Jump to content

Talk:Badminton/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Jump smash picture

I found a great picture of a jump smash which I would like to add but I'm really new here and the image copyright policy is so detailed... I think I can manage it. Need to e-mail the author of the picture. Qazx 9:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

1850s

I came across a couple of 1850s punch cartoons (54 and 59) implying Badminton was already popular enough then to be a nuisance on the Streets of London so I query if if really only arrived in the UK in the 1850s. Any basis for this--BozMo|talk 22:49, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The cartoon shows the game of battledore and shuttlecock which goes back to medieval times and out of which Badminton evolved. A nice picture though and I wonder if its now out of copyright so it could be used to illustrate the article . Lumos3 13:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Sure seems out of copyright but I think out of courtesy, also as it is the only attribution to author and date, and also as most of the work in these old things is scanning and cleaning the pictures you should link to the site it was lifted it off which was John Leech Archive which I will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BozMo (talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 February 2005 (UTC)

Mixture of tennis and volleyball

I am going to edit to illustrate badminton as a sort of mixture of tennis and volleyball. While much of play is similar to tennis (singles and doubles) the feature of the 'ball' not being allowed to hit the playing surface is in common with volleyball. All three have similar court proportions and the feature of a net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SVTCobra (talk • contribs) 01:39, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Second most popular?

I removed this unsubstantiated claim from the History section:

It is now the second most popular sport in the world behind Soccer.

I find this hard to believe, especially since good stats on such things are hard to come by. [1] tries to settle the debate, and concludes that badminton is in fact 6th, not 2nd - but then it also unearthed the fact that 1 in 6 of the world's population play volleyball. Hmm.

If someone has some hard facts, free free to add them in, but I don't believe the 200 million figure for badminton quoted on that page either. sjorford 09:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It does make sense. This sport is very popular in China and Indonesia, 2 of the 4 most populous countries in the world.--Nitsansh 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Under Equipment->String:

"Racquets strung at lower tensions (18 to 21 lbf or 80 to 95 N)provide greater control while racquets strung at higher tensions generate greater power (21+ lbf, over 95 N) ."
I would have thought it was the reverse. Higher tension produces a stiffer string bed, allowing more control over power generation.Hagane 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

In the beginning of the article, it says "The game of badminton is not reccommended for high school students, especially participation classes." That should be elaborated upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.55.97 (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Playing the game

Regarding this section:

The object of the game is to hit a shuttlecock (normally shortened to "shuttle" or "cock"; more colloquially, "bird" or "birdie"), using a racquet, over the net onto the court within the marked boundaries before the opposing player or pair can hit it back.

This is not entirely true as there is an unusual by-law which states that the shuttlecock may travel to the opposite side of the court without having travelled over the net, instead travelling around the outside of the net's support post.

Naturally, this would mean that the shuttlecock was originally going out so the player returning the shot has already made the shot, however, if they return the shuttle outside the post and it lands in a legal area of the opposite side of the court, the supposedly questionable journey of the shuttlecock is ignored.

Can someone find a rule book and check this please? Bigpinkthing 11:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is true, but it is such an obscure rule and a rarity for it to ever happen in a match, I don't think it should be included in that excerpt, which is more of a brief overview of the rules. Instead, it should be included later in the article. WikiFew 19:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)WikiFew

I edited the following lines:
"The game of badminton may look easy to play, but it can be physically more tiring than tennis since the tennis ball travels at a much slower speed as compared to a shuttlecock. When you play a shot in tennis you use the whole of your arm in one sweeping action, whereas in badminton you use the flick of your wrist and a step to give maximum power and accuracy."

  1. It is doubtful that tennis ball travels at slower speed on average, given that badminton shuttle slows down a lot at the end. I reworded this a little to correct that.
  2. It's a common misconception that badminton involves mostly flicks of wrist. Everything is used in badminton: finger pressure, arm pronation, arm extension, shoulder rotation, waist... Even fast flat drives involve a lot more than wrist flicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.140.58 (talk) 23:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Photograph

This page needs a good action photograph or an animated gif to illistrate the game . See Table tennis to see what can be done. Lumos3 14:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I will see what I can find. Selar 16:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Ill see if I can find a clips (avi or mpeg), and then import it into macromedia flash, to change it into a animated gif. But I can only do that next week-end - no computer during the week lol. But I'll also have to download flash, since its on the other computer paat 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article will benefit from two or three action photographs. As nobody has added anything since the above comments were posted, I have added a photograph that I took myself, about 4 years ago. It is the only action photograph I have ever taken where the shuttlecock was clearly visible. The photo isn't all that good - so anyone should feel free to replace it when they find something better. Bob BScar23625 07:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

IBF experimental scoring system

I added a sub header to the Rules section to explain the IBF experimental scoring system, and added in the History section that the experiment will last untill May, when the IBF will decide if the rules become permanent. I thought adding a new section was better than to add comments to every line saying what the rule would be in the experiment. Selar 16:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Important: The IBF has agreed on adopting the experimental scoring system as the new rules for the game untill at least the 2008 olympic games. The entire rules section should be changed to the new rules. Gemertp 09:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

