Talk:Wing Tsun

message: For those that are interested in this sort of thing, I created a userbox for those that study WT, you can use it by adding the following to your user page.
 
User:Aeontech has created a variant of this for those that also teach WT, you can use it by adding the following:
 
They add you to the correct categories, and hopefully someone will find them useful :) DarkCryst 21:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Userboxes & List of Wikipedians performing Wing Tsun

message: WingTsun is the correct trademarked spelling of the branch founded by Leung Ting, not Wing Tsun.
BlitzDefence is the correct spelling of the condensed form of WingTsun, not Blitz Defence.
* Not quite true: it is used throughout the world as "Wing Tsun" in common form. When referring explicitly to the organization it would be more correct to use WingTsun however. DarkCryst (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: External links should conform to Wikipedia's external links guide. 
In general if a link:
* "does not provide a unique resource beyond ... the article"
* contains "objectionable amounts of advertising"
* "require[s] external applications (such as Flash...)"
* is "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article)."
Do not include it! Regarding the last point - "if it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article." 
Like many martial arts pages too many external, irrelevant, links are a problem. I think we should narrow it down to important ones, as most of the ones getting linked seem to be specific schools (some claim "national association" level, but lack evidence of it being anything but name only). I'd recommend keeping just the International and European Association websites, and cutting everything else, unless there is an obvious reason to keep it. DarkCryst 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Is any practitioner of WT going to be participating in the Wikipedia Martial Arts Project?
(a5y 19:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  heh, "practitioner" is very specific in WT - and I think there are only 4 people in the USA  that have reached that rank :) However I'm studying WT (admittedly low level atm) and have already tried to tidy things up and bring it closer to the projects goals. I'll continue that as best I can. DarkCryst 03:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia Martial Arts Project

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Chun  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.193.182 (talk) 08:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not. This article is about Leung Ting's branch and art. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there two articles for the same subject? 

message: There are a few derived subsidiary styles off the traditional Wing Chun, but all of them nonetheless carry the same authentic chinese name and all of them recognize themselves as belonging to the original Wing Chun style.
The style of Wing Tsun was only 'founded' in 1947 and is really not all too different from the original Wing Chun, therefore the two should be merged and WT to come under a sub-section of the Wing Chun page to prevent confusion. I also notice the original page creator attempting to advertise his/her own school and attempting to partition from the association with the original Wing Chun as well as emphasising that Wing Tsun is more prefered than Wing Chun, need some NPOV there!
--WiKID Daryl 15:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where you got the idea for the vandalism you did or that it would justify what you're proposing.  Completely unfounded.  --Marty Goldberg 15:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, your edits to the main article were vandalism (which is what I was refering to) and the only one whose integrity (and emotional state) is in question is you.  Full of rediculous claims (Leung Ting was born in 1947, so it would be a little hard to "create" wing tsun then.  Leung Ting is not dead, hence there is no "late" Leung Ting, which is slandor. Bruce Lee did not study under Leung Ting or his Wing Tsun), POV statments ("little difference in skills and style"), and more.  If you had simply put forth a suggestion to merge and not done those edits and claims, that would have been different.  It also would most likely have been declined by consensus, since the Wing Tsun page had been moved off the Wing Chun page in the first place.  Likewise, it is viewed as a seperate version of the art by its founder and its practitioners, which is why it was also moved off.  Other "versions" and "branches" also have their own entries on Wikipedia as well, and would make no sense to merge with the main Wing Chun page - which is about the generic art as a whole, not individual branches and versions.  All branches are part of the whole, it makes no sense.  Threatening to call in mods and admins because you don't like being told you vandalised an article is funny actually, they have much more important things to deal with and quite frankly, their roles are well defined here already.  Lastly, questioning someone's intelligence and then stating "WgungFu or whatever your name is" also adds humor to your claims, when my name is clearly stated here as my signature. --Marty Goldberg 07:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You obviously have very little knowledge of WT. They are very different in teaching style, and the application of the principles behind the style. To say "the two styles are principally the same" demonstrates your lack of knowledge on the subject (not to mention the mistakes you made in your edits). References to the original art are made right at the top where it says "WingTsun Kung Fu (alternatively Wing Tsun, or 咏春) is a branch of the Kung Fu style Wing Chun developed by Leung Ting." what more needs to be said? DarkCryst 21:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wing Tsun And Wing Chun merge 

