Talk:Badminton

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2024

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 Hence, in addition, to hiding the material baldly, violating WP policies and guidelines (unpublished material standing at over a decade, unsourced here), the material in this same section that appears just with primary sources needs to remain tagged as WP:OR,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

Several tags for {{Unreferenced section}} are not (or no more - didn't check history yet) true. Intend to remove those at #Shoes,#Technique, and #Governing bodies. Besides, in Governing bodies info is mostly sourced in primary articles linked from that sections (intend to review those articles as well).

Besides, the requester (IP user from above?) didn't seem to have reviewed sources listed in #Sources.

IMO, no info in the article is controversial (I never competed in badminton, but used it recreatively and/or as supporting activity for other sports for myself and others. And I have experience: both got injuries in some other sports and helped myself and others to recover or overcome after such, and am/was qualified to teach/train some, and competed in several of them at different times.

For me current contents of this article is verifiable enough that no piece of it needs to be removed (as maintenance tags imply it could). If these tags were posted by AI (LLM) (or a person, who (like current AIs) hadn't/can't have experience in sport and can verify contents of WP articles exclusively by published sources, that tagging would be understandable.

If needed, some of the tags I'am going to remove could be exchanged for something like {{more inline citations needed}} etc., but at the moment I don't think that is necessary. If somebody else thinks additional inline citations would be useful (or necessary), (s)he could (and IMO should) first review the list of sources mentioned above, and add citations as needed before posting maintenance tags. I would try to do that if I thought it was needed. Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Shadow311, Krishdesai7: I reviewed dif with 6 maintenance tags set in one edit. IMO in this case inexperienced editor, but bona fide tagging. For the moment I am removing unreferenced section templates where at least one citation exists in the section now (also obsolete tags from previous edits e.g. from 2009 that I didn't review in history).

I don't need other citations Krishdesai7 requests, but he seems to be from another culture not (really) known to me.

So things that are/were common knowledge somewhere - like that the fire is - usually- hot where and when I live is common knowledge, that would not necessarily be the case where - or when - use of open fire were prohibited. If something like that is the case where he lives, additional citations or clarifications might be useful, so I'll ad {{more inline citations needed}} at the article level. For the rest please consider .

And before declaring any contents needs (or is) removed as unsourced please at least check general sources already existing at #Sources; it takes more time than setting templates only, but that's what's needed.

Removing of obviously obsolete tags and adding more inline citations tag on article level  Done

Still to be done:

• finding sources for inline citations about grips etc.,
• discussion about general unsuitability of primary sources
  • IP user above: sport authority for the discipline (a primary source) is authoritative for (current) rules - if they are in use and enforced).

If the discussion about (un)suitability of primary sources in general needs to be continued (I suggest elsewhere) I'll elaborate and add examples.

References

Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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 (or ).

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)

correcting info and requesting 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)

Lateral support (shoes)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2025

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)

"Outfits" and photo of "Badminton shoes"

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)

• When working for the licence to teach sailing, a serious part of responsibilities we were taught about was to sponsors and businesses with broadcasting rights. Their business interests have huge impact both to required looks of the competitors and to types of sport events (and their timing).

So maybe sports can now be seen as primary business of selling entertainment to audience and advertisers; probably advertisers first.

Where I lived sport used to be fun to it's participants, and I used to see my primary obligations to those young people, as a means to help develop their abilities like I did mine. Now it is mostly seriously specialized business where serious business principles apply and businessmen's rights come first.

• I also looked at picture of the store and existing pictures of top player's footwear in the article, and the type of the footwear on Badminton shoes picture looks correct, even when there is "Running shoes" on the wall above.

Also, text about lateral support is correct (verifiable by trying to play tennis and/or badminton on the closest place you can find in any too stiff footwear), only a better link (not to architectural example) would be needed.

When I'm at that, I think this kind of verifiability applies also to most of the Comparison with tennis about OR. It is verifiable that water is wet by wetting our hand, and that probably isn't OR either.

Additional info (citation or clarification) could be welcome to people who can't verify contents of that section the way I described above, but IMO that contents shouldn't be removed because it is not yet supported by citations, as written in text shown by {{Original research}} template.

Marjan Tomki SI (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2026 (UTC)