Talk:Badminton

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 Hence, in addition, to hiding the material baldly, violating WP policies and guidelines (unpublished material standing at over a decade, unsourced here), the material in this same section that appears just with primary sources needs to remain tagged as WP:OR,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)

 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)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 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)

"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)

Not sure the link here makes sense: “Compared to running shoes, badminton shoes have little lateral support.” Seems like the “Structural support” article is about buildings, mostly. But I’m not sure there’s another article about shoe structure to link to instead. 🤷 Birdplane (talk) 19:15, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the "Racquets" section, add a sentence that distinguishes the difference of badminton racquets from tennis racquets, such as follows: "…laws limit the racquet size and shape. However, a traditional racquet has the shape of a round head on a shaft, as opposed to a tennis racquet, which more resembles a teardrop shape, having two metal pieces connecting the handle to the head. Different racquets have playing characteristics…" 66.99.95.110 (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 17:58, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

The section titled "Outfits" currently reads "The Badminton World Federation and Octagon developed a rule that female badminton players must wear dresses or skirts "to ensure attractive presentation", but although it was included in the official rulebook in 2011, it was dropped before it was supposed to go into effect in 2012."

Great. Now we know that "attractive presentation" was briefly introduced as being an important aspect of the sport before better sense prevailed. But we read nothing else about what players wear or why.

Then there's the photo labeled "Badminton shoes" showing a store display of Badminton equipment next to a display of shoes. But the sign above the shoes clearly reads "RUNNING". Beetfarm Louie (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2026 (UTC)