Talk:Sailing

Initial

I need to shrink the graphic.

• Done, with assistance from a Constable.

"History" and "Racing as a sport" require more work as I know almost nothing about them. But its a start.

Any comments?

Andrew Fleisher 22:56, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Photos

I added one. There are many other wonderful free photos at Flickr of sailing. Here are a few:

• http://www.flickr.com/photos/aldask/487011575/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/math_paul/3070334/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/sirmikester/97048382/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/koalie/389961014/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/mydnight296/21797710/
• http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdlasica/214385894/

Stephen Ewen 17:00, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

line, not rope

I would say we should educate that there are only 2 ropes on a sailboat - "bolt rope" and "anchor rope." Everything else is a line, sheet, or halyard. We should also spell both ways of writing different sailing words. For example both Jibe and Gybe should be listed. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 17:20, 6 May 2007 (CDT)

Excellent start

Just wanted to say that. --Larry Sanger 13:57, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Approval?

In my opinion this article is not quite ready for approval. Example issues:

• The history section is extremely short; article is not comprehensive
• The discussion of the difference between a boat and a ship doesn't seem important enough to belong in the introduction
• The rigging diagram, [1], uses a formula, a=(vf-vi)/t, which assumes constant acceleration. Also, I seem to recall hearing once that lift is more complicated than the fast-air-is-low-pressure principle; I think a physics and/or engineering editor should look over this section before approval.
• The article consists of a bunch of sections without a coherent narrative flow.

--Warren Schudy 12:28, 6 January 2008 (CST)

If that formula is wrong (I assumed that was the one), then could you tell me which formula it is so that I might fix it? Or is the formula so complicated that it's not even worth putting in the diagram? (Chunbum Park 14:16, 6 January 2008 (CST))

I guess the problem isn't so much the formulae themselves, but the introduction of symbols without defining them. For example, what's "m" and "a"? I think you mean the mass of the air and the acceleration of the air, but how much air? There's a flow of air, so instead of f = m a you should have something like (Force) = (air mass flow rate) * (change in velocity of air). A medium-level calculus-based physics textbook may help you understand what's going in. See for example section 3.5, "Momentum and the flow of mass", of Kleppner and Kolenkow. Warren Schudy 14:59, 6 January 2008 (CST)

I know that it is much more complicated than the Bernoulli's Principle but that's basically the main part of it - my physics textbook doesn't get better than that. (Chunbum Park 14:20, 6 January 2008 (CST))

I also disagree with approval.

Example of that bad narrative - "There are sailing organisations in almost every country, even when land-locked." - which is bad grammar.

It looks too much like a Wikipedia article. Section, dadada. Section, dadada. Section, dada. This isn't what an ideal Citizendium article should be like. Here, "Articles should be written to be read all the way through"..."they need a unifying plan, or a narrative, which lends coherence and flow and invites readers to keep reading" (not like section by section, as if in a curriculum or a learning course - it should be like a novel). "This means that articles should not be modular or mere collections of facts that can easily be reshuffled."

Also it has no bibliography - no citation. (Chunbum Park 14:29, 6 January 2008 (CST))

I think we should rewrite the introduction before approval. I would enjoy reading more flowing paragraph as an introduction. If we mention the types of sailing referred to - ice, para, regular, etc - we should also link to another article which talks about windsurfing, kiteboarding, and other uses of windpower over H2O. Tom Kelly 14:55, 6 January 2008 (CST)

I got the image looked over by my physics teacher who has Ph.D. He said that it's not that velocity of the wind traveling across the sail increases but velocity of one side sail is greater relatively to that of the other (so it's not v f > v i, but v ii > v i). He also told me to take out other stuffs not necessarily because they're wrong but b/c Bernoulli's Principle entails a much more messy equation than the ones I had there. So it's all correct now (except less stuffs now than before) (Chunbum Park 10:09, 29 January 2008 (CST))

nomenclature section

in the process of adding: bolt rope, boom vang (refered to vang entry), luff tape, beat, rig (v.), de-rig (v.), deck Tom Kelly 15:10, 6 January 2008 (CST)

