree on that. What I'm saying is, last time this was up for discussion, after due process the opposite argument won the day, and I suspect it would again. But if you are prepared to argue your case, I think you should follow WP:RM#CM.--Nø (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've pored over the naming guidelines and agree with your assessment of the Precision and Common Name criteria. I believe the best treatment might be parenthetical disambiguation, i.e. naming this page Tai Chi (exercise) and naming the philosophy page Tai Chi (philosophy). Some people might not like the exercise designation, but by calling it the common name the moniker would encompass the whole concept of martial arts, exercise for seniors, meditation, etc. Maybe changing both pages at the same time would require an administrator. Thoughts? TommyKirchhoff (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts... in a "packet solution" like that, it should also be clear what should be done with the 888 pages (namespace + portal + template + category pages, but not counting user, talk, draft or wp pages) that link either "tai chi" or "taiji (philosophy)". Most would be handled by a few judicious redirects, but these 11 pages Taiji, Tao Te Ching, Tai chi, Taijijian, Taiji (disambiguation), Tai chi (transclusion), Tai Chi Master (film), Taiji (philosophy), Taijijian, Taiji (philosophy), Taiji (disambiguation), and these 71 redirect pages TaiJiQuan, T'ai chi chuan, Tai Ji Quan, Tai Ji, Tai Chi, Taichi Chuan, T'ai chi, Tai ji, Tai chi ch'uan, Tài Jí Quán, Tai Chi Chüan, Taiji Quan, Tai-Chi, T'ai Chi, Taichi, Taijiquan (pinyin article), Tàijíquán (pinyin article), T'ai Chi Ch'üan (pin-yin article), T'ai-chi, Tao Chi, Taiji Chuan, Tàijíquán, Tai-chi Chuan, Tai Chi Ch'uan, T'ai-chi ch'uan, Thai Chi, Tai ji chuan, Tai Ji Chuan, T'ai-chi ch'üan, T'ai-chi Ch'üan, Taichichuan, T'ai Chi Ch'üan, T’ai Chi Chuan, Tai-chi, Tai Chi Quan, T'ai Chi Chuan, Tai Chi Chuan, T’ai-chi ch’uan, T’ai chi ch’uan, Tai Chi Chuean, T'ai-chi Ch'uean, T'ai Chi Ch'uan (pin-yin article), T'ai Chi Ch'uean (pin-yin article), T'ai-chi ch'uean, T'ai-chi Ch'uan, T'ai Chi Ch'uean, T'ai chi ch'üan, Tai qi, Taijiquan, Tàijí, Tai Chi Ch'üan, Tai chi chuan, T'ai Chi Ch'uan, Tai Chi Chu'An, Tài jí quán, Tai ji quan, Tài jí, Tài Jí, T'aichi, Tàijí quán, Tàijí Quán, Taiji quan, Tai chi chüan, T'aichi ch'üan, T'aichi Ch'üan, T'aichi ch'uan, T'aichi Ch'uan, Taichi chüan, Taichi Chüan, Taichi chuan, Taichichüan may require attention. (Yes, this is kind of absurd!)--Nø (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yeah. I certainly see your point. I had not considered the breadth of the mission, but now I grasp it. This is a big job but somebody's got to do it. Would you back me on common name with parenthetical disambiguation for both the martial arts page and the philosophy? We can recruit power for this, ride herd, and see that it all gets cleaned up. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't much like parenthetical disamiguation, though of course sometimes it may be the only or best alternative. I think naming the articles "Taiji" (for the concept) and "Tajiquan" (for the exercise) make good sense; I just don't expect them to get through the process... I think I will neither support nor oppose your suggestion - but I may change my mind, e.g. if other editors come up with new arguments or solutions.

