Talk:Wong Shun-leung

message: I killed all off & left 3 lines. The full verson (rewrite in progress) is here if you want to get bits out --Nate1481( t/c) 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably should have explained this a bit more, a lot or the sources were not primary, otherwise unreliable (e.g. club websites), possibly not existent, or obscure enough that verification was virtually impossible. These were backing up some exceptional claimes of a fight record along the lines of 500-2 and of a POV version of events of the losses, and of claims of having taught Bruce Lee with a significant part in films that never quite happened. --Nate1481( t/c) 12:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm an expert on the subject, if you have any questions (about him or technical about the art) feel free to ask.  Otherwise, thanks for working to improve it! I think the biggest thing that needs work right now is entire sections that are non-biographical in the encyclopedic sense, and lots of quotes and mentions of other people (including students) who's notability is questionable by Wikipedia standards (if they don't meet standards for it, then they're not notable enough to be used as a reference or quote) --Marty Goldberg (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your note. One area in which I'll try to help make the article better is by organising the content so that the reader can get a good overall impression of the subject's main claim(s) to notability, the sequence of his life, and his legacy (e.g., notable students). As the article stands, there is a lot of information, but I found it difficult to get a good sense of chronology from it. Janggeom (talk) 09:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just looking (did some work on it yesterday), and it looks like right now the Fights and Open Kung Fu Competition sections need to be merged under one fighting career section, and severely whittled down. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

text: It would need permission from the copyright holder. I took a look on Wikimedia Commons just now, but there appears to be no photograph of the subject there. Janggeom (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nuked

message: I'm starting a new discussion section, as it seems better than continuing under the "Nuked" heading. Reading through the article again, I think the content leads to the following sections: (1) Early life (it would be good to find out a bit more here), (2) Fighting career (this will probably be the biggest section), (3) Film career, and (4) Legacy. Section 2, and probably section 3, will need subheadings, but that is a general outline that seems to make sense to me. Janggeom (talk) 08:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats, and let me be the first to say you did one heck of a job.  1000% improved article. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your kind comments. What would be great (for further article improvement) is if subject experts like you (and others) could add reliable references and more background on the subject's life outside martial arts. I might have some references in old Australian martial arts magazines, so I will add any that I can find. Janggeom (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article improvement - June 2009 

message: Hi everyone, I clicked the source given [1] and I found out someone is spreading lies here in this article, please see here, this user wrote:
"Another version is that after Wong faced Lo Man Kam, Yip Po Ching defeated Wong."
Ok now look what is actually written in the source:
 'Lo Man Kam, who was practising there, accepted the challenge. Then Yip Po Ching took care of Wong.'
Clearly, the source says nothing about who defeated who, why is someone so desperate in spreading lies on Yip Po Ching defeated Wong?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by User778326198 (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Someone spreading lies in this article

message: The section on his "secret" contests are very weakly sourced and rely on information from Wong himself or his pupils. I suggest revising or eliminating this whole section to reflect the lack of any way to independently verify these underground fights.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.250.57.89 (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Biwu

message: Substituted at 10:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Article has greatly exaggerated subject in every conceivable way with non-credible sources such as ewingchun.com and student websites.
ewingchun.com is like wikipedia without sources which anybody can write on.
The article pushes the idea than Wong trained Bruce Lee by Wong's students. The same can be said about William Cheung whom introduced Lee to Ip Man but his article does no such thing nor uses student websites as sources. It is rather hard to believe that the testimony of Wong's student claiming Bruce Lee fought Wong and Wong was faster, article also claims that the wing chun  community believes that Wong was the greatest fighter of the 20th century and only people outside of wing chun don't believe it, this is typical peacocking. Anthony Arnett has won thousands of trophies in martial arts and Yuen Kay Shan was the famous 1000 death duel champion,Felix Leong held a Pacific champion title... that is the reality for the Wing Chun community at large. Also a filmography heading when Wong was never featured in any movies, he never choreographed anything 
Wong's own claims are fine as long as they are on a credible third party source like a magazine or newspaper but his own website or student websites are definitely non credible and are bias sources.  
This article contains a directory of over 30 of Wong's students based on ewingchun.com adding to the fact that this article looks like a personal blog. Australianblackbelt (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is fixed it has been left with only credible sources although the chinese references I can not verify. The list of students should not be there however I am not going to be the one to delete them. Australianblackbelt (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Peacock issue and non-credible sources

message: English is not my mother tongue so sorry for writing and grammar errors. It´s just a suggestion of course, but it has been established in the western world to write chinese names different. Look as example the pages of Mao Zedong or Xi Jinping. If you would write their names like Mr. Wong here in the article, it would be "Mao Tse Tung" or "Xi Jin Ping", but as you can see it is not like this anymore. The western world has adapted to write chinese first names in one name, not "Shun Leung" but "Shunleung" instead. So i would say "Wong Shunleung" would be more correct in today´s writing. Best regards. --Niten Doraku (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Australianblackbelt Thats true. But on the other hand its still confusing to write his given name as Shun Leung. Look for example for the Korean Hwang Jang-lee, there is at least a hyphen between the two names. Wong Shun-leung would be better imo. Even the UN has adopted to write chinese given names as one name, same does National Olympic Committee. The Boxer Zhang Zhi Lei is written as Zhang Zhilei. And in the Wiki article of Bruce Lee, his chinese birth name Jun Fan is written as Jun-fan. And his father Lee Hoi Chuen is written as Lee Hoi-chuen. Of course its only a thought and suggestion.  I allow me to change it in the article. If not wanted just delete my change. Best regards --Alleingänger (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should his name be changed from "Wong Shun Leung" to "Wong Shunleung"? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Be it Kim Jong-un, Choi Hong-hi, Wong Fei-hung or even a political great like Chiang Kai-shek, its very much outdated to write chinese names in three seperate names like Kim Jong Un, Choi Hong Hi, Wong Fei Hung or Chiang Kai Shek. But it seems some people refusing to accept here on Wikipedia his name should be written as Wong Shun-leung. Do it like you want, but it makes no sense to me. --Alleingänger (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok, thx for you reply. So this means changes without "fixing" file names and reference titles would be ok? Alleingänger (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

text: I did the changes without fixing file names and reference titles. BTW in Pinyin from Zhou Youguang, first names which consists of two syllables are always written together as one name, not two names and no hyphen. Huang Chun Liang is completely wrong, it's Huang Chunliang. Cheers Alleingänger (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only a question, but why are people so obsessed to ignore the standard romanizations from Wikipedia?