Talk:Sledging (cricket)

message: Have been watching this article since 2006 and this has gone full circle. It started off as a ragtag collection of random sledging incidents, developed into a well structured though badly cited article, and has now returned back to a ragtag collection of random sledging incidents.  I think it has gone downhill, the previous incantation had some interesting (and widely quoted) examples of cultural perspective, and well as definitions of sledging tactics. Bring it back!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chunwah (talk • contribs) 10:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, in part.  I thought that whilst a lot of the material deleted by BlackJack in early November was indeed interesting, it was nevertheless the sort of material which needs better citation.  If you can find such citations, I for one will applaud their re-inclusion.  You may have to do this on a statement by statement basis.  Kind regards--Calabraxthis (talk)  10:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Full Circle

message: This is just a collection of alleged quotes and incidents that appeal to the juveniles among us and 90% of it is WP:OR.  Some of the assertions made are pure imagination based on perceived stereotypes.  It really is the worst article I have ever seen on WP and is like something out of a teenage snigger rag.
Even where the topic has been mentioned in reports, including those "referenced" in the article, it is all a case of "he said, she said" in the heat of the moment and has no more significance (or WP:N) than an argument in any other workplace.  Would WP welcome an article about housewives arguing over the fence after one of their cats has been digging in the other's garden; or about an office worker telling the manager where to get off?
And if an exact quote has actually been recorded and can therefore be verified precisely, so what?  It is WP:TRIVIA that has no encyclopaedic value whatsoever.  Surely we all have better things to do than boost the egos of the morons who indulge in this "practice".  BlackJack | talk page 07:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I expected, this rubbish article was not distracted by my taunts and even got through AfD without losing its concentration.  I've shortened it by excluding all content that I suspect to be WP:OR or WP:POV, apart from the bit about basketball where I've left a "cn" tag.  I'll be back when I can think of some new jibe about its parentage and we'll see if that upsets it.  :-)  --BlackJack | talk page 13:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

text: AND it's missing the 1996 Glenn McGrath/Eddo Brandes encounter, which is surely worthy of inclusion in anyone's Top Ten. Mr Larrington (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate article

message: Why are Dr Grace and his interlocutor made to talk like a couple of stage Tudors? '"Twas the wind which took thy bail orf [sic], good sir." The umpire replied: "Indeed, doctor, and let us hope thy wind helps the good doctor on thy journey back to the pavilion."' Verily I say unto you, 'tis bollocks, my lord. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olde Englishe Rubblishe 

message: Can an external link be provided to a decent collection of sledges? This article used to act as such a collection and it gave me many good laughs. Admittedly that is hardly the purpose of Wikipedia, but the present links are rubbish - AG, Stockport, UK.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.53.69.150 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collection 

message: I have added Template:Overly detailed because it uses a lot of unnecessary quotations, some without sources. It is more suitable for cricket fans rather than the general audience. Needs to be cleaned up and should cover what's notable only. The incidents listed are out of context. I thorough check should be undertook for NPOV. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for Template:Overly detailed