text:
Talk:List of operating systems

If you think an OS should be listed here, list it
NOTE: if you think an OS should be listed here, list it. Guy Harris (talk) 09:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

 * yes I know wiki markup code. seriously, where is: debian wheezy, debian Jessie, Linux, etc.?32.216.68.61 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 * This is "List of operating systems", not "list of operating system versions", so neither Wheezy nor Jessie (nor Xenial Xerus nor Yakkety Yak nor El Camino nor Sierra nor Windows 8.1 nor Windows 10 nor...) belong here. Linux is there, under "Non-proprietary", with a link to List of Linux distributions for the benefit of those who want to see all the distributions; at most, this page could list the major distributions, but, frankly, I think the link to List of Linux distributions suffices. Guy Harris (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to including some Linux distributions, since Linux is just the kernel you need the base user space components (libc, shell and utilities, system daemons, etc) to actually constitute an OS – the same kernel with a radically different user space is basically two different operating systems (compare Ubuntu to Android for example). However, there are far too many Linux distributions to list all of them so probably this page should only mention (i) the major ones (ii) any particularly distinctive ones. As far as Windows versions go, there is a historical progression from Windows 1.0 to Windows Me and from Windows NT 3.1 to Windows 10 (and those two lines have a lot of borrowing and cross-pollination between them) – the difference between any two successive versions in either line is often not that large but the near and far ends of each line are far enough apart to be better viewed as different operating systems instead of just different versions of the same OS. So I think Windows is a hard case. (We list individual generations of IBM mainframe separately too – OS/360, MFT, MVT, OS/VS1, OS/VS2, SVS, MVS, OS/390, z/OS are successive version of the same OS but they are different enough from each other in many cases to be considered as separate operating systems – well, even more strictly speaking MFT and MVT were originally just different conditional assembly variants of OS/360, but they evolved into separate OSes as OS/VS1 and OS/VS2.) SJK (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

"Mania Windes" is not an operating system
It is a program from DOS / windows 9x that creates a GUI. Their website is here if you want to read it for yourself. http://www.maniasoft.com/en/windesxf/minimum.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.147.212 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Old comments without section heading
I've been correcting links to Arthur" by disambiguating them as "Arthur (movie)" and "Arthur (album)". But there is a link to "Arthur" on this page which I don't get. The page is a big complicated list, and not explained very well. Can someone make it a bit clearer, please? -- Oliver P. 15:31 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

What's so complex. Arthur was the OS of the Acorn Archimedes. which also has mention of it. Clearly he intended for it to link to that, probebly presuming it was going to be a sub-page, tho I am not sure. Anyway, I don't see a page for it, but I'll fix it. User:Rboatright 15:53 2002.02.16

 * Thanks for the explanation, and for fixing it. To someone who doesn't know all that much about all the different operating systems of the world, the page looks terribly scary. It's not clear which names are names of computers, which are names of companies, and which are names of the actual operating systems. It needs a few sentences of good old-fashioned English prose to clarify such things, and to explain the layout of the list, and so on. -- Oliver P. 16:05 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

"203.109.254.40 (reversed vandalism)". Not wanting to be rude but I think someone here has a wrong notion of vandalism! When I edited the article I only tried to organize it and not to vandalize anything. Anyway, I'll not bother changing it again even if I disagree with the way it is organized. If anyone thinks my version was more usefull and legible then post i again, I won't do it myself! -- hybrid-2k

The BeOS Clones?
I wanted to put Zeta, OpenBeOS, and BlueEyed OS on the list. Were should they go?

iHoshie 23:59, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Zeta isn't a clone of BeOS, it's BeOS under development by a different company Crusadeonilliteracy 04:50, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Oh, I forgot that Zeta was the BeOS codebase done by a different company. It's on the list now. The other two are iffy stil. iHoshie 16:35, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On 12th Jan, Pcollison, with the comment (Shouldn't the name given by the author count for more than the name given by someone on the sideline?) changed the entry for GNU/Linux to Linux. This put the alphabetisiation out of order, and gave 2 entries for Linux, with none for the (referenced) GNU/Linux.

Reverted that edit, on the basis that both the term 'Linux' and GNU/Linux are valid entries.

Changed the parenthetical remarks to make Linux primary entry, on the basis that that is how the page for Linux is. I belive that the talk page for Linux is the correct forum to decide which is primary, thus this page should folllow that.Syntax 02:45, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the Hobby OS section. Where do you draw the line? Does Linux count as a hobby OS? *BSD? Plan9? Crusadeonilliteracy 12:49, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You may suggest another name, instead hobby. About Linux, BSD: I mean hobby - in more narrow use, when usage of this systems is hobby too (IMHO). Linux and BSD are voluntary free projects, that are used in many professional applications from Internet servers to embedded. It is not hobby. I've introduced 'Hobby OS' section to devide very long list of 'others' OS. Kenny sh 10:36, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

-- Should the PDA and Smartphone be moved out of the Proprietory Heading? Also, I'd like to add a router heading, IOS by Cisco Jondel

Reorganization?
I'm really glad a page like this exists, but I have to look hard to find systems I know exist, and I'm unsure where to add some systems, like L4. I would like to suggest reorganizing the list in order to make it more useful.

In particular, it is difficult to find very similar OS'es because they are arranged by things like Proprietary and Non-Proprietary at the top level. Ideally, similar OS'es would we listed near one another at lower levels. IMHO, I'd prefer to see a breakdown that grouped the top levels by architecture or eras, and maybe give some indication of the hardware that the OS runs on. I like the "application" categories that currently exist, but would like to add desktop usage as a special case, possibly as a separate page, and change the naming to something less ambiguous, like "roles".

Dataphile 20:39, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * Alright, lets do it together. I suggest a breakdown by architecture and then sub-divided by similarity. This will mean dual listing for most operating systems but it will be for the best. --metta, T he  S unborn  ☸  13:07, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * I would like to see it done by architecture and then architecture independent but also if it is still supported/actively developed. 68.226.125.194 18:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

OS historical vision
This is an important list and set of articles. My advice is that it is heavily-oriented toward latter-day systems of the late 70s onward. As an ex-mainframe OS developer of the early 70s, my wish is to supplement this article with stubs of the "seven dwarves" of the period. This is necessary to collect valuable OS history in wiki. Comments/denunciations?

i like the idea for purpose of topic completeness (clutzy grammar, sorry), though at first these "forgotten" oses could appear in timeline page and other category links. Might soon need to split the page. In cases of other topics, the page becomes long, then gets split. (i think I've seen top40 hits of each year given their own page, but that's extreme example?) disclaimer: i did not check whether those pre70's oses already appear on this or the linked wp pages.2z2z (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing on the list:
UNICOS (a Unix-like OS on Cray supercomputers), UNICOS/mp (a Unix-like OS on Cray supercomputers), UNICOS/lc (a Unix-like OS on Cray supercomputers), SUPER-UX (a Unix-like OS on NEC SX-series vector processor supercomputers -> Earth Simulator ;-), CONVEX OS (a Unix-like OS on Convex vector processor supercomputers), LDOS (a TRS-80 disk OS regarded as better than TRS-DOS)

Sortix (a Unix-like OS that is self-hosting, and under active development)

..hope that helps ;-) Otherwise.. Great page! Keep up the good work!

ReactOS
I moved the ReactOS link out of the "hobby OS" and into non-proprietary non-unix-like. Though it's still in early development stages, it has been developing fairly rapidly of late, and has moved beyond the "hobby" designation IMO. --Blackcats 09:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Full of hoaxes
According to our favorite vandal, Willy on Wheels, this list is full of hoaxes, and nobody has bothered to do anything about it. — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-12-6 06:24
 * I saw that post on /. and I'm wondering what should be done about this. I looked through the list and only saw a few that I even recognize.  Maybe we need to go through the list, one-by-one, on this talk page, and verify each independently.  It would take a looong time.  Or have someone go through the edit history and flag as suspect any addition by anonymous users or users with small numbers of contributions or other vandalisms.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 12:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've removed ZnubuOS, as the only trace of it I can find through Web search engines is copies of this Wikipedia page and *one* "help wanted" forum post that got deleted by its author; the only trace of ZnubuOS is in the title of the thread/topic. Lionel Elie Mamane (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, who put "GLaDOS (Generic Lifeform and Disk Operating System) (Made to control the Aperture Science computer aided enrichment center)" under Disk Operating Systems? This is a fictional OS from the Valve game Portal - Deleting...Darkpoet (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Heads Up!

