Talk:Hambledon Club

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BlackJack (talk | contribs) at 05:33, 11 April 2007 (rating). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Stephen Turner
WikiProject iconCricket Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cricket, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cricket articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This page has been marked as needing a taskforce assigned.
WikiProject Cricket To-do list:
Article assessment
Verifiability
Cleanup
Infoboxes
Cricket people
Cricket teams & countries
Images
On this day in cricket
Umpires
Women
Update
Other

I removed the piped link from "madge" to cunt. There is no mention in the target article that explains to a casual reader why the link sends them there. There is nothing in this article that explains the link. I realize that there was an invisible "edit mode" note that referred people to the talk page of the Hambledon, Hampshire, but how many casual readers would hit the edit link and see the note? If "madge" must be explained (and I can see why an explanation might be necessary), it should either be in the main article, or at the Madge disambig page if "madge" is wikilinked again. Joyous | Talk 02:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

This is much better after BlackJack's latest edit, thank you Jack. But I still wonder if there's a reference we can cite to justify the claim. I was hoping that we could just cite the OED, but I checked and was surprised to find that this meaning of "madge" doesn't occur in there — apparently a madge is either a magpie, or a barn owl, or a kind of lead hammer wrapped in cloth. Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
If it doesn't appear in the OED that's reason to suspect that the meaning may well be false. This statement therefore needs robust sourcing. 86.136.94.95 16:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree. I've labelled it "citation needed". Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Reply