message: Hi there, I've recently noticed that Grand Master Kernspecht does not have his title when his name is presented in the WingTsun article.  I just wandered why, and can it be added? Seeing as Wgungfu will not let me change it.  Varketh 14:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, titles are not included on Wikipedia martial arts articles per WikiProject_Martial_arts#Honorifics_and_academic_titles. --Marty Goldberg 14:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Its a start but actually, you also need references stating as such and you also need to describe the process he used to obtain such title as per Honorific and Academic titles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgungfu (talk • contribs) 15:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: After a bit of research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wing_Chun had the most information, ironically enough), it seems that while White Crane Wing Chun (永春白鶴拳) is a separate martial art in which the 永春 characters refer to the city it comes from, so it is fair to list it here.
However, the Jee Shim Wing Chun traces their lineage back to Leung Jan (), who is in the main WC lineage, so it should be strictly speaking considered a branch of WC, not a separate martial art. It is even listed as a branch of WC on the Branches of Wing Chun article .
As such, it would be fair to either list ALL WC branches as using these characters in the third paragraph of the article, or none of them, and refer the reader to the main WC article for information about other branches.
Ideas?--Aeontech (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not the case.  The Jee Shim Wing Chun link you provided is not Jee Shim Weng chun.  That's some people from Yip Man linneage who appropriated the name for their school, they're students of William Cheung and Wong Shun Leung.  The actual Jee Shim (Chi Sim) people most certainly do no trace their linneage through Leung Jan.  The actual Jee Shim Weng Chun and Wey Yan affiliated linneage is at [www.weng-chun.com]. Likewise, the reason its on the linneage page (and I had something to do with that), is because there's been so much historical mingling between that and wing chun (some sifu's were sifu's in both) that it is considered by many to be related to the wing chun family as a whole, including its current practitioners.  As far as the village, that is correct.  The characters are also used for a village and a hall. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I was just going by the link that Koonleg50 provided. The school at the link he provided does indeed trace it back to Leung Jan. What do you suggest? 76.21.23.72 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, its not a valid reference. Its just somebody from Yip Man line who started calling their school "Jee Shim Weng Chun".  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, so, does Jee Shim originate from the Wing Chun city/village, like the White Crane style mentioned earlier? Ie, can we list them together in the same sentence?--Aeontech (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Jee Shim doesn't tie itself to the village.  Mythically, it ties itself to the "southern shaolin temple" and Jee Shim, the monk - hence the name.  Stylistically, it resembles general hung village arts. As I had been trying to explain to Koon, the characters for Weng Chun are used in various places - within our art, within the jee shim weng chun art, within young chun/weng chun white crane, and there's a hall in southern china that uses it as well. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 03:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You agree that Weng Chun are used in hung village arts. Actually,Pang Nam ,Cheung Po and  Chu Chung Man are the men of Hung village. --Koonleg50 (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, that's not what I said, and once again leave your WP:OR and disruptive editing practices out of these articles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Crane / Jee Shim WC listed as separate martial arts 

message: On the Wing Chun page there is a discussion on merging this content and the content of Wing Chun.  I recently became involved and posted a statement on the matter on the NPoV noticeboard.  On it I said:
The argument against merging is that either a) Leung Ting's divergence from Wing Chun, marked by his trademarking of the spelling Wing Tsun is notable or b) Wing Chun is a generic category of martial arts; like Karate while Wing Tsun is a notable art within the category (much as Shotokan would be).
Neither of these assertions are particularly correct.  Leung Ting's divergence is more about the ongoing lineage conflicts that plague TCMA and are, perhaps, notable enough for a sub-header in the Wing Chun page.  More to the point, Wing Chun is a single martial style of southern wugong.  Leung Ting's divergence is not notable enough for a separate header.  Likewise the Hung Gar page contains information both on the Wong Fei Hong / Lam Sai Wing lineage and other lineages within Hung Gar / Hung Kuen.
Please visit Talk:Wing Chun to discuss.Simonm223 (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sad to see that so little discussion has occured on this merger proposal.  Is there anyone with any objections to the merger? Simonm223 (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: NM, my bad, forgot that the discussion was at Wing Chun. Simonm223 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  merger proposal 

message: Who wrote the Chinese versions of the fighting principles? Can anyone name the source for them?
The use of 訂 is wrong, it is pronounced deng6, but means "draw up agreement; arrange", whereas 埞 means "place" (same pronounciation deng6).
See http://www.cojak.org/index.php?term=%E8%A8%82&function=character_lookup and http://www.cojak.org/index.php?term=%E5%9F%9E&function=character_lookup.
I suggest to use the correct character.
94.221.221.115 (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fighting principles 

message: This is just a commercial article, there is nothing encyclopaedic.
Wikipedia should delete this. This branch and all the other branches have websites to explain themselve.
193.238.8.86 (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What's commercial about it? There is no promotion of specific schools, no denigration of other schools, no links to goods or services related to the art. Please stop with the deletionism. Aeontech (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial