Wikipedia: Qi/Talk

: "which uses tiny metal spines inserted into the skin to reroute qi flow, among others."

Are the "others" other devices (and surely the usual English term is "needles"? Is needle avoided for a reason?), or effects other than rerouted chi flow? It's not clear.

BF, thanks for adding Tai Chi Chuan. :-)

If you can find a Chinese calligraphy image of "Tai Chi", email it to someone here( there's a spot someplace on how to link images on Wikipedia), and it will look nice on the Tai Chi page. I keep a book beside my monitor titled "Tai Chi", by Paul Crompton. The 1st page has the Chinese symbol for Tai Chi, verified by a native of China, who pronounces it "djee". I've always been a New Age person and included Eastern thought in my lifestyle, but this book was the first one purchased that started me on my way seriously. My personal form is a ballet/ tai chi mixture which looks like me dancing slowly and breathing. It is allowed to make your own movements, as long as you know the basics. ~BF

: you can find the yin yang symbol and all the Yijing trigrams and their corresponding unicode code point in http://www.unicode.org/charts/PDF/U2600.pdf

I see that several of us have worked on this definition, and none of them (including my attempt) is adequate. What we really need is simply a longer and more contentful explanation, bearing in mind that the definition shouldn't imply that ch'i actually exists (in other words, it should leave room for the possibility that ch'i very well might not exist). --LMS

Probably no one cares, but I believe the tonal information is very important for Chinese transliteration. Please give a reason why the information was removed. Don't tell me simply because someone don't know what it is.

FYI, according to my dictionary, there are 22 Chinese characters pronounced as qi(1), there are 42 pronounced as qi(2), 13 as qi(3) and 19 as qi(4). Removing the tonal notation at least quadrupled the ambiguity. Removing the Unicode character doesn't help at all, you are changing a precise origin of word into 96 possible mappings.

Do you want an encyclopedia with precise info or what?

Yes, we absolutely do. I tend to agree with those who have been complaining lately that we have gotten too much into the habit of deleting content we don't like. People, that's not the right way forward. The right way forward is to edit what you don't like; if you can't be bothered to edit it, then unless there is just zero merit to it at all, you might mark the text as in need of editing, but don't delete it. Yes, there are instances where it's completely appropriate simply to delete what someone has written: if it's graffiti, if it's just entirely factually false, if it is merely (no more than) an idiosyncratic statement of opinion. But for everything (or nearly everything) else, if you're going to just delete something, at least give people a chance to defend what they wrote on the /Talk page. --LMS