References

I'm a WikiProject Badminton leader, of course want to nominate this page as featured article. Unfortunately, this article does not have any references, this not meet the criteria of Wikipedia. I need someone to put references on the page. Thanks. Aleenf1 12:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Aleenf1. I suggest caution about Featured Article candidature. Why do you not try nominating the article for "Good Article" status first?. That is a less demanding and more editor-friendly exercise. Bob BScar23625 14:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have sorted the external links into some subcatogories and weeded out club level links and spam. The article cannot have an open door to every club or the list will be huge. ( see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Weeded links are below please check if I've removed any mistakenly. Lumos3 09:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I was the editor of the new collegiate links section. After reading "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not", I feel many of the links should now be removed. Unfortunately, the dilemma is that there is no single source or set of sources that provide links to different groupings (i.e. collegiate badminton). This is a particular problem with USA linkings as the sport finds itself a bit unorganized in the States. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.227.176.14 (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Suggest you submit them to the Open Directory Project. In the meantime start a wiki page on Wikiinfo, which is less restrictive. You could then link to that from here. Lumos3 23:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Or start your own Badmington wiki along the lines of the one for Table tennis see http://www.tabletenniswiki.com/index.php/Main_Page Lumos3 09:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Clubs and Spam

Racket / Racquet

I'm bringing this up again.. In the disambig at the top of the page it says 'racket' but the first line of the article says 'racquet'. Surely only one should be used? -Aenimiac 15:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

GA

Passed. Congrats! -- Zanimum 20:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Point scoring...

Sorry, just to further explain - in the 'chapter' on point scoring this is explained well, but in paragraph two it is noted "in either case, the winner will add a point to his score" and then in comparisons to tennis "in tennis the serve is dominant to the extent...". I feel these confuse the issue a bit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruit bat (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing they say it like that because you can rarely hit an ace or something like that in badminton. You can easily score points on the opponent's serve, which is more difficult in tennis I guess. Venullian 05:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Point scoring rules?

Not sure about other countries, but at all the clubs I've played with in Australia, you can only score on service, as in tennis i.e only the player or team who served the point is able to win a point; a dropped service does not mean the opposite player/team is awarded a point. Maybe it's just me, but the way it read in the article in a few places made it sound like either side could win a point at any time? Can someone clarify? Also in Aus, it is spelt "racquet". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fruit bat (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The IBF have changed the scoring rules to "rally point scoring", which means that either side can win a point at any time. Wikipedia should primarily reflect the current scoring system, not the old one.
"Racquet" is an acceptable alternative spelling; but in issues of variant spellings we should prefer modern usage. "Racket" is more common and is just as correct. Mike Hopley 10:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Offensive and Defensive racquets

Ive been to a sports store, and they talked to me about offensive and defensive racquets, offensive beeing pointed at the end, vs defensive have a larger surface. Is this point real? should i add it into the article? paat 21:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There are only two shapes that I know of: Isometric shape and normal (oval) shape. Isometric shape provides a larger surface area, theoretically increasing the size of the sweet spot, while the oval shape are smaller in surface area of racquet.
In terms of offensive and defensive racquet, I believe that these additional surface area (due to strings, and a slightly larger racquet) does contribute to the offensive and defensive style: My observations:
- Yonex produces AT800 Offensive and Defensive, both head-heavy (more weight on the frame than handle) and isometric head shape. The primary difference between the two are the shape of the frame - AT800 DE are more conventional (triangular), whilst AT800 OFF are more of a boxed shape. Their hypothesis for a defensive racquet is to allow minimum air friction.
- Alternatively, a head-light racquet are often considered a defensive style racquet as well. These racquets are designed to be more maneuverable, hence allowing better defence.
The second point are my perception, based on my experiences with various racquets.Hagane 03:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we should avoid allowing any racket manufacturer's marketing terms to penetrate the encyclopedia article. The categories of racket, and their corresponding supposed catergories of player, are often marketing inventions. Mike Hopley 16:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the external links on this article are inconsistently chosen and may display personal bias.

In particular, the link to Badminton Central (http://www.badmintoncentral.com/badminton-central/) has been deleted twice, quite aggressively (last one was reported vandalism). This is a community website with news, forums, and articles. Yet the link to Badders.com, which is a similar (but rather smaller) site, remains.

I've now added Badminton Central back in. Could someone please explain what's wrong with it? And if there is something wrong with it, why is Badders.com okay? Mike Hopley 08:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, someone keeps putting the Badminton Portal site in. This is a very new site (launched this month) and as yet has little content. Please leave it out; self-promotion is not appropriate to Wikipedia. Mike Hopley 08:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, your reason is very good, but because the article size is too large, so i remove something, no divide for part in the external links. --Aleenf1 08:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

S-serve citation

Can anyone find a better article to cite about the S-serve? I listed the Badminton Central one, but it is not entirely accurate. Mike Hopley 15:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

citation

max speed record needs citation in text. see [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Widefox (talk • contribs) 11:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

good stuff Aleenf1 Widefox 19:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Article size

The article has become fairly long, partly because I've added lots of information to it. It currently contains over 7000 words of main text. Wikipedia: Article size says, "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words". We could potentially split the article. Here are some ideas:

  • Remove the scoring system development to another article (readers are generally not interested in the minutiae of IBF changes). We would, however, need to leave a short indication that the scoring system has recently changed and explain the difference.
  • Summarise the history section and move the existing section to a new article (could combine with scoring system development).
  • Remove the detailed stroke descriptions to another article. Unfortunately, we can't really do this without removing the strategy section as well, and I can't even think of a satisfactory way to split the strokes.

