Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Fuhghettaboutit (talk | contribs)
85,115 edits
remove move template
Bradford44 (talk | contribs)
4,998 edits
demote to C-Class for WP:WPMA: failure to meet six B-Class criteria - its very close, but the 'tai chi as sport' section really needs references
Line 1: Line 1:


{{talkheader}}
{{talkheader}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WPB|1=
{{Martialartsproject|class=B}}
{{Martialartsproject|class=C|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Taoism|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Taoism|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{WPCHINA|class=start|importance=top}}
{{WPCHINA|class=start|importance=top|nested=yes}}
}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{ArticleHistory

Revision as of 15:55, 4 September 2008

Former good article nomineeTai 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
DateProcessResult
December 8, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
March 11, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Merge proposal:Philosophy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus. Gary King (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed by someone to merge the separate article T'ai chi philosophy into this article. I am taking a wait and see position. I have set them up so that there is a section with a summary statement and a separate article to see what develops. This way it's getting the attention both of the philosophers and the martial artists. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge. (change position to neutral pending further discussion. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)) The philosophy article hasn't become long enough yet to substantively cover the issue, doesn't have many references yet, and is in ways redundant to other articles like Nei jin and Neijia. Also, the article makes unreferenced conclusions about applying tai chi chuan to life. There are writings that do this, but they are not directly referenced here. There are other sources of philosophical underpinning at taiji, yin and yang (which mentions taiji symbol), Tao Yin, Neo-confucianism, etc. The philosophy of taijiquan is also mentioned in the main article, and discussed at length in the Wikiquote taijiquan article. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I have done some pruning and made some additions to the article. The removed content was assertion by way of example as to how to apply tai chi principles to everyday life, which I feel a bit "how-to manual" in tone. If they can be reworded and referenced, then I don't mind them going back in. If we can get a passive article out of this it may end up changing my mind about the merge. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but feel the philosophy article needs to be changed. If anything, merge T'ai chi philosophy with Taiji. The philosophy is definitely distinct from the martial art. Only reason to merge would be that they share the name T'ai Chi, which is more or less accidental. While t'ai chi philosophy is the philosophical basis of t'ai chi chuan, it is older than and prior to t'ai chi chuan, and forms the philosophical basis for many other topics as well, including I Ching interpretation, Taoist meditation, TCM, etc. T'ai chi chuan could easily have developed a different name, but still be based on the philosophy of the Great Ultimate. Great Ultimate Boxing is based on the philosophy of the Great Ultimate; not the other way around. Unfortunately, the T'ai chi philosophy article does not in any way make clear the distinction. It seems to suggest that T'ai chi philosophy is derived from the martial art, rather than the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helikophis (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Currently too much overlap with other articles, including this one. VanTucky 00:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Change the reference to philosophy in this article to a see also link. 83.104.37.31 (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What's the verdict? Gary King (talk) 02:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a clear consensus. I'm inclined to merge at this point, as the whole enchilada is philosophically based, at least according to the classics. What do you think? --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, again, my knowledge of Tai Chi is limited. But, from what I hear, it should be a separate article. Gary King (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has languished here for nearly three months. I will be bold and cancel the merge for now. From my limited knowledge, and content-wise, I think a separate article can grow on its own to encompass more than the scope of this article. Gary King (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Good article collaboration

I hope you guys like the edits I made to this article :) Anyways, anyone up for a Good article collaboration on this article? For one thing, it needs more references, so if you've got some, please add them (and make sure they are reliable per WP:RS.) Hopefully we can get this to Good article within the month! :) Gary King (talk) 02:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Any objection to making the pinyin title the standard, and other versions redirect to it? Overall, the Wikipedia standard for Chinese language transcription is to use pinyin as primary. Bertport (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you suggest the title to be if we're going to use pinyin as primary? --Susan K (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pinyin, as given in the lead sentence, is tàijíquán - but we generally omit the tonal marks in the title, and give the tones in the lead sentence (e.g. Jiang Zemin. So the title for this article would be Taijiquan. Bertport (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, Hanyu pinyin is standard, but English speakers have traditionally called it "Tai chi chuan" based on the older Romanization. Also, note that, if you want this move to occur, you'll probably need to list it at requested moves. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but usage of "taijiquan" is well established -- 1,090,000 Google results, and 3 pages of products on Amazon. I'll list at requested moves as you suggest. Bertport (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object. The name should be the most common one used in reliable source material, not Google hits. Just as Google hits aren't an acceptable source in an AFD, they aren't in a name choice either. The vast majority of books published in the 21st century use Tai Chi Chuan, and it is the most commonly understood romanization in English. Steven Walling (talk) formerly VanTucky 19:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm going to have to oppose also. Common usage is still "Tai chi chuan" (or, in everyday use, often simply "Tai chi"). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In mainland China, they use the term "tàijíquán"; it is the Mandarin pinyin. In Cantonese, it is "tai chi chuan". Since Mandarin is more commonly used than Cantonese, I think "tàijíquán" should be used. Susan K (talk) 03:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, both "taijiquan" and "tai chi chuan" are Mandarin; it's just two different Romanizations (Hanyu pinyin and Wade-Giles). Furthermore, our guidelines suggest that we use the most common English name, not what is correct in the original language. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cantonese for 太極拳 is taai3 gik6 kyun4. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose just because it's pinyin doesn't mean it's English. It is not English usage. 70.55.84.212 (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Tai chi chuan" isn't English, either. It's Chinese. Which one is English - Peking or Beijing? Neither. They are two different transliterations of the same Chinese word. Bertport (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still, they are terms used in English, and thus should reflect English usage in this English-language encyclopedia. Had Wikipedia existed 50 years ago, our article should properly have been at "Peking", as this was the normal English term. Since then, we've come to using "Beijing" instead. The same can't be said for this term, though perhaps that will change one day. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but rename to Tai chi The most commonly used term for English-speakers is "Tai chi", and as per WP:UCN and WP:UE the article title should reflect that. --Joowwww (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantically, the "correct" term is 太極拳 or 太极拳, but this is English WP, so we've historically used the romanised version with the most google recognition. Tai chi by itself actually refers to a philosophical concept that the martial art of tai chi chuan is based on, and we already have two separate articles, Taiji and Yin and yang also referring to the concept. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Walling states above that "the vast majority of books published in the 21st century use Tai Chi Chuan", but the more I look around, the more I think this is incorrect. Rather, 20th century books use either Wade-Giles (T'ai Chi Ch'uan]] or strip the apostrophes (Tai Chi Chuan), but books written since 2000 are mostly using Taijiquan. For example, see Tai chi classics, Collections, Translations, and Studies section. Bertport (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a matter of time. Eventually, those of us who grew up reading W-G in the 1960s and 70s are going to pass away! :-( As I've mentioned in archived discussions on this issue, even prolific Cheng Man-ch'ing style authors. who have previously been staunch champions of W-G (Doug Wile, for instance) are now publishing in pinyin. The decision for us, since the change to pinyin seems to be inevitable, is when should WP reflect that? --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F236257564

Leave a Reply