Ha ha ha, I see that every so often, someone comes along and sees that the common misspell being used as the defacto standard, just doesn't sit right. I remember back during the big discussions where I championed Taijiquan and eventually had the page moved to it, only to later see others from other areas of WP arrive to announce the contributors as having a walled garden around the topic and it was eventually reverted. Alas, I should say that splitting it into two or more parts is probably going to make for a bad precedent, as references to taijiquan are to the same thing, only different perspectives of it. Thus splitting will go against this fact and create ambiguity about which other lines could see it split further, until the fragmentation does damage to the accessibility & integrity of the overall subject; something I understand to be in contradiction to the logical point of WP. I'd say it's best to maintain a single page, and as I said before, since Pinyin is the current standard and it should logically contain "fist" for accuracy, then "Taijiquan", but again, it will be contested because the erronous form is more known. :-/ InferKNOX (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To give a little extra jab at this topic; I find there to be a certain degree of absurdity to having redirects that can work to guide people from technically incorrect terms (like "Tai Chi"), to accurate information (and thus educate them, seemingly part of the point/intent of WP), instead follow the policy of directing to the common, (and even) incorrect term. This works to undermine WP's credibility and understandably so. For example, there's the common mistake of calling 8P8C connectors, RJ45 connectors, does that mean that on WP, a current standard should be overriden in favour of the deprecated standard it is mistakenly named by? Another example is that many less tech savy people call Internet connectivity, "WiFi", and "Ethernet", "Internet". Does that mean that Internet, Ethernet, LTE, 5G and the rest of the network connectivity pages should instead redirect to the WiFi page? It's illogical, and with good reason. What is correct, is correct, and the rest is misinformation, which rigidly adhering to such a WP policy, is further propagating here. Instead of bringing information into concert for common & accurate understanding of a topic, it is entrenching the divide between the facts recognised by the professionals and the uncertainty of the laymen. As a hypothetical example, it would be as though, because many people are going in a wrong direction, towards an incorrect destination, that destination automatically becomes regarded the correct destination where they want to, and should, go to; and those that actually went to the correct destination, should reroute. Honestly, where is the critical thinking is all of this? — InferKNOX (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As perhaps an indication of common usage (name), Google Translate transliterates 太极拳 as "Tàijí quán" but translates it as "Tai Chi". – _•Raven  ^.talk 01:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This section is not relevant to understanding what Tai chi is. It mostly is an arbitrary section specifically for advertising that has no functional limit to the number of references that could be added. These list type sections serve to do little other than junk up a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bverji (talk • contribs) 02:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that Joey Bond is skilled at Taiji, but I would hardly list him under "famous practitioners" along with the founders of the art.

Thanks, ~~~ NorthWu (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the page, the spelling varies between "Tai chi" and "Tai Chi". Can we pick one (perhaps the one used in the page's title, although I personally prefer both words capitalized) and change the other? Kumagoro-42 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and also prefer capitalization of both words.

~~~ NorthWu (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Translate agrees with you. – _•Raven  ^.talk 01:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.Raven, NorthWu, Kumagoro-42 I added a move discussion below. SilverStar54 (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of Tai chi-related articles that use a different version of the name than that used here. For example: T'ai chi classics, Chen-style taijiquan, Yangjia Michuan Taiji Quan, Yang-style t'ai chi ch'uan, Wu-style t'ai chi ch'uan, Sun-style t'ai chi ch'uan, Wudang t'ai chi ch'uan, Zhaobao t'ai chi ch'uan, Guang Ping Yang t'ai chi ch'uan, etc. Needless to say, this really harms readability. I'm neutral on what name Wikipedia should use for this topic, but can we agree for sanity's sake to keep it consistent?

I'm going to cross-post links to this discussion on several related articles and boards so that we can hopefully come to a real consensus on this. (Note: for some context on why "Tai chi" is the current page name, see here and here). SilverStar54 (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there's no reason for inconsistent names here. I'll start by saying that I agree with the reasons for making this page "Tai Chi" and think that should apply to all of these, but it looks like those past discussions were rather contentious, so I'm sure others still disagree. Justin Kunimune (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you want to move this page I'll go ahead and start a move discussion. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tai chi → ? – Note to admins: please keep this discussion posted for at least few weeks even if there's consensus on a move; last time a number of editors missed the window to participate.

The current title of this page, "Tai chi" is a less common version of Tai Chi, the English-language WP:COMMONNAME for this art. That's the simplest option for a move, but editors have pointed out two issues with that name. First, although "Tai Chi" is based on the Wade-Giles romanization of 太極, it doesn't use correct Wade-Giles conventions (should be "T'ai Chi"). Second, it's imprecise. I'm not an expert, but it seems that T'ai Chi refers to the philosophy that the martial art is based on (太極), not the martial art itself (太極拳).

The two alternative suggestions are T'ai Chi Ch'uan (the correct way of writing 太極拳 in Wade-Giles) and Taijiquan, the way 太極拳 is romanized in pinyin. These are more precise but less common. Taijiquan has the additional advantage of being in pinyin, which is the romanization system considered standard these days. The Google ngram comparing usage over time

I'd be happy with any of these alternatives (Tai Chi, T'ai Chi Ch'uan, or Taijiquan), so long as we keep all of the related pages consistent. My tentative vote is for Taijiquan, because even though it's less common than Tai Chi, it is more precise and uses the modern system of romanization used elsewhere on Wikipedia. SilverStar54 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you read through the "Tai Chi without the fist" thread above; and I would like to assume you read through some of the referenced threads in the archive of this page. I still have an inkling that this page could use a better name, but the others convinced me that the project is too arduous. If a decade later, enthusiastic editors want to make a change I would stay abreast and involved. TommyKirchhoff (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]