Talk:Sail components

message: Please look at proposed material, here. Please comment at Talk:Sail components#Watch this space for a reorganization and rewrite. User:HopsonRoad 13:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Sandbox for development of revised article

message: I just looked at the picture of the triangular mainsail. The most important part of the reefing system has been left out. The reef points are minor items to keep the bulk of the sail neat. The main strain is on the reef clew and reef tack, which are not shown. You must secure the clew and tack before you tie the reef points.
Also a sail will normally have at least two three reefs.
--AJim (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: about reefing

message: There doesn't seem to be a particular preferred form of the spelling. A web search shows:
* about 263,000 for "leech"+"sail"
* about 140,000 for "leach"+"sail"
This might be a British/US thing, but I'm not sure. My US Webster's doesn't list the sail meaning for "leach", only for "leech". I don't recall which spelling I was taught, growing up in Bermuda, but I used "leech" until I saw "leach" in an article here, so I suspect that's the proper UK spelling too. Anyone know for sure? I'll use "leech" for now (given the count, and the dictionary results). Noel (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leach/leech

message: Someone needs to modify the diagram to show the roach. Noel (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Roach illustration

message: Does clew sound the same a clue? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gohiking (talk • contribs) 19:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clew?

message: Take a minute to read the comments at Talk:Sailing#Re-write effort -- non how-to et seq. Some of us are working on re-organizing the sailing-related articles. See if you agree with our approach and give us some help. Mrees1997 19:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sailing]] reorganization 

message: I think that earing probably makes sense as part of this article, instead of starning alone.
However, earing can help people who are looking for earring find their way, and I wouldn't want to add that clutter here.
Thoughts?
— JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I was expecting some way to make a dab line, but can you do that for sections as well as pages?  "Clew" is one of hte alternative names of New Clew, British Columbia, which also goes by Kloo and other variants (means "canoe" in the Skidegate dialect of the Haida language.  Not sure if it's worth disambig'ing, but if it is...how to place it here?  Got here because Clew is a redirect to here, or to the #Clew section that is.Skookum1 (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig'ing "Clew"

message: Do the top corners of a square sail have a specific name?
71.136.229.150 (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Top corners of squares'l?

message: Just edited the triangular sails section for clarity and factual correction.The primary changes were the removal of definitions of standing rigging and running rigging, which are not part of the sail, but used to adjust it (therefore should likely have their own article), and the addition of a subsection of the draft of a sail, plus some reorganizing. Chalexthegreat (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Triangular Sails Section

message: Enter your support for this with a reason and a proposed Lead sentence, below:
*I prefer this alternative, because the first word is sail and it's clear that it's about the lexicon, not the sail, itself, which should be described throughly in the main article, Sail. The lead would read: "Sail terminology encompasses the elements that define the shape of a sail and its constituent parts."  User:HopsonRoad 21:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few articles with the name, "X nomenclature". See Chemical nomenclature, Gene nomenclature, Botanical nomenclature, and Trinomial nomenclature, but these are about the methodology of naming phenomena in those disciplines.. There are also articles with the form, "Nomenclature of X". User:HopsonRoad 01:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sail terminology"

message: In this version, roach and draft would be elements that shape a sail and reefing points, grommets, gores would be constituent parts all of which have their nomenclature. User:HopsonRoad 23:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few articles with the name, "X nomenclature". See Chemical nomenclature, Gene nomenclature, Botanical nomenclature, and Trinomial nomenclature, but these are about the methodology of naming phenomena in those disciplines.. There are also articles with the form, "Nomenclature of X". User:HopsonRoad 01:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary

message: Enter your support for these with a reason and a proposed Lead sentence, below:
*Following Components of jet engines, it could be "Components of sails". The lead would be: "Components of sails comprise the edges and corners that broadly define their shape and the constituent elements from which they are constructed." User:HopsonRoad 01:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Other alternatives

