# Talk:Ng On-yee

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ng On Yee. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629192035/http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=8&art_id=104942&sid=30302857&con_type=3&d_str=20101115&fc=1 to http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=8&art_id=104942&sid=30302857&con_type=3&d_str=20101115&fc=1
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101217034917/http://www.ibsf.info/cgi-bin/ibsf.pl?A=ResultDetail&ID=22 to http://www.ibsf.info/cgi-bin/ibsf.pl?A=ResultDetail&ID=22
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130042036/http://ibsf.info/cgi-bin/ibsf.pl?A=ResultDetail&ID=16 to http://www.ibsf.info/cgi-bin/ibsf.pl?A=ResultDetail&ID=16
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Benny, I've been having a good look over the article and made a few changes for you. I think the subsection headings need some attention because they are a bit unconventional and inconsistent.

You've mostly provided the year followed by an en dash and then a summary, e.g. "2015 – Ladies' World Champion", except 2007 and 2009 where the dash is missing. The dash is normally used between years or dates to indicate a time period so your use of the dash could be confusing, especially if you have two dashes in one heading, as in "2011–12 – WLBSA World Championship quarter-finalist". To avoid this confusion, it's usually better to use a colon, e.g. "2011–12: WLBSA World Championship quarter-finalist" and "2012: First ranking event win", etc.
The 2010 subsection is split into sub-sub-sections with their own headings, which is inconsistent because that doesn't happen again until you get down to 2017. The 2018 and 2019 subsections have a separate subheading for every single paragraph which really isn't at all necessary and looks cluttered.
You've formatted the minor headings using bold text, e.g. "2017 Eden World Women's Snooker Championship" in the 2017 section, but these should really be level 4 headings with ==== at either end of the text. You can omit the level 4 headings from the TOC by adding {{TOC limit|3}} in the lead, see Template:TOC limit.
It might be a good idea to combine some of the earlier sections, e.g. combine 2007 and 2009 to give a section called "2007–2009" and then combine the next two as "2010–2011", then combine 2012 and 2013, etc. (with or without accompanying text summaries for each). There are lots of different ways of doing it. In most of the male players' BLPs, the information is sectioned according to the season not the year, e.g. Mark Williams just has the date range "1999–2004" for the early years, and then the season "2009/2010", etc. for the later years where there's more stuff to fit in. Stephen Hendry's career section is split into subsections with a wordy title and then the year range is given in brackets, e.g. "Amateur years (1981–1985)", etc. Some of them don't include any dates at all in the headings, e.g. John Higgins has text headings with no years specified. Personally I like the Hendry approach but it's really up to you.
I hope all of this makes sense. I can help you with it but I don't want to impose a structure as it's really a matter of personal preference. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Just a small thing perhaps add - {{Chinese name|[[Ng (name)|Ng]]}} to the header...

It looks like Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, the article seems to be close to WP:PROSELINE.
Because most of it is written as single sentence paragraphs.
I recommend merging a lot of these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Lee on that one. It would be better to merge many of the mini-paragraphs into larger blocks of prose (but not too large!) whilst grouping together individual facts according to the chronology of events. Rodney Baggins (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Benny, just a bit more feedback on the headings:

You appear to have missed the colon in the first two!
Decap heading "2007–2009: IBSF tournament success"
Suggest 2010–2011 could be labelled "Second IBSF world title" and pull up first two lines of next subsection as they also apply to 2011.
As her first ranking event win happened in 2012, this section should be headed "2012: First ranking event win"
Suggest 2019 could be labelled "Third IBSF world title"
So in summary, you would have a 2007–2009 section, a 2010–2011 section, then separate sections for all the subsequent years starting with 2012. Watch this space for more comments later this evening... Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose: I've made quite a few edits for you and hopefully most of it's fairly clear as I've tried to explain what I'm doing in the edit summaries. Some other things that have come to my attention:

It would be a good idea to combine mini-paragraphs as Lee pointed out above, so the sections have a more substantial structure rather than a series of one-liners, per WP:PL.
Some of the sentences are made up of a series of clauses, separated by commas, and these could do with being restructured. By combining and reordering clauses in a sentence you can reduce the number of commas and in turn the number of pauses, therefore making the sentence flow better. Example: "In the semi-final, she beat Rebecca Kenna 4–0" could simply be written "She beat Rebecca Kenna 4–0 in the semi-final..."
Take care to balance the use of the proper name (Ng) and the pronoun (she) so that Ng appears at the top of each subsection (important for readers who dip in to a specific subsection rather than reading the whole thing from start to finish) followed by the use of one or two pronouns, and then re-establish that we're talking about Ng by stating her name, and so on and so forth...
2013 subsection: "the frame scores being 34–0," etc. stated in text but elsewhere the frame scores are contained in a note.
2015 subsection: "since Reanne Evans had won the first of her ten consecutive titles" – say when, in 2005?
2017 subsection: I know what's meant by "dead frames" (full complement of frames played to a finish after there's a winner?) but some people might wonder, so maybe add a note to explain?
2019 subsection: add specific link to 2019 World Snooker Championship?
Locations are overlinked, e.g. Leeds, England. It's usually best to just link the city because the country link will appear in the city article anyway if anyone wants to look it up. Either leave the country totally unlinked, as in "Leeds, England", or include it in the city link: "Leeds, England" whichever you prefer. We've also got Karachi, Pakistan; Nuremberg, Germany; and Carlow, Ireland (which isn't currently linked at all). You could argue that even the city links aren't really necessary, as they are provided in the tournament article if the tournament is itself linked, e.g. you notice I removed the Malta link because it's in the 2018 Women's World Snooker Championship article lead anyway. If the tournament doesn't have its own article then linking the place where it happened might be a good idea.
I can help you with the sentence/paragraph restructuring but I don't want to tread on your toes if you prefer to go ahead and I can just copyedit again later. Rodney Baggins (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rodney Baggins: Thanks! I'd be grateful if you could go ahead and make any improvements you see fit. On re-reading yet again, it struck me that at the moment, nationalities of some players are mentioned in the article. I guess this is OK for some competitions (e.g. Asian Games, IBSF Team championships) but for the typical individual tournament would not be relevant unless there is a particular reason to emphasise nationality. Is there a consensus around this? My thinking behind (inconsistently) mentioning the frame scores for the 2013 Six-reds final in the main article rather than in a footnote was because the scores were particularly one-sided, but for this and anything else, I'm not precious and will be very happy for any changes to make it a better article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Benny, I've done a bit of restructuring work on the 2019 section for you and I'll look at 2018 next, then carry on working backwards. A couple of questions... Can we rename the "World Women's Snooker 10-Red Championship" > "Women's 10-Red World Championship"? The word "Snooker" seems superfluous and the "World" sits better before "Championship". Would be slightly less of a mouthful and might sound better? Also, would you mind redlinking 2019 World Women's Snooker Championship as the 2017 & 2018 editions have articles and I'm imagining that the 2019 one is pending? Also the redlink might serve as a reminder to whoever wants to create the article (not necessarily you or me, I hasten to add). Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Rodney. I tried to tidy up the Six-reds references, but got a bit stuck before going through Ten-reds - hence my comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#Six-reds and Ten-reds variants. Your proposed wording looks good to me. I've redlinked the 2019 World Championship. You probably won't be too surprised that the tournament is on my to-do list. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, would you mind taking another look at the article when you have time? I've had a go at expanding the lead, but probably haven't messed too much else up. Thanks! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Benny, I notice that the frame scores for the following matches are not included in the Notes:

2010 IBSF World Championship final (winner)
2014 World Women's Championship final (runner-up)
2015 World Women's Championship final (winner)
2016 World Women's Championship final (runner-up)
2017 World Women's Championship final (winner)
2019 IBSF World Championship final (winner)
Shouldn't they all be included for completeness? Also, why do you consider the semi-final scores to be notable for the 2007 IBSF U-21 World Championship (Note a.) and the 2009 IBSF World Championship (Note c.)? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Took out semi-final scores, added the scores where I could find a reliable source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Re. this sentence in the 2017 section:

The playing time in the final was 8 hours and 4 minutes; it was the longest 11-frame competitive match in snooker, significantly exceeding the previous record of 7 hours and 14 minutes taken by Paul Tanner to defeat Robby Foldvari 6–5 at the 1992 UK Championship.

I've had a look at the 1992 UK snooker article and there's no mention of either Paul Tanner, Robby Foldvari, or a record long match. I can find no evidence of this fact, other than the citation you provided. I'm inclined to suspect that they were referring to the 1992 UK Billiards Championship (which Foldvari won). Is there any way you can check up on this? You might need to just miss out the bit about it exceeding an earlier record unless you can find out otherwise? The fact about the Tanner/Foldvari match time is also included in the 2017 World Women's Snooker Championship article. I think the Straits Times got it wrong. Or am I missing something? I don't think we should be comparing snooker matches with billiards matches! Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligence and patience! The same timing is at https://web.archive.org/web/20160303181254/http://www.cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Records.html (There's also a best-of-9 involving Foldvari listed at 434 minutes!) That's probably where a couple of other sources got the info. I'm guessing it was in an early qualifying round. I'll see if I can dig up anything to corroborate the timing. I might need a few days if I have to get the relevant issue of Snooker Scene from the British Library. (They've had a few digs at Foldvari for his slow play.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
The blueyonder record does indeed state UK Championship at Preston Guildhall, i.e. the snooker championship, so I agree with you that it was probably in the 2nd round of qualifying and the match is not mentioned in the Wiki article because that doesn't cover the qualifying matches. Maybe Foldvari got carried away winning the 1992 billiards championship and thought he'd have a go at the snooker one too! We should probably clarify by changing the wording to "...taken by Paul Tanner to defeat Robby Foldvari 6–5 in the second round of qualifying at the 1992 UK Championship". That way, if some pedantic person (like me) links through to the 1992 UK Championship article (as I did) they will realise that the qualifying rounds are not covered there so they wouldn't expect to find the info. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Snooker Scene for October 1991 covers that Tanner v Folvari match as 434 minutes. It comments that although there is no authenticated record for a best-of-11, it was believed to be the longest. The October 1993 issue includes the Foldvari v Williamson best-of-9 that took 434 minutes, which is said to be a record (the average frame time was 48 mins and 14 seconds and four different referees officiated!) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA declaration; text in this section removed from the article by me; I'm leaving in here in case its removal breaks any references andd for future reference. It is irrelevant to the section i've removed it from. Baffle☿gab 02:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


### 2010–2011: Second IBSF world title
Cue sports were not a part of the next Asian Games in 2014.
There was no IBSF World Women's Snooker Championship in 2011.

 Baffle☿gab 02:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why this article called her a former player since she is still actively playing on the main World Snooker Tour and Women's Tournaments.  "Former professional player" implies she is no longer playing.  I changed it so that it says "Ng On Yee is a professional snooker player." RetroSynth (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

she isn't professional though. You have to be a member of the main World Snooker Tour to be given that status. "...is a snooker player" is probably more suitable. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
She has a two year tour card on the main World Snooker Tour and participates in ranking events.  She is also a player on the World Women's Snooker Tour, which is governed by the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association.  She has won several Women's World Championships.  All of this qualifies her as
us profess, I'm putting it back in.tion. RetroSynth (talk) 12:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
she isn't a professional right now. Playing on events on the Tour isn't considered being professional, they literally play under amateur status. She had a professional tour card from 2021 to 2023, which is why it previously stated she was a "former professional". She isn't at this moment. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)