Jump to content

Talk:Racket (sports equipment): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Rahzel (talk | contribs)
Tennis Racquet selection is plagiarized.
→‎References: new section
Line 38: Line 38:


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, [[User:Rahzel|Rahzel]] 05:08, 28 June 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, [[User:Rahzel|Rahzel]] 05:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

== References ==

References missing! This article seems to be very correct, though... --[[User:Simenhjort|Simenhjort]] 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:04, 19 September 2007

Template:FAOL

Please expand

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)[reply]

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...)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Editing that you don't approve of is not vandalism, and it is rude and unconstructive to throw terms like that around. If you'd like to be civil, I'd be happy to discuss the thinking behind my edits. Pjbflynn 23:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

I suggest you go back in the history and look at the state of the article before the changes I made. For an article named simply Racquet, it made no mention of any type of racquet other than tennis, and was basically a rambling mess. Perhaps Tennis racquet deserves it's own separate article, and I think that the much better content in the current tennis section is just about there now. Pjbflynn 01:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, it's obvious that all you want to do here is yell at me, rather than discussing content or for that matter, editing the article. Pjbflynn 15:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Isometric?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tennis Racquet section is plagiarized

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)[reply]

References

References missing! This article seems to be very correct, though... --Simenhjort 18:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]