message: If you like the current title, please explain why, below:
====Commentary====
I think it's called that because it's a common pattern on Wikipedia i.e. there are a lot of "parts of X" pages. Maybe it just keeps things tidy. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point, Akerbeltz. I sampled the ones that showed up by querying, "Parts of a...". One was an article (Parts of a theatre). Most others were redirects to a different title or to a section within an article. Perhaps you have a different impression. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks  for that observation, Akerbeltz, does that lead you to a preference, above? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally have a weak preference for keeping it as it is. There is no mention of sheets, tackle and such things which I would expect under a wider name (such as the ones proposed above). If the idea is to include much wider terminology, then the above would be more appropriate but then it would start overlapping with existing pages I feel. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that the scope should be confined to the sail, itself, here to include the attachment points to sheets, halyards, mast, etc. but not to extend into those topics. I feel that it should enumerate both the qualities of a sail, e.g. draft, and its constituent parts, including gores, stitching, grommets, windows, lettering, etc. My problem is that "draft", for instance, isn't a "part". The initial scope seemed just to be about edges and corners. User:HopsonRoad 15:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Parts of a Sail"

message: I think it's called that because it's a common pattern on Wikipedia i.e. there are a lot of "parts of X" pages. Maybe it just keeps things tidy. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting point, Akerbeltz. I sampled the ones that showed up by querying, "Parts of a...". One was an article (Parts of a theatre). Most others were redirects to a different title or to a section within an article. Perhaps you have a different impression. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks  for that observation, Akerbeltz, does that lead you to a preference, above? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally have a weak preference for keeping it as it is. There is no mention of sheets, tackle and such things which I would expect under a wider name (such as the ones proposed above). If the idea is to include much wider terminology, then the above would be more appropriate but then it would start overlapping with existing pages I feel. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe that the scope should be confined to the sail, itself, here to include the attachment points to sheets, halyards, mast, etc. but not to extend into those topics. I feel that it should enumerate both the qualities of a sail, e.g. draft, and its constituent parts, including gores, stitching, grommets, windows, lettering, etc. My problem is that "draft", for instance, isn't a "part". The initial scope seemed just to be about edges and corners. User:HopsonRoad 15:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary

message: Hi User:7&6=thirteen and Akerbeltz, it seems that only we three are interested in this topic. Can we agree that the scope of the article should be about terms that describe the following?
*The edges and corners of the sail.
*The attachment points for sheets, halyards, mast, etc. 
* The shape of a sail, including the features that form its draft and roach.
*Its constituent parts, including gores, battens, telltales, reefing points, stitching, grommets, windows, lettering, etc.
If we can agree to those (please add anything else) then perhaps we can home in on a consensus title. User:HopsonRoad 21:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Of course, we could also mention (at least peripherally) Battens, Batten pockets, Cunninghams, Reef points, Outhauls, and Fairleads.  And while they are not on the sail, I have always especially liked Windvanes (probably Apparent wind indicator) and Newport telltales.  These could be in a different section.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with any of those that are integral, as opposed to tied onto, the sail. So mention can be made of Cunninghams, Outhauls and Fairleads, as to how and where they attach. Batten pockets, telltales, etc. are permanently attached. I regard the batten as integral, even though it's loose, as a means of shaping the sail. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrible. Components are sure to be separate objects, whereas the common expression "Parts of the sail" allows for them being integral. Mysha (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

text: No, they are not consistent with the usage in the article's title. Since an edge of a sail has a specific location, we can ignore "ingredient" and "element". That leaves "a constituent part". These are actually separate parts; the things bigger things are built from; etymologicaly the things that are put together to form the bigger whole. Andorra is not a component of Europe; nobody composed (put together) Europe from Andorra and other parts that they lay next to eachother. Europe is a larger entity of which mostparts are labelled with specific names. The components of a motherboard are the little thingies hanging on to either side of it, not the CPU area and the I/O area. Components are separate things, that you bring together to create the whole; parts of the sails are labels; without the labels only the whole would exist. Mysha (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Andorra is a subdivision of Europe, which itself is an social construct, not a manufactured item. Native speakers of English should have no problem with the sense in which this term is used here. User:HopsonRoad 17:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution?

