Talk:Wing Chun

message: I propose merging Branches of Wing Chun into Wing Chun. I think the content in Branches of Wing Chun can easily be explained in the context of Wing Chun, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in Wing Chun because it does not have a branches section.
#Branches of Wing Chun was created in 2005 without any reference to the Wing Chun article, it is 14kb in size, classed at quality = Start, and received an average of 74 visitors per day over the past month
#Wing Chun was created in 2001 and there was no discussion about creating a WP:SPINOFF article titled Branches of Wing Chun in 2005, it is 36kb in size, classed at quality = C, and received an average of 1,162 visitors per day over the past month
I cannot see a reason why Wing Chun should be separated from its branches. There are benefits in bringing these two together. I shall wait one week for receiving other editor's views. William Harris (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - I can see that they could be fit in a wikitable in a one section. Also the language in "Branches of Wing Chun" is quite messy (i.e doesn't fit the wikipedia model) and can be streamlined for more coherent reading. TrickShotFinn (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm thinking something like this. Thoughts? It could prob be collapsible if it starts to take too much space and make the entry hard to read. TrickShotFinn (talk) 08:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello TrickShotFinn, thanks for your support. At this stage, my focus is on bringing together those parts of the article which should never have been created separately in the first place. Your idea has merit, and we certainly don't want the writing to be hard to read. Regarding the table you have moved to the Safety section above, it is unclear to me what it is trying to do - I thought that someone would either remove it or explain its significance. Any improvements to the article which cite WP:RELIABLE sources will be most welcome. Regards, William Harris (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: About that table at safety? Yeah, I have no clue either. I don't know who made it, but I don't think there's that much harm deleting it. TrickShotFinn (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All of the people in the "Safety table" that have links are now linked in the Wing Chun article. The others are of no concern. William Harris (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge is now completed. Interested editors are invited to apply WP:MOS to the new section called "Branches". William Harris (talk) 07:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

text: I think your idea is good for now, the article is not overly large at 53kb in size (and probably closer to 45kb excluding references, pix and headings that are not counted for article size). Other sections could do with some culling where there is no citation or reliable sourcing. I do not have access to Chu 2015 - which is basically the history of Wing Chun provided through a reliable publisher - apart from what is on Google Books, and I have almost exhausted that, so my additions are coming to a close. One would expect the Branches section to be one of the largest parts of the article. Based on Chu 2015, there are 8 most recognised lineages of Wing Chun, plus numerous other schools and branches. One approach might be to include the other 1 with the current 7, and de-table those listed as "Other notable". William Harris (talk) 08:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I thought you had Chu 2015. I also got info on the Nanyang lineage from Google Books preview of the Chu 2015. My other source is the 2000 edition of Leung Ting's Roots and Branches of Wing Chun - which PDF copy I got by freak luck from Scribd (its a rare book) - but I contend that Chu 2015 is more realiable/professional. I'll mainly use Leung Ting as secondary confirmation if the facts presented in that book align with Chu 2015 first.TrickShotFinn (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done TrickShotFinn, Leung was another text partially available in Google Books that I had in mind. Although his book might be be criticised by some editors on WP as being from a self-published source, he is regarded as an expert in the field and has published other books on the subject, and referenced by others so that argument can be rebutted based on WP:SELFPUB.  William Harris (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

text: @William Harris - However, I need to thank you from bringing the Chu 2015 to my attention. I was previously under impression that Yip Man and Yuen Kay-shan lineages were the central ones with these two having unclear roots mired in speculation. -- TrickShotFinn (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 2 

message: Hello,
I have found that the transliteration of WIng Chun's first form to generally be written as "siu lim tau". Would it not make more sense to use this version throughout the article?
Thanks, ~~~ NorthWu (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siu Lim Tau 

message: I have tried to remove the list of some of the notable practitioners as there is already a link to the complete list and category. 
Take for example the NOTE about Wong Cheung Leung teaching Bruce Lee and he is mentioned in the notable practitioners too this is an obvious promotion. Why is William Cheung not listed because he is competition however he is more notable Than WSL he has had more Wing Chun branches and student than WSL and has appeared on the front cover of over 35 magazine even been on CNN. I would rather not add William Cheung but it make my point of the list of peoples favorites.
Robert Downey Jr not on there either, Really? Why not cause he is William Cheung lineage of course. 
Is there a sources that states these particular master are the most notable, no because they have been chosen by a user promoting his lineage. Crazy pumpkin 123 (talk) 08:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable practitioners are someone's favorites