This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a really inadequate article. I was expecting Wikipedia to have several times as much information about tennis racquets alone. Honbicot 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I added a lot of content to this article and some jerk came through and reverted it all! If this is going to keep happening, I'm not going to spend any more time contributing or writing articles.
I'm disappointed that an article entitled "Raquet" has barely a shred of information about types other than tennis, and such mind-numbing minutia about that.
Pjbflynn
05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Please sign your posts...)
There, I rewrote it. If someone who knows how could add a picture of a badminton racket, that would be great. Happy New Year! Pjbflynn 07:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes you rewrote it and in the process deleted alot of valuable content that other individuals included such as the section on manufacturer specific technologies. Your rewrite was essentially vandalism. If you are going to delete large portions of text you should state your reasons first.
What is rude and unconstructive is deleting large portions of text which have painstakingly been inserted by other users because you deem them to be "mind-numbing minutia". Particularly so when you don't state your intentions on the talk page and this article had a heading stating that it was in need of expansion...other users were attempting to fulfill that objective.
Excimer3.141597
00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how deleting large portions of content under the "Tennis Racquet" heading solves the problem of lack of content for the other types of racquets. Also, when confronted with passages that you deem to be "rambling" do you always just go for the delete key and axe the entire passage? I guess your time is too valuable to follow the wikipedia guidelines and fix it? Your opinion on content is just that...an opinion, which should be discussed on the talk page before you trash large portions of text. Excimer3.141597 06:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, no offense intended...in my opinion I dont see any reason why the deleted passages shouldn't be included. The tennis racquet section as it is now has a very comprehensive discussion (which is lacking references) on racquet design as it relates to playing characteristics, however the opening section which had the longer discussion of racquet history along with the phases of popularity as well as the discussion of manufacturer specific technologies and list of Manufacturers should be replaced. I think the discussion of tennis racquet history could be greatly expanded and agree that the tennis racquet section should be split off to a new article if necessary. Excimer3.141597 10:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone expand on the components of a tennis racquet such as the gromit. Damaged or missing gromits are often the number two reason for string failure (after failure due to excessive impacts). Some have proposed wire covers or protectors as alternatives to gromits commercially sold as replacements. Dan
Thanks for adding back the details! When you said badminton racquets often have " isometric" shapes, did you mean " asymmetric"? LachlanA 06:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I mostly cut and pasted info from the individual sports' pages. If you have more info, by all means Be Bold! That said, badminton racquets seem to be symmetric ovals to me... Pjbflynn 22:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The entire text describing the details of tennis racquet selection was plagiarized from http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/LC/SelectingRacquet/SelectingRacquet.html. I have deleted this portion of the article. If someone wants to re-add the information without blatantly stealing the material, then go for it. But until then, copied material has no place on Wikipedia. Regards, Rahzel 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
References missing! This article seems to be very correct, though... -- Simenhjort 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that this article predominantly uses the spelling "racquet" instead of "racket." My impression is that in American English "racket" is standard usage in most contexts, with exceptions for certain sports. For instance tennis rackets are usually "rackets," while badminton racquets are usually "racquets." As an example, see the website of Wilson, popular maker of rackets: they sell "tennis rackets" and "badminton racquets." I'll have to do some more research to find out about the standard usage, but I'm guessing that something like the Chicago Manual of Style will state that "racket" is standard usage and it will advise against "racquet." But I don't know how the Wikipedia community usually deals with this kind of issue of style: do we defer to guides like Chicago when lacking compelling reasons to deviate? Another issue is that the spelling may differ in non-American English. Can anyone provide input on any of this? Jeferman ( talk) 18:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
One should use only one form of the spelling within one and the same article. A mixture of racquet and racket is not understandable. And by the way: Google finds for squash racquets 359.000 hits, but for squash rackets 533.000 hits. -- Florentyna ( talk) 10:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
One very important thing: Wikipedia entries should not be plagiarising other sources. But let' collaborate and find what really is the case. People can get very picky about spellings and I'd rather get to the bottom of the social contexts here! Richardhod ( talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Can mention be made of dampeners on modern tennis rackets ? GrahamHardy ( talk) 08:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Racket (sports equipment). 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Why does the intro say “A racket [1] is a black implement”?? Racquets have been wood-framed for most of their history - sometimmes decorated but often plain or clear varnished - and modern racquets are available in pretty much any colour you like. I think ‘black’ should be removed, here.
The BBC link has 'raquet', not racquet with a c, so doesn't support the current claim it's being used as a citation for. It's also racket throughout Wimbledon's site (and if anyone was going to know it would be them), the OED redirects to racket, -only noting 'racquets' under the entry for the game Rackets, as an alternative spelling used in North America. Frond Dishlock ( talk) 22:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Transformation of sentences 2409:40D2:101C:F9BB:187E:FF79:9C71:815F ( talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a really inadequate article. I was expecting Wikipedia to have several times as much information about tennis racquets alone. Honbicot 15:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I added a lot of content to this article and some jerk came through and reverted it all! If this is going to keep happening, I'm not going to spend any more time contributing or writing articles.