I need to confirm before adding another use of clew. Isn't the corner of the spinaker that is opposite the spinaker pole called the clew? obviously this changes when you gybe. Also, if free flying the kite (shoot, spinaker), are both corners called clew? Tom Kelly 15:03, 6 January 2008 (CST)

I've always called in wing-on-wing, but I haven't seen it written. could be british / american difference? Tom Kelly 15:10, 6 January 2008 (CST)

"beat"

this could be improved - I just wrote it quickly Tom Kelly 21:09, 9 January 2008 (CST)

"bolt rope"

I have seen bolt ropes on mainsails and jibs/genoas. If you want to keep the part about feeding the sail in to the mast, then you have to sail mainsail. Otherwise, the bolt could be fed in to a groove in the forestay on racing boats. Tom Kelly 21:10, 9 January 2008 (CST)

rigs

I think we make ketch and yawl schooner separate subsections of rig types. Tom Kelly 15:16, 6 January 2008 (CST)

Unfilled subheadings!

Someone needs to fill in the unfilled subheadings before this is approved! Stephen Ewen 15:22, 6 January 2008 (CST)

the article nominated has filled in subheadings. I felt the article was incomplete and started adding newer subheadings. I think more work can be done before approval.

EDIT: something is wrong with the approval template since it is not referring to the correct article nominated!! 16:09, 6 January 2008 (CST)

I don't think there's anything wrong with the template; rather, Michael linked no particular version rather than linking to the version he wanted to nominate. Warren Schudy 16:37, 6 January 2008 (CST)

I changed the link to point to the version from the time that the nomination was first made. Shortly thereafter, some of the end material was moved to subpages, but I think we need the editor's permission to change the version to the later one. I also think it might be smart to move the glossary section to a catalog subpage before the article is officially approved. --Joe Quick 22:23, 7 January 2008 (CST)

wikipedia's article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailing

We could use wikipedia's article, not as a branch from it, but as ideas on how we can improve our article. Tom Kelly 21:11, 9 January 2008 (CST)

Nomenclature

That section really belongs on a subpage--perhaps a catalog, or, if all or almost all of the terms can be expected to be articles themselves, then a Related Articles subpage, which uses the {{r}} template (see CZ:Definitions). --Larry Sanger 22:42, 9 January 2008 (CST)

APPROVAL DATE NOT RIGHT

This is so funny, I have to tell you. We all worked really hard to get this article ready for approval, but everytime I came to approve it, the date would change to a new date.... Guys, there is no date on the approval template. Apparently there is a default 4 day delay that automatically occurs if the date is not filled out. This article will never get approved!!! If you guys want it approved some editor needs to put in a date! --D. Matt Innis 19:56, 29 January 2008 (CST)

Is this really going to be approved? I don't see any new developments like the filling of empty sections & a lot of the complaints have not been fixed - or are you guys working on a different page? (Chunbum Park 20:07, 29 January 2008 (CST))

Well, technically, as a constable, if the approval date comes and no-one has removed the tag, then it will get approved and any new work continues on the draft. Hopefully, those involved will make all the right decisions to either get he article ready, or pull the tag. Either way, constables just do what the workgroup has decided, we don't decide, no matter what it looks like... so, yes, we need to fix it or an editor needs to take off the tag. --D. Matt Innis 20:42, 29 January 2008 (CST)

Matt: I think you're paying a bit too much attention to the letter of the rules and not enough to the spirit / intent. As far as I can tell no sports editors have looked at this talk page since the initial nomination. In particular, the nominating editor has not edited the wiki since the nomination. If an editor showed up, they would presumably remove the template or explain why they believe the article should be approved despite the objections. In light of this circumstance that the rules did not anticipate, the only reasonable choice in my opinion is to bend the rules a bit and delay the approval until an editor shows up. To prevent recurrence of this problem, how about one of the following two slight rule changes:

• when the approval date has passed, an editor can ask a constable to make it happen, but a constable should not approve an article without an explicit request from an editor.
• If the approval date of an article nears and no editor appears to be watching the talk page, any author can withdraw the approval nomination.

I prefer the former change, because it also solves another potential problem, namely an inferior version getting approved when editors forget to update the nomination template. Warren Schudy 23:51, 30 January 2008 (CST)

Intent of the law is superior to the letter of the law, which cannot be adjusted & re-positioned --> becomes a sitting duck to many competing arguments. People can push certain parts of the letter of the law whenever it is convenient and "forget" them whenever it's against their purpose & ignore flaws/refuse to fix them (that only they might know). I think that Wikipedia tends to focus on the letter of the law too much; Citizendium should go the other way. (Chunbum Park 21:00, 31 January 2008 (CST))

This article is rapidly approaching Approval date! ;-D -D. Matt Innis 19:39, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Do you mean the approval date that's always 4 days away because the editor forgot to specify it? I suggest that the approval template be removed to avoid confusing people until an editor shows up to approve the article. Warren Schudy 19:50, 29 February 2008 (CST)

I'm really confused about what Mr. Innis is saying. If it's that you aim to make this approved by lingering long enough for the approval date to expire I strongly disapprove of what you're doing - it sounds exactly like Wikipedia. I don't see the article developing by one byte here. (Chunbum Park 18:49, 1 March 2008 (CST))

Never mind - you didn't work on this article at all. Why are you so excited about it? (Chunbum Park 18:51, 1 March 2008 (CST))

On second thought I suspect Matt was being sarcastic about approaching approval. It's hard to tell sometimes with plain text. :( Warren Schudy 20:12, 1 March 2008 (CST)

At Warren's request I withdraw my approval for this article. I apologize to you all for this mess I have created. --Michael Grey 12:34, 8 March 2008 (CST)

Thanks Michael for your prompt reply (to an email). Can a sysop go ahead and unapprove the article? Warren Schudy 12:36, 8 March 2008 (CST)

As a Sports Editor, I am not in favor of this article being approved as it is. It seems to be close. However, my objections are that 3 out of six rigging types are not described and I did not find a definition of what I jib sail is (it is possible I missed it). Once these points are addressed, I think it will suffice. Do I need to remove the template or will someone else do it? --Gary Giamboi14:00, 8 March 2008 (CST)

added content

I added content under the heading sloop, its kinda clunky but its a start.Nate Nelsen 14:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good start to me! Welcome Nate! D. Matt Innis 14:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

looking for help on community sailing

I started the article, metadata, and am adding external links to get information sources. please consider helping! Tom Kelly 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

What is the recently added image supposed to be? It is indistinct and there is no explanation attached. David Finn 07:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear which one you're talking about? D. Matt Innis 11:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the image has been there for a quite long time now. I thought the colors were dull so I uploaded an edited version. (Chunbum Park 16:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC))

Sorry Matt, I didn't know it didn't affect the page history - it is an updated version of the diagram that is now captioned as a comparison between regular and square sailed ships. The older version had consistent colours, and the letters used on the diagram were easy to read. Now, at least to me, it actually becomes almost unreadable, especially the letters.

Chunbum, on my monitor (which I use for photographic work, it is quite good) the new image is far less distinct than the old. But my second problem is that the image itself is really difficult to decipher, which has nothing to do with your coulorisation. It's too cramped. I am just not sure if the image itself adds much to the article for someone interested in sailing. David Finn 06:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, David, I have always wondered how a sailboat can move into the wind and I think in vectors of force similar to the drawing. However, Chunbum, are the colors the same as they were when the legend was made when you click on the picture? The instructions seem to suggest that the colored arrows have changed. D. Matt Innis 14:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you understand it, then fair enough. I have trouble working out what is going on, especially since the "boats" have no pointy bits, but if it of use to someone then it has a use. However, the point about the colours, I think, still stands, as the recent change has, for me, made the image far harder to decipher. David Finn 17:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking note of the problems. You're right. The color instructions are off. I think I will work on the image completely from scratch. In the meantime let's have the image removed from the article. (Chunbum Park 00:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC))