[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Badminton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBadminton was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 8, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 20, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 10, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2022

[edit]

Under the "External Links" section there's a link to http://www.worldbadminton.com/rules/documents/bwfLaws2019.pdf Laws of Badminton

That is an old version of the rules. A more appropriate link that is kept current is https://www.worldbadminton.com/rules/ Laws of Badminton 68.74.112.137 (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done PianoDan (talk) 20:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2023

[edit]

I want to editing fastest badminton smash according to Yonex's record about fastest badminton smash on Yonex's official website: The changes in the flying speed of the shuttlecock were visualized using a graph. The fastest badminton hit (male) is 565 km/h (351.07 mph) and was achieved by Satwiksairaj Rankireddy (India) at a gymnasium at Yonex Co., Ltd. AsuLaiVN (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. If you re-open this request, please provide the source you used to get the numbers you mentioned. —Sirdog (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024

[edit]

1, The section entitled, "Comparison with tennis", has been tagged as Original Research since 2010, and that tagging is accurate, if perhaps a little bit too mild; further tag(s) of refimprove and/or primary sources needs to be affixed.

2, A decade is more than enough to allow non-encyclopedic material to remain. The parts of this section — e.g., the opening observational bullets, and the closing editorializing paragraphs, **all unsourced** — should be removed from view using <!-- ... --> mark-up. Comment can can likewise be left in the article indicating that portions of the text can be returned to view when secondary sources are added, such that the section becomes material from published sources, rather than WP editor's reporting on their own research and perspectives as WP content.

3, Even the material that appears with citation is assuredly WP:OR, because observations are being made directly from primary sources. That is, a WP editor is researching primary sources and reporting what they find, rather than reporting on research appearing in secondary sources. Hence, in addition, to hiding the material baldly, violating WP policies and guidelines (unpublished material standing at over a decade, unsourced here), the material in this same section that appears just with primary sources needs to remain tagged as WP:OR, and as yet, not up to encyclopedic standards. 73.73.49.62 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Just pointing out problems is not enough, please provide the text you want changed and the exact text you want to replace it. Shadow311 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024 (2)

[edit]

1, Reference [7] appearing does not support the sentences to which it is attached, in particular, with regard to support for historic quotations. It is on the one hand incomplete as a citation (lacking either full, usual {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) or {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) fields, in both cases a URL being helpful), and on the other hand, inadequate insofar as bibliographic information presented is inaccurate and so not useful for content verification. (If one somehow finds a "badminton" entry by going to a Web or hardcopy version of the OED, as likely as not, one will not find the historic quotation presented (i.e., the best access to any such citation—given the limited bibliographic content—is indirect, and the information found indirectly does not support the sentence). [For instance, the top level information page at OED.com for "badminton", "n[oun]", does not present any quotes, see https://www.oed.com/dictionary/badminton_n1?tl=true. And going to a hardcopy version of an OED dictionary—given how many there are—is even less of a guarantee of finding the quotation presented.]

Needed, rather—this is edit request 1 here—is a citation of a specific hardcopy dictionary (with formal title, publisher, publication date, even page no.), or better, a full {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help) citation with web URL and access date — which, if from OED, must bear a URL-access field that indicates that a subscription is necessary to access etymology/quotes.

2, The following sentence does not pass scholarly muster. One cannot cite a 1911 source, and then state that other needed information mentioned remains unavailable/unclear (in the >100 years of time elapsed since the publication of that source).

  • "The name derives from the Duke of Beaufort's Badminton House in Gloucestershire,[5] but why or when remains unclear."

Hence, request 2 is either that the sentence be edited such that there is no claim of a lack of information, or very least, that the second half of the sentence be tagged as [citation needed] (or [editorializing]).

3, The foregoing two edit requests, and the requests in the preceding entry from this same editor, indicate the tension, even folly, of restricting editing. None of the edits proposed are vandalism, and our being required to write this, and your being required to reply to it – both are wastes of precious editing time.

By keeping the article out of circulation among committed, interested, editors—which at this encyclopedia, since the early days of Jimbo Wales, have included non-registered editors, many of which are scholars—the encyclopedia is "shooting itself in the foot".

Hence the third request must be that you focus attention on preventing real vandalism, and allow real progress in the evolution of the article, some issues for which have remained in place for over a decade (see previous request). 73.73.49.62 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The first two requests. If you want to request this page be unprotected, see WP:RFUP. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

correcting info and requesting edit

[edit]

"Equipment" the part about its strings should be corrected as "from 0.58 to 0.74mm" whilst BG-66's diameter is 0.66mm. "Comparison with tennis" note that the current fastest smash belongs to Satwiksairaj Rankireddy (565km/h), and not Mads Kolding as written in the post. 22nd..dec (talk) 08:41, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Badminton&oldid=1247161719"