 * FYI, traffic/changes to this page could be up sharply due to a frontpage Digg. -- MrDolomite | Talk 14:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing O/S's
You need to add the several O/S's from Data General: RTOS (Real-time operating system, ran on Nova minicomputers), RDOS (Real-time Disk Operating System, ran on Nova and Eclipse minicomputers), and AOS/VS (32-bit operating system with virtual memory, ran on MV series) 192.35.44.24 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

NACHOS and Pintos are also missing. Meneth 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

HeliOS from Perihelion 81.101.133.103 21:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Page seriously needs reorganization
It would be much more helpful of this page listed OSes by each of the following odering:
 * 1)  by computing era in chronological order (additional notes on specific major innovations would help (i.e., only major innovations like 'First OS with Virtual Memory')
 * 2) b) by manufacturer
 * 3)  by parent or by roots/influcences (e.g., unix derivatives, CP/M derivatives, MS Windows derivatives
 * 4) By platform type (mainframe, microcomptuer, embedded systtem) and machine word size
 * 5)  By number of concurrent tasks (e.g., single tasking MSDOS vs a multi-user OS under Vax VMS)
 * 6) OS complexity (e.g., primitve machines with a bootstrap to run a single program, to single user machines, to multi-user machines, to multi-OS hosted on a single parent OS (e.g., Z Series linux)

The general problem is that this page is just a large disorganized list which does not quite help anyone to see the progression of an individual OS or the progression from older OS to the newer operating systems.

Lastly, this page should be tied somewhat to a similar computer hardware page since most OS innovations were facilitated by better hardware.

 * 1) In the Digital Equipment (DEC) list should be added FOCAL 68 which ran on the PDP8x series computers.  This was my first OS/development environment and stood for FormulaCalculator.  It was similar to Basic and Fortran in logic structures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.255.64 (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

More Missing O/S's with links

 * 1) Mini-UNIX by H. Lycklama, 1977 - cut-down UNIX v6 for PDP-11s without memory management
 * 2) GNOSIS developed by Tymshare Inc. to run on 370 architecture
 * 3) KeyKOS: Persisent, pure capability system developed by Key Logic, Inc.
 * 4) EROS: The Extremely Reliable Operating System - another capability based OS
 * 5) Coyotos Secure Operating System - microkernel design with capabilities based on EROS.
 * 6) PERQ Operating systems written mostly in Pascal: POS, MPOS, Accent, PNX and FLEX.
 * 7) MONADS Operating System : Monash University capability-based research operating system
 * 8) PETROS: Written in Object Pascal, designed to be compatible with MS-DOS and Windows 95.
 * 9) House: Haskell User's Operating System and Environment, an operating system implemented using the Haskell functional programming language, based on hOp.
 * 10) V-System: research microkernel operating system that was developed by faculty and students in the Distributed Systems Group at Stanford University in the 1980s. Other OSes by the same investigator include Thoth and Verax.

Proposal for Slight Correction
Be, Inc. only made BeOS and BeIA (hence the "Be" in their names). The final retail version of BeOS was R5, and then there's the leak that happened on 15 Nov 2001, which included BeOS Exp/Dano 5.1d0 (which would have been R6), and BeIA (I don't know the latest versions off-hand) which was used in some of Compaq's embedded kiosk systems.

I'd like to point out that the worthless POS known as Zeta may be in the BeOS family, which also has Haiku (formerly OpenBeOS), CosmoOS, and BlueEyedOS (there's also many others). However, Zeta was not made by Be, Inc., in fact, it was released after the downfall of Be, Inc. Zeta is maintained and sold by yellowTab.

I think it would be better if Zeta were put into its own heading, or a sub-heading of the "BeOS" group, titled "yellowTab". (Yes, I hate Zeta, but at least have some sort of accuracy around it) (Lady Serena 21:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC))

Hactar?
Do you think Hactar is significant enough to be included? --81.231.123.38 13:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

is spoken of in past tense here: written by Crembo on Mar 07, 2004 20:20 Though you have to keep in mind, I also thought Hactar was uber-intuitive, so take of it what you will. written by Cryoburner on Aug 07, 2005 04:25 I suggested it to Alex a while back after the Hactar home page's title screenshot *cough* mysteriously vanished. Found via 6 month google2z2z (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Restored Burroughs Section
I restored the Burroughs section that was deleted by 59.177.23.184 on 8/23/06. Someone might wish to examine whether the Atari ST section which was deleted at the same time by the same IP Address should be restored as well. --JeffW 02:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

about lindows
lindows is missing

-- yes it is: is was renamed to Linspire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.78.50 (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Operating systems for БК Soviet personal computer
Here you can find the additional information about all the OSes: ru:Операционные системы БК-0010/11--Planemo 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Univac
I have personally worked on the Univac, Apollo and HP O/S starting in 1970. --Sprezzatura 02:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

new or pre-historc
Can someone who has the time check all of these O.S.'s and add next to each one whether it is up to date and the newest in it's line, and just add genraly if it is recent, might be the last one they made but it was 20 years ago--it's historic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.138.169 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

x86 Operating Systems
Would it be beneficial to create a new category for x86-compatible OS's? I just came here randomly because I'm building some x86 computers and wanted to experiment with some different operating systems. The only problem is that based just on the huge list on the OS page, I don't know which ones run on an x86 without reading about each one individually, and that takes too much effort and time. --207.75.37.89 23:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea if it were sorted by platforms rather than proprietary and non-proprietary. --Android Mouse 15:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have same motivation as OP in this comment (experimenting on single core pcs). Some (Haiku, Syllable, ArOS,,,,) seem qualified as "security thru obscurity" OSes, in that they aren't posix/unix.bsd. etc. And they are true desktops with basic apps, so therefore should be *usable* by "civilians and innocent bystanders". However some OSes could be multiplatform (builds), so the chart on OS comparison page seems best wp page for platforms/hardware/cpu-architecture info.2z2z (talk) 23:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fictional operating systems
How about a section for operating systems that feature in films etc.

For example,

Helios-9 (possibly a development of the real-life HeliOS 1.3.1?) was used to control the US power grid in the weather disaster movie Category 6: Day of Destruction

There are a lot of very windows-like non Microsoft OS's that appear in movies. One of my favourite features of fictional Operating s Systems (or it could be the applications they run) are the money transfer protocols that transfer millions of dollars/pounds etc. across the world, one unit at a time! Regards Lynbarn 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There was a fictional section, but I removed it because it contained a lot of spam, obscure references and uncitable information. If you'd like to clean it up feel free to add it back. The diff that I removed it: --Android Mouse 00:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened to the fictional oses idea, but i think it should be in scifi/entertainment/culture part of wp. (a link from this wp page is great, though). My reason: "not quite familiar looking" imitation computers are so common in films, etc, that the topic is bigger than one page. eg, 1960's star trek consoles in "the bridge" filmset. eg, various "teen saves the world from nuclear suicide by hacking into mil systems" movies in the 1980's. eg, crime forensics lab uses tweeting (beep beep!) software to graphically explore wounds in many current TV series.2z2z (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nokia Series 40+Motorola+Samsung
What about Nokia Series 40 OS, Motorola OS, and the Samsung OS? Nowhere mentioned? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

IBM line
There's some problems with the IBM 'DOS and successors' lists.

BOS and TOS were predecessors to DOS circa 1968 or so, not successors, as was BDOS which isn't mentioned. Other than a few SVCs they shared with DOS and to a lesser degree OS/MFT, they should be listed separately.

Also, following the advent of DOS/VS, a number of 3rd party DOS-like operating systems emerged, such as TCSC's EDOS. It's unclear at the moment how those should be listed.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Argante
I am trying to de-orphan this article some more and am sure it fits in here but I'm not sure where exactly because I don't know much about computer stuff. Munci (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

online operating system
how actually online operating system works ,its principles advantages and disadvantages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.165.24 (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cosmos
Cosmos is a larger project than it is given credit for. I typed in "Cosmo" into google and the first reasult I got was "Cosmos OS" Could you at least add a part about Cosmos? Or how about add one of the Cosmos based operating systems instead? for example: Dud3 and AEOS? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.26.29.100 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusion with WebOS section
In the Web Operating Systems section (List_of_operating_systems), I'm confused with the Chrome OS entry. Yes, Chrome OS stores everything on the net, but is anyway a desktop os, cause web os are operating systems that run from the web, not from a computer. Same applies to Jolicloud. --Marcsances (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
Lists are required to have inclusion criteria and are subject to the same sourcing requirements as other articles. All entries in this list should be notable, as shown by having significant coverage or reviews in at least one reliable source. Entries without such notability should be removed. Entries which have an existing well-cited Wikipedia article need not have an additional citation here, though, to reduce clutter. Yworo (talk) 20:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since there were no objections to this, I've gone ahead and trimmed the list based on the criteria in the lead. Yworo (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

over broad definition of Operating System?
GEM is included in the list. GEM is not an operating system. GEM is not able to run without an OS. GEM performs none of the functions of an OS. Inclusion of GEM (which is just a GUI over an OS, usually one of the MS or PC DOSes) means you need to include things like "Norton Commander" (a text shell over DOS) or "Norton Desktop" (a graphical shell over dos). This does have the problematic effect of making some of the MS Windows versions not includable, which is probably going to be controversial and edit-warry. --87.113.161.104 (talk) 08:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

8 bit OSes
I think there should be a section for 8 bit OSes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rricci428 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

CirrOS
I'd like to add CirrOS, a custom GNU-Linux distribution used for a record breaking benchmark by the SeaMicro system. However, I need some help to figure out which section it belongs to. Any gurus around to offer assistance? :) Twillisjr (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

VisOpSys
VisOpSys is a free GUI based OS that is under current development. I'm also not sure how to list it. I believe it merits an entry, it is mature and has been in development since 1997. It has a few mentions around the internet. http://visopsys.org/ Rgb9000 (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

What Linux distributions, if any, should be listed here?
The "Non-proprietary" section's "Unix or Unix-like" subsection has "Linux", with a "(see also List of Linux distributions)" parenthetical note, rather than having separate entries for various Linux distributions...

...with two exceptions; it lists Android, which is sufficiently different from most Linux distributions (different libc, for example) that I'd be willing to let it be listed separately, and also lists the Cray Linux Environment, which is an environment for Cray supercomputers in which "service elements" run SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and "compute elements" run Compute Node Linux, based on a customized Linux kernel.

However, the "Embedded" section has a long list of "Embedded Linux" distributions (including, again, Android), and the "Routers" section has the OpenWRT distribution, and various spinoffs/forks of it, as well as the Zeroshell distribution.

So should this page list at least the major desktop and server distributions in the the "Non-proprietary" section's "Unix or Unix-like" subsection, or should the "Embedded" section just list Embedded Linux or Linux for mobile devices, and should the "Routers" section just list Embedded Linux? Guy Harris (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should avoid listing Linux distros unless they are somehow distinctive/exceptional. Android obviously counts both because of its enormous importance and also its very distinctive userland. I'm not convinced any of the others deserve mention. SJK (talk) 09:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Some more Operating Systems?
Digital Equipment Corporation:

EDUsystem-5, EDUsystem-15. Refer:- https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102760877

EDUsystem-5, EDUsystem-15. Refer to:- https://books.google.com.au/books?id=WnhyDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=EDUsystem+DEC&source=bl&ots=RTEKvP2cZe&sig=ACfU3U0zj9frhFYeOiaUKI-N72DFZElT_w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwir-s_Et5PhAhWHfX0KHamRAOMQ6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=EDUsystem%20DEC&f=false MUMPS-11. Refer:- https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/minicomputers/11/366/1945

RSX-11M. Refer:- https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/minicomputers/11/366/1945

RSX-11S. Refer:- https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/minicomputers/11/366/1945

IAS. Refer:- https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/minicomputers/11/366/1945

CAPS-11. CAPS-11 User Guide

CAPS-11. Refer to PDP-11

TSS-8. Refer to:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TSS-8

Missing from this list are a large number of PDP operating systems. Refer:- PDP-11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdp11.caps11 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

 * Feel free to add them if you want to. Guy Harris (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of page needed
In my opinion, this page needs a complete rewrite and reorganization. I think this page should be sorted by defining characteristics (like the page List of Linux distributions). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions

I also think many "operating systems" listed here do not meet the requirements, and are better off listed in the page of Linux distributions (Which many of them are, it is very inconsistent).

Take for example Chromium OS / Chrome OS. This operating system is based on Gentoo, however Gentoo itself is not listed here. Chrome OS is of course also mentioned on the list of Linux Distributions.

In my opinion, any Linux based OS should be taken off of this list, since they already are in the page of Linux distributions. In addition to that I think "Operating systems" like Remix OS and LineageOS need their own page, something like a "List of Android distributions", since these are often incredibly similar, and would if filled with the many that are out there will clutter the main page of Linux distributions, when they are different enough from most of the operating systems mentioned there to warrant a separate page.

I also believe different versions of operating systems do not warrant their own entry on the list, but rather should just include a link to the page which lists the version history. Instead of listing all Windows versions, it could link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows_version_history

Lastly, I believe there are several operating systems listed which either are not operating systems at all or seem like self promotion. For example the mentioned Kostya OS with it's URL just seems like an online site, not an operating system at all.

If I find the time to, I might take it upon myself to rewrite this page. Input would be appreciated.

Diademiemi (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

This Article Needs a complete rewrite from the start. I have actually done this myself, but from my own iniative refuse to submit it ordinarily because I believe that I am too biased.
Hello, I am posting here since I think that the internet effectively lacks an inclusive article listing all reasonably viable user client operating systems with modern usability in mind. The fact that somebody (I know it's not a single person) thought "Oh Linux Distributions - too many - too much clutter - They should have their own page!" (Creating a very unintuitive mess in my honest opinion), but then said "Oh yes, here's Temple OS, that is useful, that makes sense to include!". Because in reality, it couldn't possibly be more far from that. To put it out quickly and untediously, no person seriously looking for a nice OS should be bothered with these systems, like TempleOS, Tails, Red Star OS, and many others, because they are simply too immoral. Very immoral.

I'm going to speak from my own painful experience. I am simply way too much fed up by the everpresent prevalence of Microsoft Windows. I am an artist, I've tried many mediums. But that is not why I'm here. The reason is that I have simply had way too many complications because of the bloated design of Windows NT 10. That started all the way back in 2019, and pretty much never really stopped. I went from focusing on art all my time, to focusing on Unix all my time. Because I simply had no other choice, If I wanted to solve my problems and get productive at digital art, I had to learn Unix and hardware management. And that's by no means it, It's so complicated, that I could novel-size essays out of this, it's that toxic to me. I really don't even know where to start. After all the exhaustion, I said to myself, that I need to stop focusing on the runcoms of this and that, and the System V kernels of this and that, and all of those Curls, WebKits, NetSurfs, AmigaOS's, RISC's, arm64's, Intel this, AMD that, and actually start choosing my main operating system from a clear-view perspective, a subjective and with a larger focus on consistency above everything else, instead of notability. And I basically found out, that the thing I call "Wikipedia Says: macOS is on the left, Windows in the middle, and Linux on the right!" with pretty much no mentions of any systems other than these, some even claiming that "that's pretty much it". The operating systems space for professionals, like for consumers is pretty much homogenous. This problem is way deeper that just that. But I shortened it a lot, trust me, it's long and tedious of a social problem. I had an awful experience, so painful that it negatively affected my mental state (and by A LOT!!!). Who could have guessed that this all happens just when you decide to choose an operating system. Something fundamentally important to someone like me. In a sane world, this doesn't happen. We evidently don't live in a sane normal world. My dream was just to come to a computer store and see filled with ten different major operating systems and multiple compatible CPU architectures by different vendors. So I decided to stop listening to the clunk, and decided to make a private snapshot of this page on my iPad (My device of choice and now my only computer), and decided to make a private version of this page and rewrote it from scratch, with goal to serve usability, and make a neutral description of modern and important useful systems. I have initially made it just for myself, in the hopes of making a directory of operating systems, promoting such diversity, one day. But I recently decided, to share it back to the community, since I want no more people to have the same painful experience that I had. "Remove clutter" is a minor problem compared to "Remove Hateful Menaces that take the from of an unusable operating system". I know that. And I'm a person that dislikes clutter heavily. "No Radicalism Above All" should be a policy worth more than that of "removing clutter". Maybe you think that these many Linux Distributions are going to confuse novice people. But how the heck is TempleOS serving that?! That goes not beyond empathy, and all sense, but also all appliable logic that I know of. Yes, I also don't think it's good to list all distributions on here, but the major distros, are major Systems in general (And the same goes for BSD's and RTOSes and many more.), and therefore should be listed, whereas many systems listed here are only causing harm, and no good. Yes, I know, it's important to list non-major practically unusable systems with big influence on computing (Like CP/M, IBM OS/2, many early Unixes, RISC OS), but this should not apply to systems that are not only objectively useless, but hateful and controversional in their nature, which I find often unrepresented on Wikipedia, perhaps because nobody's interested to change it for good, due to how "geeky" and "nerdish" these things "are" I suppose. They have a large impact on our unaware society, and so they proper care and protection to prevent abuse by qeustionable people. There is a lack of consistency, that's gone unpassable, especially when the articles are about Unix related topics, sometimes the articles are full of inaccuracies and self contradictions, and since this is Wikipedia, the it is dangerous. I've been making this comment way longer than I expected myself, so I'll just to the main subject.

