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)