Talk:Ten-pin bowling

message: Firstly, the "Mark Names" section seems to me to be a bitch much. I have NEVER heard most of these terms said. The bowling terms and jargon can be shorterned as some of the terms are already mentioned earlier in the article (if this section is even needed at all.) I do not know, to me, so of the items in the article make it too long and they are not necessary.
Bktrey (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shorten the Article

message: There is no such term calling 4 strikes in a row a "hambone."  The term was purposely invented by ESPN announcer Rob Stone, and has been rejected from popular use by most of professional bowling as well as most amateurs.  It does not belong in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.116.32.149 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: HAMBONE OR Sombrero?

message: I have serious doubts that 360 (14 strikes) was ever considered to be the new perfect game. Anyway, the referred to convention was last April, and I think that we would have heard if there was a change. I'd like to delete the graf, unless I'm wrong, then it should be edited to reflect the new requirement. MDfoo 04:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 360 perfect game?!!!!!!

message: I am just starting out playing ten pin and really enjoy it. Is there anyone out there who can advise on methods etc.
email: n.hooper@smit.com
A website that has some great instructional articles is www.bowl4fun.com.  Check out http://www.bowl4fun.com/ron/roncarchive.htm for a list of instructional articles...
--MMan710 18:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Beginner's query

message: I've been wondering this for a while. I can't find the answer anywhere. I haven't asked anyone at a bowling alley. Does anyone know where or when the "hook" style started? Is it relatively recent?
I would say the hook has been a recent development from my limited yet hands on experience of the sport as the materials and precise internal engineering required to assist in creating a hook are pretty new however it is possible for you to create a hook from a straight ball so really it could be either --Trise 22:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the "hook" come from? 

message: I removed this claim:
:It is common knowledge that the vast percentage of bowlers bowl a "strike" on their first frame.
and replaced it with:
:Some bowlers bowl a "strike" on their first frame. 
There is no source for this claim, and the claim is in fact highly likely to be false. In all likelihood, most bowlers bowl a gutter ball on their first frame. Nohat 03:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridiculous claims tempered 

message: IU am new to bowling and am really gedtting into it. Can anyone help me expand on the tournaments section that I have recently created. Thank you!
: I believe that the Weber Cup is like the bowling version of Golf's Ryder Cup as it saysa in the article. But also, as you can see here whjen asked the question 'Which is the most prestigious of pro bowling's "major" tournaments?', the options are the World Tenpin Masters, U.S. Open, World Championship and Tournament of Championships with no Weber Cup listed? Is their anyone here who is a bowler than can help with this section? These events come onder the PBA Tour's "majors" - I do not think the Weber Cup has anything to do with the PBA?:
The Weber Cup has absolutely nothing to do with the PBA.  The Tournament of Champions is exclusively a PBA event.  The U.S. Open is also owned and operated by the PBA (it had previously been run by the BPAA), though amateurs are eligible to compete.  
It's tough to say which tournament is most prestigious within the PBA.  For years, the Firestone Tournament of Champions (1965-1993) was considered the most prestigious tournament.  However, some would argue the World Championship (also an exclusive PBA event), or U.S. Open are the most prestigious of the events now.  Given that the U.S. Open has the longest and most grueling format, many consider it to be the most prestigious now.  Also, do not forget the USBC Masters tournament, which is also very prestigious in America.--MMan710 05:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tournaments

message: GraemeL, you removed this section because it was a "red farm" - I can agree with you on this 100%. However, I am 100% willing to work on bio's of these people in great detail, I am more than happy to do this. I have had a look at the list and removed some that we're not really seen as "World Leaders". I have added the amended list to the article and can asure you that I will give rather good bio's on the players to make this section far more relevent.
I hope this is ok and will start work now. Yours sincerely, Fjorn
:Great. That's fine by me. New articles for the true major figures of the sport is good for Wikipedia. --GraemeL (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World leading bowlers

message: Someone has changed the simplified rules back into bullet points.  If we want this to be a featured article, they need to be prose.  Should we change them back? --Danaman5 05:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should delete that whole section. It makes the article take a step backwards in featured article quality. Everything that's said in that section is already said in other sections, and it's in list form when it should be in prose. I don't think there's any debate. I'm going to delete it. Also, all Ten-pin bowling (capitalized) should be uncapitalized. Take a look at other sports; basketball, football, soccer, rugby, lacrosse, cricket etc are never capitalized. The same criteria applies to ten-pin bowling (uncapitalized). bob rulz 07:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went a step further and completely cleaned up the article. It needed significant re-organization towards the bottom. I also brought the headings into line with the Manual of Style, uncapitalized "Ten-pin bowling" where it was capitalized, and made other minor spelling and grammar changes. bob rulz 07:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rules 

message: Under what authority are links to BowlingFans.com being removed? The site has a long history and belongs with the other resources listed here, even more so considering its long history.
:Too much advertising on the site. Please add content rather than links. This article already has far too many links. --GraemeL (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:EL, WP:SPAM. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I have converted the trivia section to prose instead of a list.  According to Wikipedia convention, featured articles shouldn't have lists like this, so it needed to be changed.  If anyone has ideas for better ways to represent the information, post them below. --Danaman5 18:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be a trivia section at all. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 11:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: I have submitted this article for peer review to get some outside ideas on our progress and where we should go from here.  I will also be requesting help on the talk pages of related articles in order to get a wide range of qualified opinions.  Please heed the advice of our peers when making your editing choices. --Danaman5 04:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, where does the peer review information feature?  I can't find anything.  Is it all in the Talk page? Budgiekiller 22:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are asking where the peer review is, click the link in the peer review box ("a request has been made") at the top of this talk page to get to the peer review page where the comments of others can be found.  Also, see the bottom of this talk page for further discussion of the peer review comments. --Danaman5 03:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: With reference to the drugs controversy section, I agree with User:Budgiekiller in that it should be their, as it is significant being the first, but I also strongly agree that the names should be blanked out as they are now, especially as this topic has a reference to the original articles. Thank you Budgiekiller for that.
86.132.20.247, who is "one of the people mentioned in this section" states that he doesn't want this information printed (which is fair enough and the names have been blanked). However, this section was not added for any malicious reasons whatsoever (as is stated), it is a significant entry in that it is the first known. If you meant that it was malicious that the original article was written then I cannot comment, only that, amongst scores of others, Go Tenpin, TenpinScotland and Bowling Digital News all reported on it - please don't think it was added here to be malicious, it certainly wasn't - as I agree the names should be removed. 
This was also commented on by Budgiekiller in the IP's talk page HERE. Plese see this section for further information. Fjorn 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drugs controversy 

message: This article seems like it is written almost entirely with a British perspective.  While there's nothing wrong with providing a British perspective, I think this leads to some inaccuracies.  For example, in America, stores that sell bowling equipment are called "Pro Shops" not "Pro Bowl stores" - --MMan710 17:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So some American contributions wouldn't harm the article!  It's fine to say the article is pro-Brit, but if the US perspective changes the content, it may be worth stating e.g. "...in the UK, they are known as 'Pro Bowl stores'...", i.e. keep the (very good) Brit content and enhance it to take into account the US slant.  Budgiekiller 17:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've never heard of a Pro Shop being called a Pro Bowl Store and I've been bowling for 20 years in the UK. I think this could be removed. It is very strange that the UK-related information comes first in every section, when the bowling world is dominated by the USA (and perhaps the Scandinavian countries). I suggest re-ordering the information already in the article to represent the fact that bowling is relatively more popular in the USA as well as adding more information to balance the prodigious contribution from the UK Sevenpin (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: In addition, the generic term bowling is is confusing in Australia. In Australia there is a prevalence of "Bowls Clubs" for lawn bowling that bowling needs to be designated at 10-pin in come talk. (at least in Queensland)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.233.181.193 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too British? 

message: " Because of the rise in popularity, many companies are now making bowling balls and apparel for professionals as well as for recreational bowlers."
This is a sentence from the beginning of the article.  I find it problematic because I don't think it is accurate.  Companies have been making bowling balls and apparel for professional bowlers for years.  This is nothing new - at least in America.  Does anyone know why this sentence was originally written as it currently stands?--MMan710 18:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic sentence 

message: Has anyone ever addressed the issue that this article, along with the Bowling article have a lot of similar content? I actually did not even realize this separate article originally existed. As a result, I added content to the Bowling article that easily could be here as well (for example, the part about league bowling, and how it operates). I am not sure there's even a need for the two separate articles, as they could probably be organized into a larger article.  While there are other forms of bowling aside from ten pin bowling, I think most people looking for information about bowling would tend to search "Bowling" rather than "Ten Pin Bowling." --MMan710 19:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge duplicative content 

message: I have added content that was originally part of the bowling article—from the point I excised, everything down seemed to be about its ten-pin variant (“[t]he goal is to knock down all ten pins” [emphasis added], “high school bowling teams are on the rise,” numerous USBC references). There may be some redundancy, but I'll let that be y’all’s problem ;) I have included a section, as well, previously removed from Bowling as needing a citation—whether bowling is a sport. While I don’t wanna dis nobody’s athleticism, or the skill required to bowl well (I sure never score higher than 100), I think there is often a grey area as to the definition of sport when it doesn’t involve a ball and/or running (see NASCAR, etc.) While “everybody knows” is baseless (and I’m sure the people who edit this article tend to be biased in favour of believing it is a sport), a cursory Google search does seem to bear it out that I’m not the only one who has heard the argument against (it seems to be mentioned in the same breath as golf an awful lot.) In any case, I left it because it had some stuff that was very informative to me about oiling the lanes, etc. I’m just going to assume good faith that anyone who is a hardcore bowler has at least heard that criticism, and will leave the section in. Anybody wanting to iron out what I took out of Bowling and put in here should probably go through the history. Wiki Wikardo 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content merged from ''[[Bowling]]'' 

message: I really don't think it was necessary to remove this section. While it is said earlier that bowling is a sport, some people don't think it's a sport. While it may need some clean up to revert POV, this section gives a good argument to the fact that it is a sport. I think it was a well-written section, for the most part. I don't think it was necessary to delete it. Discussion? bob rulz 23:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is bowling a sport?

message: There's nothing in the rules section of the article to indicate what happens if someone steps over the line. There's also nothing in the article about splits, neither the difficulty of getting a spare after a split, nor the style (circling the number) used in scoring a split (and why that style is used).—msh210℠ 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foul; split 

message: Is the "X" marking for a strike on score cards derived from the Roman numeral for ten? Scott Gall 10:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strike markings 

message: I'd like to add the following terminology to the "Ten pin bowling" template (but I don't know how to modify it): 
*open frame 
*mark 
*strike 
*spare
*foul 
*turkey 
*hook 
*oil 
*carry 
*carry-down, etc. 
Either that or a "list of bowling jargon", as these and other terms are not appropriately explained in the current article.
*I put several in the article. Feel free to add more. Howenstein115 (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding template terminology 

message: :Image:Bowlingdigest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 18:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Bowlingdigest.jpg

message: :Image:USBC.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:USBC.jpg

message: Why is three strikes in a row called a turkey?
Back in the day, the first person to bowl three strikes in a row that night was rewarded with a turkey do to its difficulty. I remember reading that on the USBC website. T.Nguyen092 20:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkey

message: I saw the note about the Technology section being too much like an essay.  I wasn't the original author, but tried to make it more like an encyclopedic article. I could not completely take out all of the "many bowlers feel..." and similar comments.  Much of what this section discusses (particularly the explosion of sanctioned honor scores) is a topic of HEAVY debate among regular league bowlers and higher echelons of players. According to some statistics I saw, the number of sanctioned 300 games went from a little over 5000 in the early 1980s (when ABC/WIBC membership was about 5 million) to over 40,000 in 2005 (with USBC membership down to less than 2 million). So I think in some form this section has a lot of merit and should stay in place. Howenstein115 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technology Section

message: Why are all the bowling terms in quotes, like "strike" or "spare?"
RLBeanMan  —Preceding comment was added at 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraneous quotation marks

message: Just to explain further why I included the Harry Potter reference: I feel it's notable because of the huge popularity of the books (It could be argued that Philosopher's Stone is the best-selling book to reference bowling, ever). 68.146.41.232 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Harry Potter reference

message: "Approach" and "Pin Deck" stuff   
--SkipperRipper (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to move a few things from the top of the article to the "Playing Area" section 

message: This page had numerous links pointing to www.bowl2k.com.  All have been deleted as the page is no longer valid (it's one of those generic parked domain pages now).  Multiple links to the same page don't look good - they should be replaced with a single link to a terminology site somewhere (topendsports.com maybe?). Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted dead links 

message: When it comes to strikes, 2 in a row is called a double. 3 in a row is a turkey. Then you have your 4-bagger and 5-bagger. 6 in a row is a six-pack, probably derived from how pop or beer can be sold in quantities of six.  Anything past 6 is considered the number of strikes in a row (e.g. 7 in a row).  Also, it is considered bad superstition (source is on the blacklist, so cannot link it here.) to score while a string of strikes is in process, and some automated scorers such as those produced by AMF Bowling do not score until a string of strikes is either broken by knocking down less than 10 pins on one ball or the 10th frame is completed. This applies especially with 3 or more strikes.
Also of interest is that an image of a scoresheet is missing.  A manual one should be included.  Some people will color the entire box in for a strike, or the lower right half for a spare as an alternative method to the X and / marks.  --Slxception (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions as far as scoring 

message: There's a much less helpful article under "Bowling" which might be merged/adapted into this one. EdX20 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added my concern about the merger on the talk page at Talk:Bowling#Merge  Sawblade5  (talk to me | my wiki life) 05:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: The pin diagrams in this section all appear to be identical, at least on my system -- all ten pins standing in their requisite positions.
If a "Dinner Bucket", a "Baby Split," and a "Christmas Tree" all consist of all ten pins standing why are different names used?
What is the purpose of assigning so many different names to a single pin arrangement??  And why aren't some different pin arrangements shown??  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The "standing" pins in the diagrams are in white color, "down" pins are in black. (Maybe re-color the standing pins to say, red?) - SkipperRipper (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so many different names? 

message: 4.1 Ball release 
4.2 Delivery styles 
Release completes delivery. My bad that I duplicated some of 4.1 in 4.2... - SkipperRipper (talk) 17:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another merge? 

message: The diameter of the ball is 8.5 inches (21.59 cm)[1] and the circumference of the ball must not be more than 27 inches (0.69 m)
Well, if it is a ball, then circumference is diameter × pi (π). In this case, 8.5 in × π = 26.7 inches (or 21.59 cm × π = 67.82 cm). 27 inches would result a 8.6 inch ball. Of course, the difference is only 1/10 of an inch (0.25 cm). Or does it mean the ball doesn't have to be truly spherical? 82.141.127.125 (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  size of the ball 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ten-pin bowling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050501154335/http://www.bowlersjournal.com:80/the_messenger/display_article?id=46 to http://www.bowlersjournal.com/the_messenger/display_article?id=46
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Ten-pin bowling. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024075846/http://www.bowlingmuseum.com/history.asp to http://www.bowlingmuseum.com/history.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060415013813/http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.history to http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.history
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090602235159/http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Skittles.htm to http://www.tradgames.org.uk/games/Skittles.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g1epc/is_tov/ai_2419100164/
*Added  tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0SAF/is_2_29/ai_n15763168
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bowl.com/rules/playingrules.aspx
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://bowlingadvisor.com/how-much-does-a-bowling-ball-weigh/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btba.org.uk/forms/rules.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wtba.ws/pdf/WTBA_rulebook.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1034575/new-scoring-system-introduced-for-world-bowling-tour-finals-to-try-to-help-sports-olympic-ambitions
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1034662/world-bowling-tour-final-winner-backs-new-scoring-system-if-it-helps-olympic-campaign
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldbowling.org/media/2014/10/new-scoring-system-for-competitive-bowling-to-be-unveiled-during-world-bowling-tour-finals-at-wsob-vi/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ukgame.gov.uk/generic_template.asp?id=12170
*Added  tag to http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_1998_July/ai_53179558
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Ten-pin bowling. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20061208202031/http://ububu.com/Bowling.html to http://ububu.com/Bowling.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712015124/http://www.amfbowlingworldcup.com/wc2005_fastfacts.asp to http://www.amfbowlingworldcup.com/wc2005_fastfacts.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614205728/http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.styles to http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.styles
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521155110/http://www.kingpin-bowling.com/understanding-bowling-styles/ to http://www.kingpin-bowling.com/understanding-bowling-styles/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041214184852/http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.glossary to http://www.tenpinbowling.org/view.php?page=the_game.glossary
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130104145032/http://www.rrstar.com/sports/columnists/x1637128099 to http://www.rrstar.com/sports/columnists/x1637128099
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:36, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ten-pin bowling. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060829013400/http://www.englandyac.com/ to http://www.englandyac.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ten-pin bowling is portrayed in many popular TV shows, such as The Simpsons (Pin Pals), Big Bang Theory (The Wesley Crushers),  Married With Children (Gary's Angels), and many more.  Are these worth mentioning in this article? Or is there somewhere where these are already documented?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makotosan~enwiki (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional media considerations (Ten-Pin bowling in TV shows) 

message: This article has a ton of interesting history but I'm not sure Pricenomics qualifies as being reliable. To make it easier to cite: 
::
 
Organizing and cleaning this article is a daunting task... well beyond my time availability. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now used this reference to support newly added content. —RCraig09 (talk) 05:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible reference: "The Rise and Fall of Professional Bowling" (Priceonomics) 

message: This article, like many bowling-related articles, has much unsourced, conjectural, anecdotal and marginally relevant content. I plan to clean up this article in upcoming months while adding concise and sourced material. For starters, I plan to delete historical material that doesn't pertain to ten-pin bowling in particular, that should be in the general Bowling article if anywhere. Let me know any objections you have; otherwise I'll start within a few days. —RCraig09 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since December 7, 2018, citations have more than doubled, while the length of the article's body (excluding See also, external links, footnotes) has been reduced by about 40% (mostly removing WP:NOTHOWTO violations, unsourced editorial commentary and anecdotes, duplicated content, and verbosity). Though the article body is shorter, the article's kilobyte length has remained roughly the same (about 100 KB, similar to other sports articles) due to wikitext for sourcing that includes archive links whenever possible. —RCraig09 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive cleanup and reorganization