With Regards, Jaiden Länfurfs jaidenlovesnewsletters@gmail.com Apologies to any unintended violations of any terms of Wikipedia

I am sending a Google Drive Link, that contains the files of interest. I licence it under the original licence - CC-BY-SA Version 3.0, if I'm not mistaken. Note that I wrote this over the course of 4 months If I remember correctly. Nothing but the files I explicitely referenced here are licenced under any copyleft licence, my other projects are licenced permissively, under a heavily modified version of the BSD licence. I also have no interest in spamming Wikipedia, please be nice when responding, or otherwise I'm going to ignore it. This for me is very unusual. Please also note, that is still not-yet-finished and needs to be more polished, and becuase of what it is, it is full of formatting errors.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sFIjdrP09HXzZqS1jauzzn7597y_F1GR/view?usp=sharing

Some common systems like ARM-MBED, aren't even in this article! How is this all possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengalbangladesh (talk • contribs) 18:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Granularity

 * 1) Disk operating systems (DOS) only covers operating systems related to CP/M, but shows Main article: Disk operating system, which is generic. It is even missing disk operating systems that run on PCs, e.g., Xenix. I'm not sure whether it is more appropriate to re-title it or to expand it. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And why isn't DOS/360 listed there? :-) "Disk operating system" appears more to be a marketing term than a technical one. Guy Harris (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * IBM used the name Disk Operating System to distinguish disk-resident and tape-resident versions of the same code base, long before the PC. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Should # On S/360, S/370, and successor mainframes include
 * OS/360 65MP
 * DPPX/370
 * VM/BSE
 * VM/SE
 * VM/SP
 * Should VM/XA be broken down into VM/XA MA, VM/XA SF and VM/XA SP? Should MVS/ESA be broken down into MVS/SP V3, MVS/ESA SP V4 and MVS/ESA SP V5? Should MVS.ESA SP V4R3 MVS OpenEdition and later be listed under Unix-like? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

L4 is NOT a research kernel and other thoughts
The L4 microkernel is under research yet it has been used in billions of devices because of its usage in network devices like baseband processors. Minix is not despite the fact early versions were clearly made for teaching purposes, it is only by accident that it has found widespread usage in the Intel Management Engine. This is inconsistent. In my opinion attempting to classify systems by usage is always going to fail because systems tend to be used more flexibly than intended. For example Android is for phones right? Yes but there is an x86 port that can be used on desktops. The proprietary and non-proprietary distinction makes the most sense. Operating systems should be listed by whether they are developed commercially or by a community, and we should be very careful on the inclusion of standalone kernels that cannot provide a sustained system without a userland (I would rather list Linux by its largest distributors such as Google, Debian, and Red Hat).

Bsdrevise (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

CDC operating systems
I believe that NOS/BE is derived from SCOPE, not from Kronos. I believe that SIPROS is unrelated to COS or to any other CDC operating system. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC) -- revised 12:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Multiple hats?
Should a system that has its own API but that also has a Unix subsystem and has been certified as Unix, e.g., z/OS, z/VM, be listed both under proprietary and under Unix-like? --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Rendering names with weird capitalization?
Some projects have adopted names that begin with lower case letters, e.g., ooRexx, z/OS. Should such names be capitalized, left as is or wrapped in not a typo? Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd leave them as is. The only problem I've seen is that "OpenBSD", which did not adopt a name that begins with a lower-case letter, was written as "openbsd", in a sentence that also wrote "Japanese" as "japanese", and an edit to that sentence fixed the miscapitalization of "BSD" but not the miscapitalization of "Open", so I fixed the latter.  I've not seen a problem with miscapitalization of the names of projects that begin with lower-case letters. Guy Harris (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

TempleOS
Is TempleOS an OS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XsoftOFFICIAL (talk • contribs) 09:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please!
do not delete Xsoft OS. I will do everything! Follow your social media, everything! Just do not delete it :( 2A02:2F0E:D91C:D700:AD83:9977:D458:ACDB (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I advise you to do three things to correct the bad impression you've left
 * Cite a RS for the OS
 * Be CIVIL; your choice of section title will drive away many who might otherwise be willing to help.
 * Register an ACCOUNT; that's be no means required, but it helps to lend credibility.
 * There is a Wikipedia Manual of style that is a good starting point for learning your way around here. Don't be intimidated by the Alphabet soup ;-) -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of operating systems


text:
TRH (disambiguation)

The abbreviation TRH can refer to

 * Thyrotropin-releasing hormone
 * Their Royal Highnesses, style when referring to several royals
 * The Right Honourable, honorific style applied to certain persons in the Commonwealth of Nations

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: TRH (disambiguation)


text:
Jean Gilbert Victor Fialin, duc de Persigny

Jean-Gilbert Victor Fialin, Duc de Persigny (11 January 1808 – 12 January 1872) was a statesman of the Second French Empire.

Biography
Fialin was born at Saint-Germain-Lespinasse in the Loire, where his father was Receiver of Taxes, and was educated at Limoges. He entered Saumur Cavalry School in 1826, becoming Maréchal des logis in the 4th Hussars two years later. The role played by his regiment in the July Revolution of 1830 was regarded as insubordination, resulting in Fialin being dismissed from the army. He then became a journalist, and after 1833, a strong Bonapartist, assuming the style vicomte de Persigny, said to be dormant in his family.

He was involved in the abortive Bonapartist coups at Strasbourg in 1836 and at Boulogne-sur-Mer in 1840. After the second coup, he was arrested and condemned to twenty years' imprisonment in a fortress, commuted to mild detention at Versailles. There he wrote a book to prove that the Egyptian pyramids were built to prevent the Nile from silting up. The book was published in 1845 under the title De la destination et de l'utilité permanente des Pyramides.

During the 1848 Revolution, Fialin was arrested by the Provisional Government. After his release, he played a prominent part in securing Prince Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte's election to the presidency. Together with Morny and Marshal Saint Arnaud he plotted the Restoration of the Empire, and was a devoted adherent of Napoleon III. He succeeded Morny as French Minister of the Interior in January 1852, and became senator later that year. He resigned in 1854, and was appointed Ambassador to London the next year, a post he occupied with a short interval (1858–1859) until 1860, when he resumed the portfolio at the Interior Ministry. But the growing influence of his rival Rouher prompted his resignation in 1863, after which Napoleon created him a duke.

A more dangerous enemy than Rouher was Empress Eugénie, whose marriage Fialin had opposed and whose presence on the Council he deprecated in a memorandum which was leaked to the Empress.

He sought in vain to see Napoleon before the Franco-Prussian War in 1870, and the breach was further widened when the master and servant were in exile. Persigny returned to France in 1871 and died in Nice on 12 January 1872. A devoted and fanatical follower of Louis-Napoleon, whose service dated back to the future Emperor's wilderness years of exile and imprisonment, Persigny stood out among the Emperor's motley political entourage as the most passionate ideologue of Bonapartism. The Emperor's famous wry comment: "The Empress is a Legitimist, Morny is an Orleanist, Prince Napoleon is a Republican, and I myself am a Socialist. There is only one Bonapartist, Persigny – and he is mad!"


text:
Thyrotropin-releasing hormone

Thyrotropin-releasing hormone (TRH) is a hypophysiotropic hormone produced by neurons in the hypothalamus that stimulates the release of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and prolactin from the anterior pituitary.

TRH has been used clinically for the treatment of spinocerebellar degeneration and disturbance of consciousness in humans. Its pharmaceutical form is called protirelin (INN).

Synthesis and release

TRH is synthesized within parvocellular neurons of the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus. It is translated as a 242-amino acid precursor polypeptide that contains 6 copies of the sequence -Gln-His-Pro-Gly-, with both ends of the sequence flanked by Lys-Arg or Arg-Arg sequences.

To produce the mature form, a series of enzymes are required. First, a protease cleaves to the C-terminal side of the flanking Lys-Arg or Arg-Arg. Second, a carboxypeptidase removes the Lys/Arg residues leaving Gly as the C-terminal residue. Then, this Gly is converted into an amide residue by a series of enzymes collectively known as peptidylglycine-alpha-amidating monooxygenase. Concurrently with these processing steps, the N-terminal Gln (glutamine) is converted into pyroglutamate (a cyclic residue). These multiple steps produce 6 copies of the mature TRH molecule per precursor molecule for human TRH (5 for mouse TRH).

TRH synthesizing neurons of the paraventricular nucleus project to the medial portion of the external layer of the median eminence. Following secretion at the median eminence, TRH travels to the anterior pituitary via the hypophyseal portal system where it binds to the TRH receptor stimulating the release of thyroid-stimulating hormone from thyrotropes and prolactin from lactotropes. The half-life of TRH in the blood is approximately 6 minutes.

Structure
TRH is a tripeptide, with an amino acid sequence of pyroglutamyl-histidyl-proline amide.

History
The structure of TRH was first determined, and the hormone synthesized, by Roger Guillemin and Andrew V. Schally in 1969. Both parties insisted their labs determined the sequence first: Schally first suggested the possibility in 1966, but abandoned it after Guillemin proposed TRH was not actually a peptide. Guillemin's chemist began concurring with these results in 1969, as NIH threatened to cut off funding for the project, leading both parties to return to work on synthesis.

Schally and Guillemin shared the 1977 Nobel Prize in Medicine "for their discoveries concerning the peptide hormone production of the brain." News accounts of their work often focused on their "fierce competition" and use of a very large amount of sheep and pig brains to locate the hormone.

Clinical significance
TRH is used clinically by intravenous injection (brand name Relefact TRH) to test the response of the anterior pituitary gland; this procedure is known as a TRH test. This is done as diagnostic test of thyroid disorders such as secondary hypothyroidism and in acromegaly.

TRH has anti-depressant and anti-suicidal properties, and in 2012 the U.S. Army awarded a research grant to develop a TRH nasal spray in order to prevent suicide amongst its ranks. The antidepressant properties of TRH are present when TRH is administered intrathecally, or administration into the spine, and the effects are short-lived. Some researchers are testing a prodrug approach to administer TRH orally and have TRH reach the brain without being degraded in the stomach or blood.

TRH has been shown in mice to be an anti-aging agent with a broad spectrum of activities that, because of their actions, suggest that TRH has a fundamental role in the regulation of metabolic and hormonal functions.

Side effects
Side effects after intravenous TRH administration are minimal. Nausea, flushing, urinary urgency, and mild rise in blood pressure have been reported. After intrathecal administration, shaking, sweating, shivering, restlessness, and mild rise in blood pressure were observed.

title: Thyrotropin-releasing hormone


text:
Talk:Origin of Art

This isn't really suitable for the Wikipedia - it's too chatty and informal, and there's too much of the first person. In short, it doesn't have an encyclopaedic tone. Anybody have any ideas what might be done with it? --Camembert

title: Talk:Origin of Art


text:
Talk:Yamanashi Prefecture

The prefectural symbols
(Flower, Tree, Bird) are very vague translations. I tried to get more information and locate the botanical name for them but it looks like there is very little information available in English.

Especially the prefectural tree (Kaede; 楓 or カエデ) seems to have to many different names and variations according to The Maple website.

Any hint or better translation is welcome.

synthetik 15:44 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if it is really necessary to be so specific with the city symbols as to even add the botanical name, which is of no interest to the majority of people. I think a general english name for the bird, flower should be more helpful. Does anyone really care about the subspecies? Who cares very much about the city symbols anways. I don't think it's necessary to put such big effort in it. Just my two cents. Cheers Geofrog 03:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Note to all users, Kitakoma has dissolved after Kobuchisawa merged with Hokuto on March 15, 2006 Japan time. BigBang11 17:46, 14 March 2006 Pacific Standard Time (UTC)

Radiation effects?
I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add information about radiation effects of the leaks of the Fukushima nuclear power plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeeQC (talk • contribs) 03:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Yamanashi Prefecture


text:
Talk:Kung fu (term)

Initial Comments
Hello everyone. I have some ideas how to improve the sections that regard Chinese martial arts (Kung Fu, Wushu etc), all to make it more accurate and easier to understand. Here are the first of my proposals, which regard the term Gongfu (Kung Fu):

 * In Kung Fu, explain that it's an obsolete, though widely used, spelling of Gongfu, and that it uses Wade-Giles Romanization instead of Pinyin. Link to Gongfu for further information regarding the meaning of the term, and to Chinese martial arts for more details about Chinese martial arts in general. Move all the current information about Chinese martial arts and the term Wushu into their proper articles (more on this later).

 * In Gungfu, explain that it's the term made popular by Bruce Lee, and that it uses the older Yale Romanization. Use same links as above.

 * Make Gongfu the chief section for this term, and describe the meaning of the Chinese characters, and the differences between how this term is used in China and how it’s used in the West. Include links to Wushu and Chinese martial arts.

The main change would be that Kung Fu, Gungfu etc. redirects to Gongfu, and that the Gongfu article only includes information about this specific term (and how it’s also being used in the West), and not about Chinese martial arts or Wushu.

I think this change would make the meaning of this term and these different spellings more clear. Also, by using the Pinyin terms for all Chinese words (Gongfu, Wushu, Qigong, Taijiquan etc), instead of mixing the various spellings together, we avoid much confusion. Some might argue that because “Kung Fu” is a more popular spelling in the West, this should be the name of the main article used to describe the term, but my opinion (though it has varied much over time) is that it’s better to use the official spelling (Pinyin) as it’s both more accurate and is commonly used for other terms (like Qigong and Taijiquan), especially as this is an encyclopedia.

Another way of solving this is to simply redirect Kung Fu and Gungfu to Gongfu, and explain the various spellings there. I do, however, still think “Gongfu” should be the spelling favored in the description of the term, and that the other spellings link to this and not the other way around.

Here are my other ideas, on how to sort the rest of the Chinese martial arts sections:

 * Make the Wushu section describe the meaning of wu3 shu4 and the Chinese characters, and that it’s in the West often associated with the newer modern Chinese martial arts, aimed at exhibition and competition. Link to Chinese martial arts.

 * In Chinese martial arts, include history of Chinese martial arts, and describe common features seen in many Chinese martial arts styles (differences between external and internal styles, etc). As there are so many styles of Chinese martial arts, my idea is that we should link to “Chinese martial arts styles” for detailed lists of styles.

 * Chinese martial arts styles should in that case be a detailed list of styles (linking to each style's individual article), perhaps divided into external and internal styles, or northern and southern styles.

What I want to do here is to make the Wushu article only contain information about the term itself (much like Gongfu above), and instead direct readers to Chinese martial arts for history and information about Chinese martial arts.

First I was thinking of using the Wushu article for explaining Chinese martial arts, but the reason I decided I did not want that is because “wushu” is the term in China for “martial arts”, which, from what I’ve understood, in China can refer to any martial art, and not just those originated in China. If anyone has another impression of this, please tell me.

That’s all my thoughts for now. I’d love to hear comments or ideas from all of you reading this, so we can discuss how to make the Chinese martial arts sections as accurate and easy to understand as possible. My hope is that this will keep expanding (I will myself start writing about the styles I train in as soon as these sections are sorted out), and I therefore wish these main sections to be as clear as possible, avoiding the confusion that seems to pester so many other sites of information out there.

Also, if there are any Chinese readers/writers here, I’d love to hear from you, as my simple Chinese studies cannot compare to someone who’ve actually lived there and used these terms in everyday life. --Wintran 15:47 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Syllabification and capitalization of "gongfu"
Anon,

 * 1) Why did you separate the syllables of the word gongfu? They are used as a word in Chinese and never a pause in between. The official pinyin documents state that syllables of one single word should be connected.
 * 2) Why did you capitalize gong and fu? It's used as a common noun in Chinese, not a proper noun. Also, both Merriam-Webster Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary use lowercase for kung fu. I know that there are a lot of popular use of capitals out there on the net, but that doesn't make it right.

Explain. --Menchi 06:48 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * First, I have to say that I agree with Menchi about using "gongfu" and "kung fu". A question I have to Menchi though: Is wushu used as a proper or a common noun in China, i.e. should it be capitalized or not?

 * Secondly, I wish everyone could discuss and explain things more. The latest days I have witnessed much change back and forth, leading nowhere.

So to hopefully start at least a minor discussion, I have two things I need to hear your opinions on:
 * I have written an article from scratch that includes all current information about the term gongfu and some new material. I was thinking of replacing the current with this, and move the general information about Chinese martial arts into Chinese martial arts and all information on the term wushu into wushu.
 * Should we move the kung fu article into gongfu (adding a redirect of course), but keep a clear explanation of the different spellings used? This is a complex subject, and I have noticed that opinions vary a lot depending on which articles people have in mind. There's already a general discussion about this held at Use pinyin not Wade-Giles. My opinion in the case of this article is that we at least put the explanation and translation of the Chinese term in gongfu, and also explain how the term is commonly used in the West, either in gongfu or in kung fu. --Wintran 00:18 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * Just try to respect Policies and guidelines & Naming conventions (use English). Follwing these we should not move the content of kung fu to gongfu because in english it's kung fu that is used and not gongfu, it is certainly the case that the word kung fu is now part of the english language. A short explaination about the origin of the term at the begining of the article and a redirect are welcome of course. --Looxix 00:53 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * You are right, though I personally think the case of romanization is a bit more complicated. I will use kung fu as the main article for this term.
 * I will soon add my updated version of this article. No major objections against moving most of the current information about Chinese martial arts in general into Chinese martial arts? --Wintran 00:46 22 May 2003 (UTC)

Question on additional schools
I was reading the article on Adrian Paul and the following martial arts (Kung Fu forms) are mentioned and I can't find any reference to them on the Wikipedia: Choy Li Fut and Hung Gar. If anyone knows about them, a mention either in the Kung Fu or the Martial art article would be good. --Dori 05:38 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Unanswered critiques
The kung fu article mixes systems of romanization indiscriminantly. The "Hung Gar" article given a link above uses some other system of romanization without, I think, making it clear that it is not Wade-Giles, is not pinyin, and is not a standard way of recording Mandarin (guo-yu, pu-tong-hua) pronunciations either. The unfortunate general reader is going to be lost, and probably will pass on the misinterpretations that s/he is being set up for. Sometimes less is more and more is less. There may be enough old fossils my age around that we need to keep Wade-Giles around to tide them over. But we shouldn't be messing up the younger generations by using a moribund system to the exclusion of what has become the de-facto standard for representing Chinese in romanized form. --Patrick0Moran 05:59, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Have the contributors to this article understood the Wikipedia policy on "NPOV" (neutral point of view)? The point of this policy is that someone who likes something or dislikes something or approves of one thing and disapproves of another thing should not on that account write an article that is slanted to their own view. Imagine if a Bush Republican wrote the Wikipedia article on Bill Clinton!

 * In the Kung Fu article, and in the discussion about it, I see some obvious problems caused because somebody thinks his/her way of defining something is the only way that people use the word. I ask that people reflect on what should be clearly visible place in this article where enthusiasm has overcome accuracy.

 * A highly moral person would not get what he/she needs to know about Cao Cao if an encyclopedia article only called him an evil person and failed to let people know what things he did that were good strategy, good leadership, good administration. You don't have to approve of the Red Baron to know that he was a good pilot whose flying techniques could be studied to advantage by anyone who wanted to be a good fighter pilot. --Patrick0Moran 04:35, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I just visited the wu3 shu4 page and was rather dismayed to see the dogmatic (wu3 duan4) tone of much that is written there. --Patrick0Moran 05:02, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Specific things that need to be fixed
The "wu shu" article begins with information on how many schools of martial arts there currently are. [Wǔshù (武術 in Chinese) means any type of Chinese martial arts, ] It needs to make clear that the term "wu shu" includes many kinds of armed combat.--P0M 01:08, November 6, 2003 (UTC)

Work needed
this article needs a lot work. please see http://www.faqs.org/faqs/martial-arts/faq/ as a starting point for good referenc. Xah P0lyglut 07:09, 2003 Nov 30 (UTC)

Major updates and rewrites
I've done some major updates of totally rewritten articles. Please see Chinese martial arts and its talk page for further details.

Also, I would like to move this article either to gongfu or back to kung fu. We should use gongfu if we would like to use the same romanization for all articles (Pinyin), as this is the correct Pinyin form as far as I know (and is the term I've used in the new article). This is the method I prefer. Or we should use kung fu if we want to use the term most common in Western contexts. --Wintran 00:12, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Moving to gongfu was what I wanted to do, but I made the mistake of creating a gongfu article and putting content into it -- so the server wouldn't let me put another article there. Do you know how to fix it? (We're supposed not to lose the page edit stuff...) --P0M 04:22, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, I suspected that was the case. I'm not really sure how to fix it either. Maybe some administrator (one with priviliges to delete articles) could help us? --Wintran 07:41, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I've put the gongfu article on the Redirects_for_deletion (under February 24). If it gets deleted we can then move this article to gongfu. Please add your vote there. --Wintran 22:08, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * I've voted. --P0M 00:24, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Nothing in our naming conventions says we have to use pinyin. Instead, we are to use the most common name. "kung fu" has 1,310,000 more google hits than "gongfu". I will move accordingly. --Jiang 01:56, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a quite a complex subject, and I have spent much thought on this particular case. Many of the problems of romanization are discussed at Use pinyin not Wade-Giles, though the discussion has been quite inactive as of late, not least from my side. I still believe in using one romanization system for all articles, either Wade-Giles or Pinyin, though I see Pinyin as the most flexible one. I also see the point of the current naming conventions and agree with the idea of using the most common spelling. This is what makes it hard, and I'm still not certain where I stand. Feel free to move to kung fu while the discussion continues. --Wintran 10:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Should we keep kung fu as a disambiguation page or make it redirect to the article about kung fu in martial arts (currently at gong fu), and put: "This article is about kung fu, and Chinese martial arts. There is another article on Kung Fu the television program" on top of the article? The reason why I'm asking is because the majority of people will be looking for kung fu in martial arts, and as I don't believe there are that many other uses of the term. --Wintran 10:12, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * Further discussion on which romanization to use can go at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Yes, I agree most people would be looking for the martial arts and the disambiguation header should go at the top instead of having a separate DA page. --Jiang 10:29, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

 * There is also a discussion of this at the Daoism-Taoism romanization issue article. --Fire Star 04:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Animal styles: removed text
I removed the piece of text below from the article because of the following reasons:
 * As there are widely different opinions and uses of the terms kung fu and wushu, the idea I had was to separate these from the actual text about martial arts in China, which was instead placed at Chinese martial arts. Much of the text below would be better suited in that article.
 * I feel that most of the text has already been mentioned in kung fu, wushu, Chinese martial arts or Shaolin, and is a bit too general.

If you don't agree with me or have ideas how to improve these articles please feel free to post your opinions. I just want the articles to be as clear as possible.

The text, posted by 172.198.94.48:
 * "There are 5 original animal styles that derived from shaolin temple. Monkey is not one of them, although it is a valid style of kung fu. The five animal styles are Snake, Crane, Tiger, Dragon, and Leopard (sometimes known as Panther). There are many other animal styles, such as Monkey, Eagle Claw, Iron Ox, Praying Mantis... Some other styles of kung fu (non-animal) would be, Hung Gar, Si Lum, Wing Chun, White Eyebrow, Bagua, Hsing Yi, Tai Chi, Shaolin, San Shou, Choy Li Fut, etc... Most of the translations of Kung Fu mentioned so far are accurate. Work x Time = Kung Fu. Kung Fu should not be confused with Wu Shu. Wu Shu is based on the arts of Kung Fu, but is basically just for display. Large wide flowing moves, acrobatics, and big poses. The translation for Wu Shu is "Martial Techniques" (i believe) and is not trained for practicality in self-defense."

--Wintran 15:22, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming
I don't agree with the most recent edit by 24.17.149.200, who has replaced:
 * "Kung fu or gongfu (功夫, pinyin: gōngfu) is the most common term, along with wushu, used for Chinese martial arts."

with:
 * "Kung fu or gongfu (功夫, pinyin: gōngfu) is the most common term (the more correct, though obscure, term is wushu, translated as "military skill") used for Chinese martial arts."

Reasons:
 * Neutral point of view issue. I don't find it a good idea to state which opinion is "correct", in this way. We can inform about why it's considered correct by some; for example, because its translation is more directly related to martial arts. In general we should explain the various meanings of the terms and how they are being used by people around the world, and let the readers themselves decide which term they find the most correct to use. When a term clearly has more reasons for being used, which is not true in this case, this will be obvious for the readers, while if two terms are about equal, we are presenting them both and the readers can make their own judgement.
 * I think the translation and explanation of wushu should be kept in its own article. Too many articles in Wikipedia have excessive information about other terms, information that is already available - or should be found - on their specific pages.