What do you think? Mike Hopley 12:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

don't remove it, but you can split to new page and highlight some details in this page. Probably you can refer to football (soccer), this is featured article standard in Wikipedia, see how it do the highlight part and the main article. Good luck --Aleenf1 16:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Aleen. By the way, I meant "remove" as in "move to another article", not as in "delete" :) Mike Hopley 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The tennis article might be a good way - breakout all the shots to separate articles [3]. I guess that'll be handy as more pictures can be included for better instruction.Widefox 11:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
This might be possible in the future, but right now we don't have enough content for individual stroke articles. I'm also not convinced that each stroke would benefit from an entire article (one could certainly write an entire article about technique and coaching for each stroke, but is this appropriate content for Wikipedia?).
I think readers would find it easier to look at all the strokes together, or at least in groups. The German article (featured!) has good diagrams to compare strokes. Mike Hopley 23:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons with other racquet sports

I have moved the section Comparisons with other racquet sports to foot of article. Lets describe the game first then compare it to other sports. Lumos3 09:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Equipment

Use of plastic shuttles tends to be limited to beginners/intermediates. The pros do NOT use plastics for practice.

The flight and feel of the shuttle is significantly different. Plastic shuttles tend to go very fast at the beginning because the skirt crumples, then slows down very rapidly once the skirt is restored. Feather shuttles do not exhibit this behaviour. Most badminton clubs seem to use cork based plastics if they use plastic shuttles. Plastic/synthetic "corks" are very different to feather shuttles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.78.22 (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

There are many grammatical errors in the 'COMPETITION' section. It seems to have been written by someone who may not speak English as a first language. As I am not knowledgeable on this subject, I have chosen not to edit this article for fear of misinterpretation. Could someone who is well-informed on this subject please make the necessary adjustments? See below.

"Start 2007, IBF introduced the New Tournament Structure, known as Super Series, the 6-star tournament (level 2) will play in 12 countries with the minimum prize of USD$200,000 (All-England, China, Denmark, France, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Switzerland). The participants limited to 32 players form previous 64. The players have to be collect the points in ability to play in season-ending masters event, also in China with a grand prize of USD$500,000. [15] [16]

With the introduction of Super Series, IBF also standardized all the badminton event start 2007. The Grand Prix Gold open tournament (level 3, 4-star) will be offer the prize money of USD$125,000, with 10 countries will selected to organise this event. The Grand Prix Gold event will combine with Grand Prix event (3-star), which offer the prize money of USD$50,000.

In the fourth level event (A-star), known as International Challenge, offer USD$15,000, also the International Series, offer USD$5,000, is the competition to cater more junior player. The 28 and 55 tournaments are schedule for both events respectively." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.218.136.73 (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the section for grammar and writing style. I have minimal knowledge about the tournaments, however, so I might have introduced errors. If Aleen or someone else could check over my edits for factual accuracy, it would be helpful. Mike Hopley 22:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting off the Competitions section?

I think the information in the competitions section is highly detailed and technical. Is this something that most readers of the main article are going to be interested in?

In my view, this might be better placed in a separate article, with a summary section linking to the full text.

Thoughts, anyone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Hopley (talk • contribs) 23:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

That is SMALL section, it shouldn't split, but if you thinking out of how to shorten the size, it might ok, but do what you think even need to split. Thank you. --Aleenf1 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it is small, so I can see your point: if we split it, we would only make a small saving, and the new article could look a bit silly on its own. Mike Hopley 09:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Scoring system development

There is a little mistake in this section. In 1992, when two players tied at 13-13 the player who had first reached that score could decide elect to set and play to 18; and when they tied at 14-14, the player who had first reached that score could decide elect to set and play to 17.

For women's singles tied at 9-9, the player could decide elect to set and play to 13; and players tied at 10-10, could decide to set an play to 12.

Later, the choice of 18 (13 for women's singles) was deleted. I'm sorry, but my english is very bad to change it in the article. MontanNito 22:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for unprotection

Have requested for this page to be unprotected - as has been protected for over a month now. What with FAC - there will be lots of editing going on, and vandalism will be easily reverted, and we will need the help of anon IPs to bring this article up to scratch. Cheers Lethaniol 12:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Automated Peer review

Using User:AndyZ/peerreviewer.js I have generated an automated peer review, to help with the FAC, it gives as follows (strike out if not needed or been fixed):

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]
  • There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 10cm, use 10 cm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 10 cm.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 5 ft.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Cheers Lethaniol 12:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions

Hi there,

I have two suggestions for this article -

  1. Have a See Also section at the bottom (common with other articles e.g. see Tennis theirs is probably a bit long).
  2. The scoring system could do with a part at the top saying that this system has only just come into force (IBF/date) and that some people may be still be using older systems - link to historical section above. Also the scoring system is still very hard to read not sure how to make better - but makes much more sense when you read IBF's version.