I'm disappointed that an article entitled "Raquet" has barely a shred of information about types other than tennis, and such mind-numbing minutia about that.
Pjbflynn
05:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Please sign your posts...)
There, I rewrote it. If someone who knows how could add a picture of a badminton racket, that would be great. Happy New Year! Pjbflynn 07:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes you rewrote it and in the process deleted alot of valuable content that other individuals included such as the section on manufacturer specific technologies. Your rewrite was essentially vandalism. If you are going to delete large portions of text you should state your reasons first.
What is rude and unconstructive is deleting large portions of text which have painstakingly been inserted by other users because you deem them to be "mind-numbing minutia". Particularly so when you don't state your intentions on the talk page and this article had a heading stating that it was in need of expansion...other users were attempting to fulfill that objective.
Excimer3.141597
00:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how deleting large portions of content under the "Tennis Racquet" heading solves the problem of lack of content for the other types of racquets. Also, when confronted with passages that you deem to be "rambling" do you always just go for the delete key and axe the entire passage? I guess your time is too valuable to follow the wikipedia guidelines and fix it? Your opinion on content is just that...an opinion, which should be discussed on the talk page before you trash large portions of text. Excimer3.141597 06:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
OK, no offense intended...in my opinion I dont see any reason why the deleted passages shouldn't be included. The tennis racquet section as it is now has a very comprehensive discussion (which is lacking references) on racquet design as it relates to playing characteristics, however the opening section which had the longer discussion of racquet history along with the phases of popularity as well as the discussion of manufacturer specific technologies and list of Manufacturers should be replaced. I think the discussion of tennis racquet history could be greatly expanded and agree that the tennis racquet section should be split off to a new article if necessary. Excimer3.141597 10:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Can someone expand on the components of a tennis racquet such as the gromit. Damaged or missing gromits are often the number two reason for string failure (after failure due to excessive impacts). Some have proposed wire covers or protectors as alternatives to gromits commercially sold as replacements. Dan
Thanks for adding back the details! When you said badminton racquets often have " isometric" shapes, did you mean " asymmetric"? LachlanA 06:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I mostly cut and pasted info from the individual sports' pages. If you have more info, by all means Be Bold! That said, badminton racquets seem to be symmetric ovals to me... Pjbflynn 22:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The entire text describing the details of tennis racquet selection was plagiarized from http://www.tennis-warehouse.com/LC/SelectingRacquet/SelectingRacquet.html. I have deleted this portion of the article. If someone wants to re-add the information without blatantly stealing the material, then go for it. But until then, copied material has no place on Wikipedia. Regards, Rahzel 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
References missing! This article seems to be very correct, though... -- Simenhjort 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to find that this article predominantly uses the spelling "racquet" instead of "racket." My impression is that in American English "racket" is standard usage in most contexts, with exceptions for certain sports. For instance tennis rackets are usually "rackets," while badminton racquets are usually "racquets." As an example, see the website of Wilson, popular maker of rackets: they sell "tennis rackets" and "badminton racquets." I'll have to do some more research to find out about the standard usage, but I'm guessing that something like the Chicago Manual of Style will state that "racket" is standard usage and it will advise against "racquet." But I don't know how the Wikipedia community usually deals with this kind of issue of style: do we defer to guides like Chicago when lacking compelling reasons to deviate? Another issue is that the spelling may differ in non-American English. Can anyone provide input on any of this? Jeferman ( talk) 18:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
One should use only one form of the spelling within one and the same article. A mixture of racquet and racket is not understandable. And by the way: Google finds for squash racquets 359.000 hits, but for squash rackets 533.000 hits. -- Florentyna ( talk) 10:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
One very important thing: Wikipedia entries should not be plagiarising other sources. But let' collaborate and find what really is the case. People can get very picky about spellings and I'd rather get to the bottom of the social contexts here! Richardhod ( talk) 15:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Can mention be made of dampeners on modern tennis rackets ? GrahamHardy ( talk) 08:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Racket (sports equipment). 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Why does the intro say “A racket [1] is a black implement”?? Racquets have been wood-framed for most of their history - sometimmes decorated but often plain or clear varnished - and modern racquets are available in pretty much any colour you like. I think ‘black’ should be removed, here.
The BBC link has 'raquet', not racquet with a c, so doesn't support the current claim it's being used as a citation for. It's also racket throughout Wimbledon's site (and if anyone was going to know it would be them), the OED redirects to racket, -only noting 'racquets' under the entry for the game Rackets, as an alternative spelling used in North America. Frond Dishlock ( talk) 22:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Transformation of sentences 2409:40D2:101C:F9BB:187E:FF79:9C71:815F ( talk) 06:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)