Talk:Wong Shun Leung/Archive 1

Link Farm
There are way to many links - ideal is 2 or 3 - definately keep below 10.Peter Rehse 01:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It looks like a bomb went off in that section. --Xiliquiern 04:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent turn of phrase! Personally, I would expand it to the entire articel as it seems very hard to read. It may be worth someone editing the whole page, blanking it in the text box and rewriting it from scratch there (I had to do the same to Increase Mather). 68.39.174.238 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's like somebody took a link-bomb into the edit textarea. I personally don't even want to touch this article, but it looks like many many sections need to be deleted.  Like, poof. Mazin07C₪T 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd love to do a bomb-and-rebuild on this, but it's pretty well sourced now, which hasn't been the case for all the other articels I've done that to, which makes me incredibly hesitant to do so. Also, the fact that many of the titles are in a foreign (To me) langauge doesn't help. 68.39.174.238 13:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
I added the NPOV tag because the tone of the article could be shifted a bit more toward neutral. Many sentences contain superfluous superlatives. I tried copyediting the lead section, but perhaps a native speaker who is familiar with the subject matter might lend a hand here. I'm not knowledgeable on this topic at all; I'm just trying to help clean up the writing. OscarTheCat3 01:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Aargh!
As if this wasn't bad enough, look at Wong Shun Leung's Profound Knowledge of Fighting! 68.39.174.238 12:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I listed that one at AfD, looks like it's a good candidate for transwiki to Wikiquote. OscarTheCat3 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

edits
Removed large chunks & shortened headings still 129k over size --Nate1481 17:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done more but need attention by someone with better back ground knowledge, just tried to improve grammar and shorten wordy bits. --Nate1481 00:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Eek!
Evidently, this page was AfD'd before: Articles for deletion/Wong Shun Leung! I've asked an administrator to check and see if it's substantially the same thing; if so, we're sunk. 68.39.174.238 15:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The VfD was from sept 2005 so doubt anyone is in a rush to do it (when it looked like this). Article still needs a lot of work thought. --Nate1481 17:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer I got from the administrator was that there was no similarity. 68.39.174.238 11:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Split
By Article size, this page should be split if at all possible. — Swpb talk contribs 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't realy be split but removal of the excessive number of references (some bad sources see above) would probably shorten it --Nate1481 18:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I feel that this article should not be split yet, because it's such a mess. If it can be cleaned up and is still too long, then it should surely be split.&mdash;Erik Harris 16:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

DELETE?
I plan to nominate this artice for deletion in order to clear the slate unless this improves soon. I started to edit some of the grammatical errors and formatting errors, but this article is almost an unmitigated catastrophe that is chok full of grammer and syntax errors, rambling and incoherant statements, a massive amount of redundancy, pendantic and unproven assertions, and terms inappropriately bolded or italicised. Additionally, it cites kung fu forum rumors as though they were facts - their use as citations is entirely inappropriate given their total and complete lack of reliability. Most of these fights appear to be unsubstantiated rumors, and the sources for their occurance seems to be largely advertizing on the part of modern wing chun schools and their students. Unless a quality historical source can be found and the article revised accordingly, this whole mess should be scrapped entirely and restarted from scratch under closer supervision. (147.126.46.165 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Part of me is inclined to agree i've done alot of work on this but not sure if it is savable in its current state It needs the bad references stripped out & and then statements based on these removed, but I'm not sure if this is too much work, or weather it would be better to start form scratch. --Nate1481 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've done that without having articels deleted. If you want, get together a good paragraph that will explain him to anyone who shows up, and replace everything with it. Then build on that. I did that to Increase Mather when I rescued (I hope) it from Britannica Hell. 68.39.174.238 01:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Woooow. I'm a grand student of WSL and even I don't like this article. I also recommend starting over. Perhaps a simple paragraph on date of birth, learned and taught with Yip Man, died of stroke on XYZ. From there, maybe other things can be added, but the current page is really shabby.  Sentineneve 04:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sentineneve: If you could come up with a short version & I'd be happy to help & proof read I don't know which parts would be considered most important, so you background knowledge would be really useful. Can the main page be archived to there is something to use to pull bits out of to expand later?
 * 68.39.174.238: If you can save it without pulling apart great bit I think it might take to much time to be sensible. --Nate1481 15:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)