Talk:Bottle-kicking

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

[Untitled][edit]

Has anyone got a photo of this event.... it would really make this article. I can help with loading it. It has to be your photo or we run into copyright issues. Victuallers 22:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Youtube has some videos which might be linked here.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References and Style[edit]

I added the Unreferenced, Original Research, and Informal templates. Interesting enough subject, but it really needs to cite verifiable third party references and be rewritten in a formal, encyclopedic tone (for instance, not written from a first person point of view, as occurs in the article as currently written).  DOONHAMER | BANTER  00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also added the Notability template.  DOONHAMER | BANTER  01:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object strongly to the contributions made of adding templates that are inappropriate. We may not have a template that says "not enough refs" but that doesnt mean we can add one that says "no refs" when obviously there is. We should not add an "unnotable" template when it obviously is notable ... there is a reference to prove it. I agree that this article needs improving ... but sticking templates all over it is not going to achieve this. If you have the time then improve it a bit ... otherwise leave it tagged as is Victuallers 07:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you actually read the notability guidelines. MULTIPLE RELIABLE THIRD-PARTY SOURCES. One short BBC article a few years old that doesn't cover a fraction of the information in the article doesn't make it notable. And yes, sticking templates on the article CAN improve it by attracting those with the interest and expertise enough to provide the multiple reliable third party references that this article needs. Because of this, I think the notability template is appropriate.

I did a google search on this topic and a few of those types of sources did indeed come back. Since this article obviously means a lot to you, find those sources and add them, and cite and format them in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines. When that's done, the notability template would likely not be appropriate anymore. And stop acting as if the addition of a template is a personal insult.  DOONHAMER | BANTER  14:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that important to me. The needless addition of templates does concern me per se. I'm willing to sit back and wait whilst the templates attract the interest you predict Victuallers 15:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I predict nothing of the sort. There very well might not be enough people interested enough in the subject to clean it up. There seems to be a handful of editors who have done the majority of maintenance to this article, including you; I would hope one or more of them would want to make this a great article.

I only stumbled on this topic after coming across it in the English Folklore category. What the 'ell, it's on my watchlist now. I might take a crack at it myself; there do seem to be fair number of acceptable sources out there, as noted before.  DOONHAMER | BANTER  15:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Number of templates[edit]

I don't think there is a WP criterion for "too many tags"; it seems that whichever templates are appropriate are the ones added, irrespective of number. That said, there is overlap among them, and as the Notability template does incorporate the same concerns as the Unreferenced template and also best exhibits the main concern of this article (its lack of notability as currently written as specified in WP's guidelines), I replaced the one with the other.

I will work on this article this evening, improving its notability with reliable third party sources. If anybody would like to do the same before then, please feel free.  DOONHAMER | BANTER  17:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started rewriting for formal tone and adding references[edit]

I got about halfway through the article. Will continue this evening.  DOONHAMER | BANTER  20:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finished rewriting for formal tone, added a few more references, removed some items that simply could not be referenced, and did some rearranging. I also removed the templates, leaving a few citation-needed tags for a few items that were difficult to track down Perhaps a local editor would be able to do that better. Cheers to everyone else who has worked on this.  DOONHAMER | BANTER  01:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bottle-kicking. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bottle-kicking&oldid=1206390934"