Any suggestions on a better image? Would be nice with something more martial arts oriented involving people.

I like the characteristic Shaolin monk, looks good as an image, colorful and such. Something like this:

...but less cluttered with more focus and a better setup and environment. - Wintran (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps this one? I have sent a request to the owner to use it. I could have the colours in it made a bit more vivid (and have told the owner of the possibility of such an edit). I think that picture seems to 'tick all the boxes', so to speak. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have gotten permission from the owner and improved tbe background colours. Here it is:
I think that would be an excellent image, because:
  • of the Shaolin temple, something pointing to Chinese martial arts;
  • of the Shaolin monks, who are elite of Chinese martial artists;
  • they're in a 'martial arts stance';
  • of the colorfulness of the image;
  • of the uncluttered, yet informative look of the image.
Approvals on this? ~ InferKNOX (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This place seems completely inactive. Unless there is opposition, I'll go ahead and change it, as per WP:BOLD. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I guess it would look best if the colors match the image we choose. Please suggest color-changes here. - Wintran (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I feel that Yue Fei and Yip Man should be added to the People section at the very least; if people as far back as Bodhidharma goes up there, Yue Fei should as well; after all, he did contribute to many Chinese martial arts, including Northern Praying Mantis. As for Yip Man, Wing Chun would've long disappeared without him. --Ohnobananas (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added Dong Haichuan to the historical people section.
Maintainerzero 21:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The inclusion of a list of notable Chinese Martial Artists in this template will have the same problem as those encounter in the List of Famous Martial Artists. The list will be too long to be useful if we are not selective. Here are my ideas on inclusion: 1) They have to be notable but not just in their own style but famous in general. (2) They need to have a good Wiki article that has proper references and not just a stub.
You can check the talk page on Chinese Martial Arts for additional criteria. If you like to add a link, please consider adding the name to the list of famous wushu / chines marital artists. ottawakungfu (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, Bodhidharma is a historical figure, though his actions were legendary. Secondly, I concur that Yue Fei should be added, he was highly important in the history. Also Ng Ma the nun-creator of Wing Chun. Kyo Yuo Shen, the Divine Crushign fist is a major facet of Xing Yi Quan history. Basically, I'd like to know who is leaving out these extremely important historical figures, and what their major malfunction is. Also Pak Mei should be added to the legendary figures (after all he did inspire Darth Vader). ~Shifu Careaga 18:17, 31 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
Some scholars doubt Bodhidharma's historicity. Despite being known as the progenitor of Shaolin boxing, he is listed under "legendary figures" because various researchers have disproven his connection to martial arts. Beyond this, there is not a single ounce of evidence prior to the Ming Dynasty proving Yue Fei created any martial arts styles. His contemporary biographies do not even mention him learning boxing from his military tutors. Concerning your question about criteria, as Ottawakungfu noted above, please see this discussion. The same criteria should be applied here. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

San Soo?[edit]

Currently, San Soo is listed near the top of the template as a "Term", together with the broad terms Kung fu and Wushu. Judging from the contents of the article San Soo, this makes little sense. San Soo is listed on List of Chinese martial arts, which is linked even nearer the top of the template.--Noe (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template discussion in general[edit]

Is it really necessary for this same "template" to pop up on EVERY chinese martial arts page? It's pretty, but I think unnecessary. I don't see any reason Chinese martial arts should have a generic unmodifiable "pop-up" on every article whereas most other martial arts articles use some sort of modifiable template such as this. User5802 (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template is pretty large and can be quite intrusive, especially on mobile. I would like to request/propose that it be edited to one that is (or has the optional collapse parameter, like that of the Chinese infobox, in it to have it) rolled-up/hidden like the condensed Taoism template found in the taiji philosophy article. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added Jeong Yim to list[edit]

Created Jeong Yim page, added name to list Huo Xin (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I deleted Jeong Yim because he does not belong on the template listing. Jeong Yim is important to one branch of CLF and should not be added to a list that is targeting an audience seeking general information about Chinese Martial Arts.ottawakungfu (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have added a new section to the template entitled "Legendary figures" to account for the fact that scholars have disproven Bodhidharma and Zhang Sanfeng's respective links to Chinese martial arts. I at first wanted to remove them altogether, but I realize that many people still believe in the legend. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am quite surprised that one of the most globally recognised of Chinese martial arts, taijiquan, isn't listed in this template, especially seeing that qigong is. I would like to nominate that it be listed. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 21:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

qigong & eight immortals[edit]

worth to mention, as they are base for internal martial arts (Idot (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

I have to agree. Just because some wiki articles do not mention their connection doesn't mean there isn't one. For instance, as far back as circa 1300, two of the eight immortals were considered the creators of the Eight Section Brocade (this predates any association with Yue Fei). There is also a martial arts style known as "Drunken Eight Immortals" boxing. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have to disagree. What is the point of having a link to an article that is not relevant to the topic of discussion. In this case, the link for the eight immortals articles have no information on martial arts or qigong. The linked article is about the myth of the eight immortals. So from a reader's perspective the link is not useful. In comparison both the Bodhidharma and Zhang Sanfeng articles contains explicit information relating to the martial arts. Suggest you add the information the eight immortal links with the appropriate references then the link in the martial art template will be useful --Ottawakungfu (talk )02:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
my arguments
qigong - is a part of full knowledge of kung-fu, which has external part (Waigong) - froms of taolu and internal part (Neigong) which is qinong.
 for internal martial arts (like taichi) it is crucial.
 while for exeternal martial arts qigong is not mandatory, but often exists as secret methods of training (e.g. shaolin qigong, and without qigong you cannot be as tough as shaolin monk even you know external forms of shaolin perfectly)
eight immortals are often mentioned in midevial daoist books about qigong which is known as internal alchemy (Idot (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I have included reference to the Eight Immortals in the Chinese Martial Arts section and added a section on Chinese Martial Arts in the Eight Immortals section. If you like to add the Eight Immortals to the template, go ahead at least now the information is relevant. 02:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawakungfu (talkcontribs)
OK! (Idot (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Historical people and living persons[edit]

I'm kind of suprised that living persons are present at Historical people. Maybe we could craft new sub-section famous artists/masters/actors or something. However living and historical descriptions of the same person appears as oxymoron to me. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

== firme de deratizare bucuresti


I’m actually inspired together along with your writing abilities and also with the layout to your weblog. Is this a paid topic matter or did you customize it yourself? Either way maintain up the excellent high quality writing, it really is uncommon to see a nice weblog like this one nowadays.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding types of Chinese martial arts[edit]

I would like to add a Types section, with "Neijia (internal)" & "Waijia {external)" subsections, then list the respective styles within. I'll go ahead with it shortly, if there's no opposition. ~ InferKNOX (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After noticing the "list of Chinese martial arts" on the template, I decided to just make it more prominent instead, as it was relatively unnoticeable and add neijia and waijia to the list of terms. I've also categorised it, something suggested by others above. I hope none are offended. ~ InferKNOX (talk)

Restoring deleted image[edit]

It's unfortunate that File:Shi DeRu and Shi DeYang.jpg was deleted for being possibly unfree, as it had been in use for a long time and (I thought) was a great image.

I currently take classes with one of the individuals in that photo, Shi Deru, so I'm going to see if I can help get appropriate permissions for Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If anyone's done this before, I'd appreciate any tips, since this is my first time dealing with image copyright/permissions on Wikipedia.

--Bigpeteb (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]