Cheers Cheers Lethaniol 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the scoring/service section to make it easier to read/understand (unfortunately I forgot my edit summary). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mike Hopley (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
Have added a See also section - but not a vast number of links available. Suggest that articles of lists be made e.g. on the International Badminton Bodies, all players that have won the World Champs / Olympics, all racquet sports etc.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lethaniol (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
Kick out the "other racquet sport", the governing body and Badminton Olympics actually link already in content, so why repeat again? No sense Aleenf1 17:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a very good reason for having a See Also section - loads of people wont read the whole article and will just want to see where else they can be led to within Wikipedia - hence the See Also section. So for example in the article on George Bush there will be a see also section with a wikilink to the Republican party even though it will have a link in the text. You can use wikilinks more than once - and at the mo this article in under wikilinked.
In terms of the Other racket sports - why delete it - it is relevant and the sort of thing people will be interested in.
Oh and I think all the years in a historical section should be wikilinked please. Cheers Lethaniol 17:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, "other racquet sport" is keeping, but the other will kickout, also in Wikipedia:Manual of Style, year should not be link except it relevant to the content. Sorry. --Aleenf1 17:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay fair enough remove some of the dates - but keep the 1860s one as culturally relevant and the dates of set up of Bad and IBF as important to compare with other events. And with respect to the See Also section - you must have this in, and it should contain the most sort after 5 links on Badminton in Wikipedia at least - to not do so is silly. Cheers Lethaniol 17:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay again you are right about the Wikipedia:See_also#See_also - had not read before you gave link. Cheers Lethaniol 18:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Strokes section rewrite

I have rewritten the basic strokes section as continuous prose, replacing the long list that was a complaint in the Featured Article nomination. If this goes down well, I will give advanced strokes a similar treatment, and both will be subsumed under the new heading of badminton strokes.

Benefits:

  1. Wikipedia prefers content in prose rather than long lists.
  2. I think the new prose gives better context.
  3. Three headings are removed from the excessively long Table of Contents, with a further four headings to disappear later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Hopley (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Update

Okay, the advanced strokes section is now prose too. I haven't kept absolutely every stroke that was in the list; I think illustrating the general ideas of badminton skills is more important than a complete taxonomy of every possible stroke and deception.

Mike Hopley 14:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

vandalism

This article seems to be vandalised at least twice per day. I cannot imagine what there is about it that attracts this kind of attention. The vandalism all comes from anonymous users. So, perhaps it might be an idea to restrict edits on this article to registered Users?. Bob BScar23625 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I will ask for semi-protect --Aleenf1 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Aleenf1. What was the outcome of your request for semi-protect status?. The article is still being regularly vandalised by anonymous editors, who seem to be young children. Bob BScar23625 08:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Bob, admin refused because it not commonly happen everyday plus just not more than two or three vandal. But i'll try for another time. Hope admin nods!--Aleenf1 09:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, on now, Bob --Aleenf1 10:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I did the semi-protect as requested by Aleenf1. Hopefully that should fix your situation here. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 10:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys. I see that Nishkid64 removed the protect status from the article on 14/01. I hope that we do not have a resumption of persistent minor vandalism. Bob BScar23625 21:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I requested it - see section below - it is inappropriate to have an article semi-protected all the time - it has been a month - so time to see what happens without protection. Cheers Lethaniol 21:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys. Once more, we seem to be suffering from vandalism every few hours. Any chance of having semi-protect status restored on a long-term basis?. Bob BScar23625 12:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism, some of it quite obscene, happens on average (over last 10 days) once or twice a day, with most edits being reverted in a few minutes, but with a couple reverted only after a few hours. This level of vandalism is clearly manageable but the question is, is the vandalism staying long enough to cause real problems for the article/Wikipedia. Currently I am on the fence on this, in principal I am against long-term semi-protection but this level of vandalism is annoying but not hard work to revert as of yet. Cheers Lethaniol 17:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have further thoughts on this?. BScar23625 — Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Badminton is the article to be so familiar with vandalism, what the point from anon user, they really not respect other works. I hope to restore semi-pro, but ask for another time could be hard, wait for next few days to see the progress. --Aleenf1 12:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry but vandalism of a page once a day is not really that much in comparison with many - and is easy to handle. Fine to use semi-protection when the vandalism load is great, but this is not the time IMHO. Cheers Lethaniol 16:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lethaniol. Are you still sure about that?. Bob BScar23625 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol okay you just saw me revert the obscene vandalism - I agree we should ask for a semi-protect - which I will do, as there has been a sharp increase in the amount and severity of vandalism over the last couple of days. Cheers Lethaniol 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Lethaniol. That is fine. I am sure you meant well and I am not mocking. I don't know why this particular article attracts the kind of attention it does. Bob BScar23625 15:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably because you get some fool thinking - what sport do I think is really silly, or shuttlecock isn't that a funny word. Hey how are we to understand such people - I would have thought there were better things to do with your like. Cheers Lethaniol 15:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Shuttlecock" or "shuttle"

The word "shuttlecock" appears a great many times in the article. Sometimes I use the abbreviation "shuttle". I think we should choose a convention: either use "shuttlecock" everywhere, or abbreviate to shuttle in all places that are not defining instances.

I favour abbreviating to "shuttle" (except in defining instances), because it will make the article more readable (sentences with multiple occurrences of "shuttlecock" seem quite ponderous to me). I also think the abbreviation is easily recognisable.

What do you think? Mike Hopley 10:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, include the fact that many call the shuttlecock a "birdie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.65.234 (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
This colloquialism is already noted in the main article, shuttlecock; I don't think regional slang adds much to the badminton article. Mike Hopley 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Stick with shuttlecock throughout the article please :) Cheers Lethaniol 13:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

String tension

The article states "It is a common misconception that lower string tension increases power, and higher string tension increases control. Higher string tensions actually increase both power and control, until the player reaches a maximum playable tension."

While I believe that this is correct, the misconception does appear to be very common indeed, including on Ashaway's website (and the same article reproduced at badminton.tv), so it would be great if someone could find a good reference. There's this at Badminton Central, but it seems somewhat wrong to take Kwun's word over Ashaway's... Jamiewebb 02:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've rewritten this to be more neutral, considering that neither view has any evidence for it whatsoever ;) Mike Hopley 10:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone explain why the string is not strung diagonally, both ways of course, across the racquet face? The longest length in this pattern is shorter than in the conventional up-and-down, side-to-side pattern. Under the same tension, the string will response a little bit faster.Zymogen 21:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Court Length Contradiction

Hi,

I play very amateur Badminton and want to check the lines used for singles rather than doubles. The article shows some contradiction in that under "Playing Court Dimensions" it says "The doubles court is wider than the singles court, but the doubles service court is shorter than the singles service court." but further down under "Strategy" - "Singles" it states "The singles court is narrower than the doubles court, but the same length." Does that mean the shorter court is only used during serving in doubles then they revert to the long court for the rest of play?84.71.137.77 18:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, i think you can see the court image in Badminton article, a good reference there, i hope you can understand. --Aleenf1 06:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok thanks, that seems to make sense and I think that's how I vaguely remembered it from school. I do think the statement under Strategy - Singles that the singles court is the same length as the doubles court should be changed to make the article more accurate.84.71.43.6 12:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actual rules?

Can someone tell me the actuall rules of badminton, not faults or enything just the rules please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.178.80 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: add a current affairs section

I suggest adding a current affairs section to let readers know what're the traditionally strong nations in badminton and who're the current dominating players and what's going on with badminton. --wil osb 10:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but at least must have references to support this, if you have resources, sure all can be done. --Aleenf1 11:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Come to think about it, i think it's better for this to be put as a subsection under History and Development, with the subtitle Current Affairs. --wil osb 11:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That can be done in the respective article, i don't think so it needed here. I though you might be want to add the popularity of badminton, the first paragraph is ok, but Thomas Cup and Uber Cup also World Badminton Championships can be done in respective article. --Aleenf1 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, i think it's useful to put a short summary of the past performances by various nations in the badminton world. When a person wants to read about badminton, he's also interested in the overview of how nations are faring in this sport. --wil osb 13:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You can use thousand of reason to defend this, however this is about the "general" of the sport, not the article for overview of performance for any country, refer to other feature article standard, it write about general in that sport, not performances. --Aleenf1 05:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Scoring at the Olympics?

I was wondering whether the rally scoring system, now ratified by the IBF, will be used at the upcoming Summer Olympics. If somebody can tell me, with a trusted source, that would very helpful. If the Olympic Comittee has not approved the new scoring, this should definitely be indicated in the article. vlad§inger tlk 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The scoring system is run for almost 2 years, so it should be use in Olympic Games. I haven't found the source, but the entry regulations already shown.[4] --Aleenf1 10:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

love the artical

i think that this artical is really interesting and i love it and the game badminton
my dream is to do any sport possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.131.76.100 (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of technique

The second paragraph in the section on technique seems to take pleasure in splitting hairs by 'informing' the reader that the wrist is a joint, and not a muscle, but then steps in its own semantic tarpit, immediately citing the forearm as a separate (supposedly more correct) source of power in the very same sentence that it discounts its movement of the wrist as the source of the power.

If you're going to split hairs, the forearm is no more a muscle than the wrist. It's a limb. The folk saying that "it's all in the wrist" implies (of course) that the power comes from the forearm muscles that control the wrist. If you want to dispute this, that's fine, but don't faceplant by citing the 'forearm' as the more correct source of power in contradiction to the 'joint' it controls.

Wrist:elbow:shoulder::forearm muscles:upper arm muscles:shoulder muscles::hand:forearm:upper arm

If you want to contrast to the wrist, don't cite adjecent limbs, use joints. e.g. if it's not in the wrist, it's in the elbow or shoulder... It seems, though, that the point is really internal and external rotation, as cited here, which is still a wrist motion, controlled by the forearms, and more appropriately distinguished from wrist flexion and extension, which is still powered by the forearm.

My humble recommendation: remove the petty 'category error' link and wrist equals joint snarkiness, and state the point more clearly, which I believe would be:

It is often asserted that power in badminton strokes comes mainly from the wrist, implying flexion and extension. However, these wrist movements are relatively weak when compared with internal and external rotation movements at the elbow and shoulder. While the biomechanics of badminton have not been the subject of extensive scientific study, similar study of other racquet sports indicate that the major contributions to power come from internal and external rotations of the arm, rather than flexion or extension of the wrist. Modern coaching ...blah blah blah... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rambeaux (talk • contribs) 10:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


"Always Indoors"

The article mentions that competitive play is always done indoors. I'm not sure what counts as competitive play but I here in Uganda the club teams hold official competitions out of doors as well. It seems that the word "always" might be a bit strong and should probably be changed to "usually."

193.108.214.219 (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Usually the competitive tournament "always" held in indoor, because strong wind could deflect shuttlecock which is light, so, i do not oppose that "always" use in article. --Aleenf1 11:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. Lemme try and rephrase. Wit (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Units

The section on string tension start of with newtons first (lbf in brackets) then switches to lbf (newtons in brackets) can it be standardized in newtons (if you really must have non-standard units, can they be bracketed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.202.219 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Points in Badminton

Don't you play Badminton to 15 points, with "set back" points scoring scheme, instead of to 21 with a 2 point lead? 128.255.172.194 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't make nonsense, you can play whatever you want, however in here, we will follow the international scoring system approved by BWF. --Aleenf1 04:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment

After reading this article and looking through things, I noticed the following issues:

  • There are very few inline citations in the article. The history is okay here, but every other section is far below where it should be.

