This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taoism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The first sentence in the article is ambiguous. It seems to imply that all Wudang styles are internal or all internal styles belong to Wudang which is not correct as both Shaplin and Wudang have internal and external styles. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. My name is Jonathan Bluestein. As you may notice, over the last 2 years I've been doing a lot of work on this page. Gradually, I am expanding the text, improving it, and adding references. Please do not delete any material. Everything that's on the page can be referenced, and will be in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.bluestein (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. Aspergers riddled freaks (Wikipedia editors) will delete at will whenever they get a notion. You need to get used to that toute de suite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, there was no discussion before this article was renamed "Xing Yi Quan" and I'm wondering why such a change was necessary. The reason given was that "it is made up of three distinct words". That may be true but that can be said of other terms like Shaolin as well. Furthermore, compound words exist in every language, including Chinese. Just because a term consists of several words does not necessarily mean they're supposed to be written separately. Monosyllabization of the Chinese language is particularly common outside China but is not favoured by those who are very familiar with pinyin. I seriously doubt the xingyiquan spelling caused any confusion. And unless we resort to the lazy method of simply googling the words, I wouldn't say that "Xing Yi Quan" is more common either. If anything, the most common literary spelling in English is probably the Wade-Giles form (hsing-i). Would anyone object to the previous Xingyiquan spelling? Morinae (talk) 12:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)