Talk:Liang Wenbo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tone[edit]

I added the "inappropriate tone" tag because parts of this article are written in journalese. 86.133.55.88 (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name spelling[edit]

Is there any authoritative source? Most Chinese given names are hyphenated when transliterated into the Latin alphabet (e.g. Ding Jun-hui). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation / phonology[edit]

I have a problem with this (in the second paragraph of the "2008 World Championships" section):

Walker introduced him as "Should he stay or should he go... Liang Wenbo", despite the rhyme occurring because of a mispronunciation of his name ("bo" is pronounced "bore" in Chinese).

I don't know how the ending of Mr. Liang's name should be pronounced, and I don't have a Chinese-speaker on hand to consult, but "bore" is not a useful description of anything. This might represent /bO/ (e.g. England) /bo:r/ (e.g. Scotland) or /bOr/ (e.g. USA).

I suggest that everything after the comma be deleted. I think it represents a misunderstanding. /o/ is the same, to an English-speaker's ears, as the vowel in "go". Indeed, for many Scots speakers of English, they are the same.

It also ruins a joke to explain it.

--Nyelvmark (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted point[edit]

Why at the end of Wenbo's 2010/11 has someone deleted my point about him no longer being in the top 16? for under the new rules he isn't! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.3 (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2010

Because you haven't added a reliable source to it and it was not written in neutral point of view. Armbrust Talk Contribs 20:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So rather than just deleting it, why not actually bother to put the source in. The bottom half of the whole of the 2010 season hasn;t got any references either? --157.203.254.3 (talk) 03:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They have been added. Armbrust Talk Contribs 03:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why were they there in ther first place without references and yet my innocent addition of his up to date ranking, which was later referenced to world snooker, stamped on and deleted? --157.203.254.3 (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well? why was my addition stamped upon and the other un sourced text allowed to stay? --157.203.254.3 (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was newly added unsourced material. Armbrust Talk Contribs 04:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and at some point so were the other points and why were you able to add all the sources and not the source for my easily well known fact? it appears that in light of the other material on there you chose to single my addition out and delete it and not the other unsourced material. --157.203.254.3 (talk) 05:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why when I put a source refference to the World snooker website ranking page was the refference deleted and then a call for a source to be added? --157.203.254.3 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source is not stable, and it changes at the next cut-off point after the UK Championship and then it will become a non-relevant source for this fact. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So why is his current ranking listed as 21 - which is worng and also unsourced. THat's thepoint the rankings do no change, you're making a very pedandtic point. For when the ranking changes, it can get changed. --90.216.169.55 (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rankings will change after the 2010 UK Championship. See this. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that, we all do, so what? the point is, the 2010/11 section ended by saying he was inside the top 16! which he wasn't, I edited it to say that due to not getting the results in the early part of the season, he dropped out of the top 16. Why delete that factually correct and sourced material to his ranking of 20 to leave a hopelessly out of date statement that he was a top 16 player? It makes no sense to delete it and leave something out of date. --157.203.254.3 (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that sources should contain the information for which they are cited, but if the source changes after a while, then is will not contain this information and will become an unusable source for this fact. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Armbrust is wrong and the IPs edit is sound. To the IP: never assume that everyone here is sensible, because they're not. The best thing to do is to read the policies and apply them like a lawyer -- that way, nobody can accuse you of doing wrong. Also, it's best to get an account because IPs are treated like lepers here, no matter how sensible their edits. About your point that some material wasn't sourced: some editors routinely remove new unsourced info even if old info is unsourced. Like I said, not everything here is sensible. Some dislike IPs and just revert them on sight; they can get away with it because IPs are second-class citizens. Also, you shouldn't always trust what anyone says: ask for help from others and read the policies and guidelines. You can go here to ask questions, or post on my talk page. I also recommend getting an account so that your opinion has more weight. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Christopher Connor thank you, I have a username, just didn't bother to sign in. It just makes me laugh that someone would rather delete a simple fact and something easily known and thus leave in it's place something out of date and unsourced. I take on board the point about the source changing as the rankings change, but trying to pin a source down for this is like trying to source a reference for a Premiership football team going outiside the top six mid way through a season - it changes.--Westhouses18b (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No policy prohibits a source that might change in the future. To remove a valid reliable source and swap it with a 'cite needed' tag is a misunderstanding of policy or, at worse, disruptive editing. You may have noticed that Armbrust aggressively removes all new unsourced content, no matter how true, uncontentious, and easily verifiable. Now it seems that sourced info is being removed too. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Christopher Connor (talk) thank you again for the additional comment. the source I added was directly from the World Snooker website, what more could you ask for. I'm trying to resist "personal attacks" however I find Amburts agressive deletion stance extremly distasteful and against the purpose of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westhouses18b (talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armburst, perhaps you might like to revise the following? Liang also participates at the Players Tour Championship, his best performace coming at the third European event, where he reached the final, but lost 0-4 against Liang Wenbo.[40 --157.203.255.1 (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooops! Corrected. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Number Two[edit]