The lack of referencing (an article of this size and depth should have at least triple the inline cites it does) is significant enough to let me fail the article. When this is fixed it can be re-nominated at GAN. Wizardman 00:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Laws of the Game / Strategy contradiction

Under Laws / Faults, 4th paragraph, we have "Each side may only strike the shuttlecock once before it passes back over the net" whereas in Strategy / Doubles in the 1st paragraph last sentence, we have "Both players may hit the shuttlecock before it is hit over the net back to the opposing side."

As far as I can tell, the Laws / Faults version is correct: Laws of Badminton 13.3.9 declares a fault if the shuttle "is hit by a player and the player's partner successively." 128.210.4.22 (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Width of Lines

I added a paragraph about the width of the lines in the section headed Dimensions of the Court. I don't think this was covered elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanBottomley (talk • contribs) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Raquet?

What's with the weird spelling? Surely the normal spelling is racket? I've never seen the spelling raquet before, the OED has raquet as an alternative to racket. Or am I displaying systemic bias?. Alun 06:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's originally french (raquette) but Racquet seems to be correct english. Venullian 19:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC).
OED says it's of uncertain origin: Forms: 6 rackat, -it, Sc. rakkett, rakcat, 6-7 rackette, 8 -ett, 5- racket; 6-9 raquet, 7 -ett, 9 racquet. See also RAQUETTE. [a. F. raquette (16th c.) = Sp., Pg. raqueta, It. racchetta, lacchetta, of uncertain origin (see Littré and Devic): hence also Du. raket (in Kilian racket), G. rakete, -ette.], and has this quote from 1624 CAPT. SMITH Virginia II. 27 The Beaver..His taile somewhat like the forme of a Racket.. so racket is not a particularly modern usage. I didn't say that raquet is not correct, I said that it is not in common usage. It seems strange to me to be using antiquated or obscure spellings in a modern encyclopedia. But it may be that the spelling raquet is used more commonly outside the UK, in which case I am merely displaying systemic bias. Is it, for example more common to use the alternative spelling in the USA for example? Alun 06:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The spelling "raquet" is used in the spelling of "raquetball." In my experience the two spellings may be used interchangeably in certain circumstances. I am not certain when either spelling should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rintaminator (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I cleaned up some malicious edits. My original edit was to remove unnecessary bolding but it was reverted without explanation by Rjanag. I looked through the history of the page and found that someone had add Italy as a founder of the World Badminton Federation, that the roots of the sport are in 18th century and not the mid-19th, and that it was invented by "Dr. P. Aaron Potter in Swaziland in the late 1890s"; all of these are blatantly untrue. I've removed all of this; hopefully, my edits will not be reverted again. 99.224.33.78 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I had misread the diff (I thought you were adding unnecessary bolding, but I had it backwards), for which I apologize. Thanks for catching these other malicious edits as well. Best, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Smash record

Edits like this, warring over whether the record is held by Fu Haifeng or Tan Boon Heong, have been going on for some months now. It appears to me, though, that if we are following reliable sources we have to go with Tan. The list of reasons why Tan's smash "doesn't count" looks like personal synthesis to me, and doesn't include a single source. The latest reverter claimed in his edit summary that "the BWF website doesn't recognize this record", but I searched the site and I didn't see it acknowledging any other past records--including Fu's--so I don't see how it's relevant. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have included a source the first time I edited it. The Source
The news explicitly says the record is held secret by Yonex stuff. If the test was not conducted by Yonex, why would they have the right the hold the record? Also, notice the article purposely mentioned Fu Haifeng's record was set during an actual match, and no where did it say Tan's record was during a match.
It's also kinda common sense that it's physically impossible to beat Fu's record by almost 100 km if the measurement condition were all the same. It's clear it's just Yonex's advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sxyh745 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Those are valid points, but it's your own analysis, which is considered original research on Wikipedia. Taking published sources and conducting original synthesis of ideas to reach a new conclusion is original research. If you can find a reliable source that makes these same arguments, then it will be taken into account; if it's just your opinion, though, we have to go with what the actual news says. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
If you disagree, you are always welcome to file a request for a third opinion (at [[Wikipedia:Third opinion; there are instructions at that page). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I think this whole "Smash record" section is silly. Do you see a "Long driving records" section in the Wikipedia article on golf or a "Fastest serves" section in the article on tennis? Success in the sport has nothing to do with who has the fastest clocked smash, it has to do with who wins the biggest titles. Instead of a section on the fastest smash the article should have a section on the most successful players in the game's history. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Left-handers have weak backhands??

