Talk:Shenhui

Removal of Multiple Sections

I recently reverted this article to the previous version. I personally feel that adding multiple sections in to an article when there is relatively little content destroys the flow of reading while not really adding anything. This article now reads more or less like a list of bullet points, which is not what Wikipedia aims to have its non-list articles look like. According to MOS:LAYOUT, "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". I think these sections qualify as very short. Typically, non-Wikipedia encyclopedias do not include entries that have multiple sections with one or two sentences per section. DJLayton4 (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I don't agree. Various topics are mixed now; the article is better readable when they are grouped. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Three sections had one sentence and two had two sentences. As I said, I believe that Wikipedia is supposed to be readable and not a cluttered list of facts. I'm sure some additional sections could be introduced into the article, but the previous number was excessive. DJLayton4 (talk) 04:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I know, I see your point. I'll remove the surplus of headers in the previous version. Have a look at that possibility. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As for the intended undo of my own edit (see history of talk-page), I edited my own previous version; undoing that edit seemed to create a mess of previous and new versions. So I kept the last version. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me :-) DJLayton4 (talk) 12:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Goodi. I added some more info, after the re-editing; realised there-after that this also changed the "proposal". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

??

what term here?

"At the Great Dharma Assembly in Henan Province in 732 he coined this term[6]: 240  in order to deride Shenxiu's school. Here he claimed that Shenxiu tried to usurp the title of Sixth Patriarch from Huineng. He supported his claims by stating that Huineng possessed the robe of Bodhidharma, the First Patriarch of Zen." 89.205.225.29 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

nobody's gonna bother responding then?

doas anyone even care about this page?

because not only is the reference botched (the second one if i understand it right), the first one doesn't show a page number so anyone can verify or get clarification on what is meant

it also looks lacking in being informative..

what was the context of coining the term?

what term?

was it during a sermon?

in general?

when meeting with an emperor?

this article doesn't look like it's up to standards at all, this section at least

i bet if i look for it i can find a lot of other issues as well, like a lot of other wiki pages (it has a reputation for a reason) 89.205.226.231 (talk) 12:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

"Northern school,"1 of course; the context is quite obvious. Congratullations with your conviction that you "can find a lot of other issues as well"; better kinds of person wouldn't find pride in that, but try to improve it. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

pride is your words and its in part obvious reading errors like this you often see back

you can take it all personally but as i said wikipedia has a reputation for a reason, mostly set by people more educated than me and definitely than you

that's obviously not the point here though, and you saying it was obvious from context when there's a topic asking about it obviously doesn't add up

it also doesn't explain why the page reference was screwed to the point nobody could check if that's what your writing meant

also needing to wait two months for a response and then only getting one after editing something i don't have a source for myself, and then getting met with some arrogant asshole who can't keep their personal comments and convictions out of wikipedia isn't all that inviting to me as i actually respect myself

you made the articles suck, you should be the one fixing them

again, wikipedia has a reputation (including among scholars and academics) for a good reason

getting mad at me and protecting your insecurities on me isn't changing that 89.205.224.115 (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)