he has recently been overtaken in the rankings by Xiao Guodong so this is now out of date source world ranking list on worldsnooker.com talkQueenAlexandria 14:24, 15 Nov 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Liang Wenbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Liang Wenbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Liang Wenbo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 15 May 2017 (==UTC)

Chinese Number 4[edit]

Needs updating 1) Ding (9) 2) Yan (22) 3) Xiao (23) 4) Lyu (31) 5) Zhou (32) 6) Li Hang (33) 7) Liang (37) (talkQueenAlexandria 21:55, 2 Apr 2019 (UTC)

Where did you get this info from? According to seeding rev.9 for 2018/2019 world rankings, the Chinese players are ordered thus:
  1. Ding (9)
  2. Xiao (20)
  3. Yan (23)
  4. Liang (32)
Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liang has since dropped current rankings http://livescores.worldsnookerdata.com/Rankings/Index/14069 currently ranked 7th Chinese 1) Ding (9) 2) Yan (22) 3) Xiao (23) 4) Lyu (31) 5) Zhou (32) 6) Li Hang (33) 7) Liang (37) 8) Yuan 9) Zhao 10) Lu Ning (talkQueenAlexandria 21:55, 2 Apr 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think the problem is that we clearly have a relative time statement in the lead section. See MOS:RELTIME: "currently" is a word to watch because it goes out of date and relies on editors to keep updating it. Equivalent articles for Ding, Yan and Xiao don't have this information, at least not in the lead. So I suggest the solution is to remove the statement, or replace it with something more relevant. According to Snooker world rankings 2016/2017, he was world number 11 at the end of the 2016/2017 season, and China's number 2 player (after Ding) at that point, so that is more notable. The lead could contain a statement like "he was ranked as China's number 2 player at the end of 2016/2017" (or something similar), or just put it at the end of his 2016/2017 section? Also noticed he has no 2017/2018 section, so that's another problem/omission! Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent conviction in lede[edit]

Is his recent conviction appropriate for the lede? It makes up a few lines in the article but half the lede. WP:LEDE does mention "including any prominent controversies" but also add a note: "Do not violate WP:Neutral point of view by giving undue attention to less important controversies in the lead section." Nigej (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I agree it's not lede material, other than a mention about him being suspended. It's almost saying this person is a convict, and has a snooker career, maybe? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this thread (better late than never). I think Nigej is correct about too much detail. I edited the lead accordingly, giving one sentence to Liang's four-month suspension for domestic assault and another sentence to his current suspension amid a match-fixing investigation. I don't believe this is "undue attention" given the level of press coverage around these incidents. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. We should mention long scale suspensions in the lede - it is relevant to the person, especially two like this. However, it shouldn't be overplayed. It's not career defining. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It would be more career-defining if it turned into a lengthy ban from the sport. We'll have to wait and see how things turn out for Liang... HurricaneHiggins (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liang_Wenbo&oldid=1207813592"