I'm just starting to look over this "main" article on the subject, though I've done a lot of work on other Wikipedia badminton articles such as Thomas Cup. I've noticed some bad grammar and some pretty blatant over-generalizations. Yes, some left-handers have weak backhands. There is a kernel of truth to the idea that some learn to rely on their forehand because they see more shots on that side of the court, but is silly to make a blanket statement that "the main weakness of a southpaw is his backhand." Of the players that I either played against or saw play on a fairly regular basis, the one with the best backhand was a left-hander, Andy Chong (Chong Weng-kai) a former Malaysian national team member. By contrast, as a right-hander who had to deal with many thousands of shots on my backhand side over several decades, I never really learned to hit a backhand well. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Mixed doubles

This section seems very sexist to me. Especially this line: "This is because the male players are substantially stronger, and can therefore produce smashes that are more powerful." Is this truly the reason males play back and woman play front? 98.110.15.118 (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. It does sound sexist, but it seems (via original research - I play on a decent badminton team) that this is unfortunately a bit de facto. I'm sure the mixed style of front-back was introduced before the advent of feminism, and I suppose females would naturally be assigned the less-taxing position of the front player. On our team (again, shamefully original research), our number one mixed team is comprised of an extremely strong male and a very strong female. They are the special case on our team, and are the only mixed team to even attempt side-side (left-right) playing, because the girl is actually capable of keeping up. Unfortunately, all that I have written above is purely self-hypothesized and so inappropriate for the article. I doubt that the original line you questioned will ever be cited, and I guess that makes it fair game for removal (if it has not already been). 220.138.164.46 (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparisons of speed and athletic requirements

Anaerobic vs aerobic? I believe the author actually meant anaerobic in most cases, because badminton is mainly an anaerobic sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.78.22 (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Badminton is actually mainly aerobic... are you sure you didn't confuse the definitions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.182.172 (talk) 08:02:33, August 2, 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the claim that informal studies suggest the badminton is more physically demanding than tennis. The source cited (http://www.badminton.bnl.gov/ten-bad.html "Tennis vs. Badminton." Brookhaven National Laboratory) cannot be considered a legitimate study because it contains no approved medical research regarding physical fitness. In addition, the source's claims of differing physical during the game are statisically meaningless, since both categories have a sample size of one. A quick search of pubMed and jStor revealed no legitimate, peer reviewed studies. General Groves (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Every second (or more) edit of this page is vandalism. Nearly every day one vandalizing edit by an IP. Please semi-protect for a longer time or indefinitely. --Florentyna (talk) 12:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: requests for changes to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, but on the template page the way to do this is written like I did it, see Template:Edit semi-protected. --Florentyna (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
No, that template is used to request that someone make a text edit to an article that is already semi-protected, not to request that someone semi-protect an article. Anyway, the article is semi-protected now. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 141.241.98.134, 3 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change (singles) to (singles) Please change (doubles) to (doubles) because these are important distinctions the 2 types of games that can exist in badminton

141.241.98.134 (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Our manual of style specifies when we should use boldface. This is not one of them. But thank you for the suggestion. -Atmoz (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research

A lot of this article looks like editorialising. A particular example from one of the sections that isn't already marked as lacking in citations is: "The arguments for this generally rely on crude mechanical reasoning, such as claiming that a lower tension string bed is more bouncy and therefore provides more power. This is in fact incorrect, for a higher string tension can cause the shuttle to slide off the racquet and hence make it harder to hit a shot accurately. [...] The most effective way for a player to find a good string tension is to experiment." Is this all just somebody's opinion, of is there a verifiable source to justify expounding these absolute positions here on points for which there is supposedly widespread diversity of viewpoints? It is preferable to write in such a way that lets the reader choose which viewpoint if any that they adopt, I would think especially so if this is to feature as a GA. Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

add sub-section about learning doubles strategy?

I would like to see something more about teaching people good doubles strategy. Or is this not the right place for that?
For example.

Learning Badminton Doubles Method

In Badminton, playing doubles is very different from playing doubles in say Tennis. In many ways it is more difficult to play doubles well, however once you begin to understand and apply the right strategies, playing doubles can be a very rewarding experience.

Position on the court

Doubles relies on two basic player formations:

  1. side-side  : each player stands on his side of the court and covers his half of the court
  2. front-back : each player stands centrally in the court, the forward player covers the forecourt, the rear player covers the rearcourt

The mistake most beginners make, is they only use the side-side formation - never learning how, when or why to switch to the front-back formation. In reality, a good doubles team will constantly flow from the side-side formation to the front-back formation and back again, as the situation requires. The most important point then, is to know when you should switch to a side-side formation, and when you should switch to a front-back formation.

switch to side-side : whenever you or your partner has hit the shuttle high and long to the opponent (eg. defensive clear)
switch to front-back : whenever you or your partner has hit shuttle short (eg. a dropshot just over the net into the opponents forecourt)

Some examples

  • You serve low and short to your opponent. Your team immediately assumes front-back formation.
  • You serve high and deep to your opponent. Your team immediately assumes side-side formation.
  • Your opponent serves high and deep to you. You clear long. Your team remains in the side-side formation.
  • Your opponent serves high and deep to you. You dropshot to the front corner. Your team assumes front-back formation. You were receiving serve from deep in the court, so your partner takes the front position. You take the rearcourt position.
  • Your opponent serves short to you. You dropshot to the front corner. Your team assumes front-back formation. You are already near the front, so you take the front position.

When Smashing

When one person smashes, often (but not always) their partner will look to take the front position and look out for a weak return from the smash. However the partner looking to take the front position may still need to retreat if the opponents smash defense is too good. It really depends where your partner is in the court when they smash. If they were smashing from a more central position, you can probably continue to hold the front position - if the opponent defence clears you, your partner can simply smash again. But if your partner was smashing from say the back corner, a good defense might lift to the opposite back corner - in which case you might "help out" your partner by covering that shot. The important point to note there - is that when your partner is smashing from deep in the corners, often you will have to cover the other three-quarters of the court. You must be ready - singles-like - to cover either front corner or the other rear corner. The reason being, that if the smash is returned well, there simply wont be time for your partner (who, by smashing from the corner, is out of position) to cover the return.

