Talk:Liang Wenbo

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Snooker B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Snooker, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of snooker 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.SnookerWikipedia:WikiProject SnookerTemplate:WikiProject SnookerSnooker articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

China B‑class Low‑importance

	China portal 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Sports and Games B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	Sports portal This article is supported by the sports and games work group (assessed as Low-importance).

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

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

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

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

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]