I will wait for further opinions before I revert. --Wintran 00:15, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree that the new version isn't as clear. Perhaps we should say something like:

 * "Kung fu or gongfu (功夫, pinyin: gōngfu) is a well known term used in the West to designate Chinese martial arts. In Chinese, the most common term for martial art is wushu."

 * Just a thought. --Fire Star 01:29, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I like your idea much better.

 * Here's another version, with the rest of the introduction included:

 * ''"Kung fu or gongfu (功夫, pinyin: gōngfu) is a well known Chinese term used in the West to designate Chinese martial arts. Its original meaning is somewhat different, referring to one's ability in any skill, not necessarily martial.

Many consider wushu a better term for Chinese martial arts, as it translates directly into "martial art".''

--Wintran 09:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There we have it, nicely done. If you haven't put the above in the article yet, I will now. --Fire Star 19:45, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree with a substantial portion of this discussion. The most common term used by most Chinese people is actually, "quanfa", meaning "fist techniques".  "Wushu" and "wuyi" mean "martial arts", indeed, but they also have connotations of entirely military arts - vis, archery, swordsmanship, charioteering, the study of the Sun Zi, etc.  "Quanfa" may not be a commonly accepted or easily pronounced word in the word, but it conveys the meaning most accurately.  The purpose here should be to inform others, not simply follow convention; "quanfa" is a more complete term for barehand fighting, and "quan" is found in the name of most Chinese martial arts.Blackjamm 15:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Look up Martial arts. On Wikipedia it's not defined as just barehand fighting. The use of weapons also falls under martial arts, especially in chinese martial arts.KevinKung (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Kung Fu
This article contradicts and then recontradicts the original meaning of Kung Fu. Knew I enough, I'd clean this up myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.214.1 (talk • contribs) 21:30, July 12, 2004 (UTC)

Tell me about kung fu
The article seems to tell us a lot about the origin of the term 'Kung Fu' and very little about the martial arts that today fall under that banner!

Nothing is mentioned of the 300 soft and 300 hard kung fu animal styles. The fact that the first animal style was modelled after the monkey. When the martial art was first created and by whom.

In fact it looks more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia entry. If noone beats me to it I might have a go this weekend. It's not like there isn't any information on the subject! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.168.102 (talk • contribs) 12:38, June 13, 2005 (UTC)

Problems with historical accuracy.
The history section of this article is not based on fact. See Zhou_kings for a list of the real rulers of that dynasty. The Yellow Emperor is not among them, and in fact according to legend he lived around a thousand years earlier than the Zhou kings. There are other assertions about books supposedly written by the Yellow Emperor, and by others who lived at a very early time. Where are the citations to these books? If I at least had names for the books I could track them down in genuine historical sources and secondary sources. --P0M 22:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * There are many more inaccuracies and confusions.

 * Furthermore, Taoist monks are claimed to have been practicing physical exercises that resembles Tai Chi (or a soft form of Kung fu) at least as early as the 500 B.C. era. In 39-92 A.D., the "Six Chapters of Hand Fighting", in the Han Book of Arms were written by Pan Kuo. Also, the Hua To, "Five Animals Play" - tiger, deer, monkey, bear, and bird, was developed around 220 A.D.

 * Neither the Lao Zi nor the Zhuang Zi had been written at this time. There is no history of a "Yellow Turban" kind of religious Daoism, either. So who are these "Taoist monks" who were around before the founders of Daoism?

 * What is the "Han Book of Arms"? Is this the Han dynastic history (Han Shu)? and a chapter in that history that pertains to military weapons?  That would jibe with the author if "Pan Kuo" is a misspelling for "Pan Ku" (pinyin Ban Gu).

 * The reference to the "Hua To" is unclear. It is incorrect in romanization. What is it supposed to be talking about when it mentions that the "five animals play." Probably it is supposed to have something to do with the "animal styles" of martial arts quan tao (forms), but the average reader will be totally clueless. --P0M 23:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * If nobody produces citations or clarifications for the legendary stuff that would allow it to be contextualized in such a way that it still would fit in an encyclopedia, I'm going to start cutting. --P0M 23:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Explanation
Taoism predates Lao Tse Tung. He merely codified existing practices in China. Most Taoist monks will tell you that they were practicing a "soft" form of martial arts or chi kung prior to the advent of the "hard" forms of wushu. I'm not sure if Pan Kuo and Pan Ku are the same but the Han book of arms mentions unarmed combat. Hua To was a physician who developed the traditional animal forms of martial arts. --Kenneth Tennyson

 * Who is "Lao Tse Tung"? You say s/he "codified existing practices in China." What sources are you basing this assertion on? There are all sorts of names in a country that was fairly populous even in Han dynasty times, but Pan Ku is the name of the history writer. The "Han book of arms" does not correspond to the title of a book. I can look at the list of extant books from that time, but it is really your job to come up with the correct title if you are the one who is making the assertions. I know who Huo To is. What is your basis for asserting that he created the animal forms? How is anyone to know that this isn't just a pious legend unless you can give citations? --P0M 20:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems that you are misinformed. Misspellings depend on the translation you are using for Chinese names. You can look up Pan Kuo on line or look him up on amazon.com for books on his life. --Kenneth Tennyson

 * I did look on Google for "Pan Kuo" and "Han History" -- there are lots of people named Pan Kuo, but the name of the person who wrote the history of the Han dynasty is not one of them. I got two hits for "Han history" and "Ban Gu" or "Pan Ku", zero for the other spelling. Please check your facts. The characters that form the name of the history book author are romanized as Pan Ku in the Wade-Giles system and as Ban Gu in the pinyin system of romanization.

 * Lao Tse Tung is credited with starting Taoism but Taoism was existant before Lao Tse Tung.

 * Are you thinking of the author of the Dao De Jing (the Way and its Power)? The identity of this person (or these people) has been discussed for hundreds of years. You can get a better idea about this question by checking Fung Yu-lan's History of Chinese Philosophy, which is scholarly and reliable. You can check the Introductions to good translations of the Tao Te Ching such as those by D. C. Lau, Wing-tsit Chan, et al. You can assert that "Taoism was existant..." but that is your opinion. You need to come up with some proof.

 * In many Taoist practices there are Chi Kung (qigong )(later Tai Chi) exercises that have made its way into kung fu (which actually is a misnomer - most chinese do not call their general arts Kung Fu). For example, the book by Hua To is generally called Dao Yin Tu.  It includes a chart representing 44 human figures which perform movements emulating wild animals, including the wolf, monkey, bear, crane, hawk and vulture.

 * O.K., that counts as a citation. At least somebody can look at the charts and read any accompanying text to see whether the written part suggests these were more than just stances designed for stretching, and also whether in addition to emulating movements of animals they thought they were doing something that would be useful in fighting.

 * Hua Tuo is credited with developing the "Five Animal Frolics" style, which is still popular today.

 * Again you make an assertion without citing any authoritative source. Are you trying to repeat what you have already said, or are you saying that authorities in the field have made these assertions?

If you wrote the second paragraph in the History section, then you are taking the history of Kung Fu into a different avenue than it should be taken. Sun Tzu, though he did write a history on the Martial arts, it only pertains to Military warfare and strategy. I am not sure if he had any comments on actual "martial" arts or the self defense practices like Kung Fu or Karate. --Kenneth Tennyson

 * We can disagree on what the right avenue is. Sun Tzu did not "write a history on the Martial arts," however. --P0M 21:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Passage added by anonymous editor moved here
Somebody added the following directly to the article: Different opinion： The word kungfu from Cantonese, means martial art. Many people say that kungfu means skill/ability, and not martial arts skill. Implying that people commonly misunderstand kungfu to mean martial arts (discouraging the use of the word kungfu, and use the word wushu instead). Kungfu (gongfu) does means skill/ability in mandarin, without any martial arts implication. The word came to English through Cantonese, and still retains it's original meaning.

It's rather misleading to argue that Cantonese usage meaning determines what a word means in English. It's also rather misleading to indicate that the dictionary meaning of a word in Chinese necessarily determines what people actually say in everyday conversation. "Gongfu" in Chinese is a little like "affair" in English. What the word means is strongly influenced by the context. If you say, "She is an expert in affairs of state," you are probably talking about somebody named Albright. If you say, "He has more affairs than a tomcat," you're probably talking about some Don Juan dela Alley. In Chinese, if you say, "Ta1 zai4 xue2 gong1fu" (He is studying gongfu), everybody will understand that he is taking martial arts lessons of some kind.

The word "wushu" is, properly speaking, a term for all kinds of one-on-one combat, including knives, swords, halberds, spears, etc., etc. When people don't know the details of things like xing-yi and tang-lang quan, they may just say, "She's learning gongfu," but if they're capable of being more specific they'll probably use the more specific term. And my guess is that if somebody says, "He's learning wushu," they probably mean the guy is learning to do the "performance art" kind of thing that's more like choreography. --P0M 16:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: Merging of wushu, kung fu and Chinese martial arts articles
Please see Talk:Wushu for some new thoughts on this matter. --Wintran 23:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Gongfu is an important term applied historically and philosophically in many areas beyond martial arts. As such it should not be merged with a martial arts article. Vitalforce (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Policy on commercial links
Some people have added links to their own (?) schools. The function of an article is not to support commerical enterprises but to supply objective information. Is there any reason not to delete all of the commercial links? I have deleted one a couple of times, and it keeps coming back, but I can see how whoever keep re-adding it could argue that it is being singled out. P0M 05:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unless the site in question has articles or nice illustrative photos beyond what is presented in the article, they should go, IMO. The different styles' articles have some links to notable schools of their genre (Yang style T'ai Chi Ch'uan for example has links to the Yang family's website), but this general article just seems to be a spam magnet. I don't have time to go through them all now, but will put the article on my watchlist and look through them later. --Fire Star 05:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Marial arts category for Wikipedians
A new category for those interested in martial arts has been created at Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_martial_arts. To add yourself, simply copy the following code to the bottom of your own user page:

Shawnc 11:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

"Kung Fu" vs "Wushu"
See Talk:Shaolin (martial arts) for an example of the use of the term "Kung Fu" in Chinese to connote the same meaning as in the west, ie. martial art -- "Shaolin Kung Fu" is actually used more often than "Shaolin Wushu" in both Chinese and English. Shawnc 13:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Wushu styles categorization
Please post some comments about the categorization of wushu styles at Category talk:Chinese martial arts. Shawnc 03:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

"gong fu" as a phrase
There are typically two phrases for "gong fu". One is for the martial art, one is for effort expended. If you're talking about effort expended you don't include the "li" on the right side of the "gong." Thought I'd clear that up. --69.109.114.106

 * That is a good point. I've just been told that for martial art you include the "li", and for effort you can use either. Shawnc 10:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a bigger problem here, and I think it may take a "project" to straighten it all out. Despite what is being done with gymnastic-style "wu-shu" in mainland China, the term "wu shu" actually is an umbrella term for armed and unarmed kinds of conflict. Quan-fa (ch'üan-fa) or, in Japanese, kempo, is subordinate, i.e., it is one thing that falls under that umbrella. Sport wu-shu or theatrical wu-shu also falls under the general umbrella. Shuai-jiao falls under the general umbrella, as do qin-na, tai-ji, weapons use, etc., etc. I've been speaking Chinese since my first stint of four years in Taiwan in the 60s, and I've never sensed any attempt to be precise about the use of the term "gongfu", but if somebody uses it as a term to explain what somebody is doing in the park everyday at 5 a.m., then they will be assumed to refer to a martial arts practice that has empty-handed attacks and defenses at its center. P0M 15:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

 * There's also the phrase "lien gong" or "[to] practice gong [fu]", which almost certainly refers to the practicing of Chinese martial arts. So, it actually seems incorrect or at least misleading to imply that "kung fu should not be used to refer to martial arts".  I'm thinking of merging kung fu and wushu. Shawnc 14:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think it works quite that way. If somebody says, "Zhang San lian gongfu," the person probably does not practice the theatrical stuff, and he probably doesn't practice swordsmanship stuff. He probably does Tanglang quan (preying mantiss style) or something that would be immediately useable in the event that somebody tried to strongarm the guy on the street.

 * It's a bad move when people degrade a language by carelessly using terms, which is what has happened with the fancy competitive stuff used in competitions gets named "wu shu." It's bad because it tends to eliminate the umbrella term that puts shuai jiao, qin na, all of the quan, sword techniques, spear techniques, ge techniques, theatrical wushu, etc., etc. all under the same larger category.

 * We need that kind of an umbrella wu shu (in the classical sense) article with branches out to all of the subsidiary endeavors to give all of them their proper context. P0M 05:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

 * A problem is that the semantics of "kung fu" is not precisely defined to begin with, both in and out of China, and it is also used as an umbrella term in common practice. A user from Hong Kong also suggested to me, regarding wushu vs kung fu, "As far as Hong Kong is concerned, it's called kung fu there, both in English and in Cantonese."  Also, "Shaolin kung fu" is used more often than "Shaolin wushu" in Chinese.  We shouldn't say "kung fu should not be used as an umbrella term" when many Chinese people already use it as such. Shawnc 04:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

 * "Shaolin wushu" would sound really odd. The reason is that Shaolin quan centers on unarmed fighting techniques, just as karate does. I'm more familiar with karate, and in that case there is some attention paid to armed techniques and especially to weapons that were associated with karate in Okinawa, e.g., the sai.  When I said "wushu" is an umbrella term what I really meant is that it is like our term "martial arts" that subsumes karate, aikido, taiji quan, tanglang quan, Shaolin quan, qin na, Chinese double-edged sword (jian), Chinese single-edged sword (dao), knife fighting, stick fighting, shuai jiao, qing gong, qi gong, resuscitation techniques, etc., etc.

 * Yes wushu is the umbrella term, ie. wushu = "martial arts". I agree that the modern, narrow usage of "wushu" is confusing.  My concern here was that this article until recently stated that "Kung fu is a well-known Chinese term used in the West to designate Chinese martial arts", when it should simply read "kung fu can be used to designate Chinese martial arts", since Chinese people do use this term.  I think the practical difference in usage between wushu and kung fu is not necessarily related to armed vs. unarmed fighting, as the words don't literally refer to them, and "Shaolin wushu" is apparently a common usage in traditional Chinese (Talk:Shaolin (martial arts)). Shawnc 08:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Removing external links
Inspired by Talk:Chinese martial arts I find that the same applies to this article, so I'm removing the current external links section. If you don't agree, please object. Wintran 19:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A little pruning
I just went through and removed large chunks of info that belonged on the Chinese martial arts article. This page is about the term and not the martial art. I think this page could be expanded to include mentions of kungfu in playing instruments or whatever else requires time and skill. The pages' overall downfall is its complete lack of references. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing material about 'hacker culture'
This material was in breach of the purpose of an encyclopaedia, in that it was trying to define rather than document. Slang terms from cliques should not be presented in an encyclopaedia and therefore this nonsense about how participants in 'hacker culture' use the term will be removed. It should've been removed earlier anyway, since it didn't have any sources to back it up. If anyone does try to reintroduce it, someone should check that the sources cited are actually reputable. Owen214 (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 * I disagree, and I think it was inappropriate to remove the information. Addition of the syllable "fu" to various English terms has been part of the popular culture at least since the 1990s, and possibly earlier.  The first time I heard of it was in an episode of "The X-Files", where one of the Lone Gunmen characters says to the other, "My kung fu is better than your kung fu", in relation to his computer skills.  They were clearly not discussing martial arts.  A cursory search of the Internet will find other uses, such as ScriptFu and commandlinefu.com.  I ended up spending more than half an hour searching for the meaning of "fu" before being able to grasp the concept, something that could easily have been shorted to a matter of two minutes if the "hacker culture" usage, as you put it, had been left in the article under the heading "In popular culture". — QuicksilverT @ 18:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Oxford definition
Most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Oxford implies that karate came before kung fu, or that more people know about karate. --2.245.102.108 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Add more information
One cannot know even about basic things about Kung Fu in this page.. Nothing about origin, history Some other websites provides more information.. Somebody please add more informations Thangs Thangasamy (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Not showing this page when searched
When I search Kung Fu in internet Chinese Martial Arts Wikipedia page is shown instead of this page.. Thangs Thangasamy (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Pop Culture
Per the recent Whiskey Tribe pop culture additions and removals. At what point does it qualify for a spot on the page? There is a reference link and it is used in the whiskey community on a daily basis. Drogo Boffin (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

I found it hilarious that the "pop culture" section completely ignores the 1970s television show by the same name. It's not awful - it seems to a do a half-decent job of tracing the highlights, from Bruce Lee to Jackie Chan, and the hip hop influence is fascinating. The article on Kung Fu (1972 TV series) almost has more about Bruce Lee than this one. Interesting oversight. Huw Powell (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Meaning
What does kung mean, what does fu mean, what does kung fu mean? Thank you. Maikel (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kung fu (term)