Note: I wrote this text myself based on my own experiences.

Mab521 (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 September 2012

Hi, I am writing to request an edit. In the opening paragraph it says that "A rally ends once the shuttlecock has struck the floor." However, a rally can end if the umpire calls a fault during play, even if the shuttlecock has not hit the floor. For example, if the player strikes a shuttle and the shuttle does not head towards the opponent's side of the court, it is a fault and the rally is over. I just thought perhaps for detail and accuracy, we might want to add the second possibility of a rally being over. Instead of giving every possible scenario, we could write "A rally ends once the shuttlecock has struck the floor, or if a fault has been called by either the umpire or service judge at anytime during the rally." I'm not an expert at wikipedia. I know how to write well, but not necessarily what makes a good article in wikipedia, so I am open to suggestions on why this is good or not a good change. Thank you. Cory (For reference, the badminton law "13.3.10 touches a player’s racket and does not travel towards the opponent’s court;" is the written law that gives an example of how a rally may be called over by a fault, rather than touching the floor. The link to all the faults is here, in the official BWF rules. http://www.bwfbadminton.org/file_download.aspx?id=364295&tid=1 Corykent70 (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Aleenf1 12:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 November 2012

The shuttlecock is made using 16 feathers from the left wing of a goose and has a cork base covered in leather ([5]).

Craig mccourtney (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Not a reliable source. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Origin of name

The history section currently has

"As early as 1860, Isaac Spratt, a London toy dealer, published a booklet, Badminton Battledore – a new game, but unfortunately no copy has survived [reference to The Online Guide to Traditional Games].

The new sport was definitively launched in 1873 at the Badminton House, Gloucestershire, owned by the Duke of Beaufort. During that time, the game was referred to as "The Game of Badminton," and the game's official name became Badminton." (reference to [6])

This reads as if Badminton House only came into play in 1873, while, somehow, the game was already called Badminton Battledore in a booklet of 1860.

The second, hardly authoritative, reference indeed says " The army men introduced the game to friends, but the new sport was definitely launched there at a party given in 1873 by the Duke of Beaufort at his country place, "Badminton" in Gloucestershire. During that time, the game had no name, but it was referred to as "The Game of Badminton," and, thereupon, Badminton became its official name."

It conflicts with what Bernard Adams wrote in his 1980 book "The Badminton story":

"… badminton takes its name from Badminton House … where a new version of battledore had emerged by the end of the 1850's. (Isaac Spratt, a London toy dealer published a booklet,"Badminton Battledore - a new game," in 1860, but unfortunately no copy has survived.) It is also known that a quite advanced form of the game was being played by the British in India in the 1860's and 1870's, and the first rules were compiled there. … The first rules were framed at Poona in 1873, but the game in India developed chiefly as a social pastime rather than a competitive indoor game. …"

The first source (The Online Guide to Traditional Games) follows Adams' story (literally) with " The name 'badminton' comes from Badminton House, the Duke of Beaufort's residence in Gloucestershire (now Avon) where a new version of battledore had emerged by the end of the 1850's. (Isaac Spratt, a London toy dealer published a booklet, "Badminton Battledore - a new game," in 1860, but unfortunately no copy has survived.). When Battledore became Badminton isn't known exactly but the first rules of the game were written in Poona, India by the British in 1873 and these were not dissimilar to the modern game." Other text on this site also suggests that it mainly represents an abstract of Adams' writing, so we should refer straight to Adam's book (the relevant bit is readable at [7]) instead.

The online OED just confirmed my suspicion (hopefully it's legal to copy their text on this discussion page):

"A popular tradition about the origins of the modern game, according to which it is said to have been developed by British army officers in India, and to have been so named after a version of the game which was played at Badminton House in 1873 by officers on leave, is not borne out by the evidence, although versions of the game were popular among the British in India by 1873."

They mention as first usage an article entitled ‘Life in a Country House’ (the house is not identified explicitly) in the Dec. 1863 issue of The Cornhill Magazine: "... badminton (which is battledore and shuttlecock played with sides, across a string suspended some five feet from the ground)..."

In other words, the game was already called badminton in the early 1860s, almost certainly after Badminton House. 1873 may be the year in which original rules were written down in Poona; a party at Badminton house that year may be fictional.

Afasmit (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the author James Lees-Milne, 'Some Cotswold Country Houses', 1987, p.24, "It was here [in the Hall of Badminton House] during a particularly inclement winter in 1863 that the children of the 8th Duke [of Beaufort] invented the game of Badminton". Of course, this is not proof, but Lees-Milne lived on the Badminton estate and knew the Beaufort family well, so it is at least likely that the Beauforts themselves believed in this origin of the game. 86.180.95.161 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone would be so kind to add the link to the external links section of the Badminton Wikipedia Site. This is a very rare automaton Badminton clock dating from C1790 and shows the start from when the game back in the 18th century. Looks like a very useful addition to external links section. http://www.pendulumofmayfair.co.uk/product/grandfather-clock-by-john-grantham-newbury-badminton-automaton-rare?image=c92.4.60.98 (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If these pictures are taken by yourself, you can upload the pictures to the commons [8] and then include it everywhere you want. --Florentyna (talk) 17:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Badminton/Archive_1&oldid=1142753478"