message: MOS:NOBOLD says, "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text. ...." Whereas, MOS:ITAL says, "Use italics when  a word or letter (see Use–mention distinction) or a string of words up to one full sentence (; )." Unless there are objections, I plan to convert terms in this article from bf to ital. User:HopsonRoad 01:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have completed the above. I have also condensed the material into paragraphs to create space for more content. User:HopsonRoad 13:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Of note, some qualifying circumstances are covered in Wikipedia:Redirect#What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects? and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Other uses. Both note that it's generally best practice to boldface terms targeted by redirects. In such cases boldfacing is used not for any particular literary emphasis, but rather as a visual aid to readers arriving at a page or section with a title different from the wikilink they followed. If warranted by context, both boldface and italics may be combined (such as if an instance of a term is used in the 'mentioning' sense noted above while also serving as the initial relevant use of a term targeted by a redirect). --75.188.199.98 (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of boldface 

message: There is a lot of redundancy in the organization of this article. I propose to order it in the following hierarchy:
*Classification
*Shape
**Edges
***(Head, luff, foot, leech)—With a discussion of each including curvatures.
****(Triangular, quadrilateral, square)—distinguishing difference among these types.
**Corners
***(Head, peak, throat, tack, clew)—With a discussion of each.
****(Triangular, quadrilateral, square)—distinguishing difference among these types.
**Draft
*Construction
**Materials
**Panels, laminations
**Stitching, bonding
**Reinforcements at attachment points
**Battens
**Edging—Bolt ropes, etc.
*Fittings
**Reefing points
**Grommets
**Telltales
**Windows
**Hardware
**Lettering
I'll start a sandbox on this talk page to demonstrate a proposed re-organization, before carrying it to the main page. User:HopsonRoad 15:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good ideas.  Of course, there are the airfoils/wings we see on the America's Cup boats.  Class identification/insignia/logo/name.  Sailmaker (name frequently appears on the sail).  And materials might be mentioned somewhere.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Materials to the list, above. Shouldn't Wingsail be a "see also"? We also shouldn't duplicate core functions of the Sail article, either. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 21:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  I think the outline/list looks good.  Its good to work with a motivated editor who understands the subject matter.  7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert but looks good. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inefficient presentation 

message: I have outlined a reorganization and rewritten the lede at Talk:Sail components/Sandbox for revision development. Please post your comments here, as the rewrite progresses. User:HopsonRoad 14:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi User:7&6=thirteen and Akerbeltz, I have drafted a rewrite at Talk:Sail components/Sandbox for revision development. Please look it over, edit it, and let me know whether you feel that it is suitable for bringing over in place of the current text. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 12:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank your for checking in, Chalexthegreat. My thought was to keep it as one article, but refer to it in two pieces in the Sail article: Sail#Sail components would link to #Shape and perhaps be renamed "Shape" and Sail#Sail construction would link to #Construction and perhaps be renamed "Construction". Those two sections would be revised to summarize the material found in greater detail, here. The  template would have to be reorganized, as well (it already doesn't link properly). Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 01:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Having posted at WP:WikiProject Sailing and here more than 48 hours ago, and having received no objections, I'm transferring the developmental material to the main article. User:HopsonRoad 13:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch this space for a reorganization and rewrite 

message: Should Sail components#Head redirect to the part in Edge or in Corner? Banak (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the anchor to the first mention (edge on a square sail) which directs one to corner on a triangular sail. User:HopsonRoad 15:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head 

message: Why does the Sail components#Legends section show the Genoa jib legend with a number and the Gaff mainsail legend with a bullet? I'd like to make them both numbers! User:HopsonRoad 15:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bug. It appears that the inclusion of the list within the note causes subsequent notes to be a bullet and not a number (remove the lists and they go to numbers) Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T160836 Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to , which seems to have fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help 

message: I think the current, footnoted legends for genoa and gaff components are rather impractical, and even the pop ups are, as they obstruct the pictures AND require mouse-over. Since this is the main topic of the article, I think it would be an improvement, and much easier to read, if these two diagrams had their legend right in the image text box. Opinions? -- Theoprakt (talk) 20:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the guilty party on this. When I tried to do as you suggest, the caption became the tail that wagged the dog. The text ended up poorly organized and too large. I certainly don't object to your giving it a whirl and perhaps achieving a better result than mine. My rationale was that one could see #17 on the diagram and then mouse over to see what it is called. Perhaps the best approach is to do a test in a sandbox and report the results back here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it looks too bad, do you? -- Theoprakt (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making a pass at this, Theoprakt. I would prefer to see something more orderly, e.g. an ordered list in one or more columns. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I have placed another example of a stand-alone image along with your suggestion here, however I feel that in both cases the captions use up too much space on the right side and crowd out other images. Another solution would be to move both images to a bottom section where the "Legend" section is now, something akin to a gallery, as seen in three different treatments here. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think both 1 and 2 look quite good, sure they take up a bit of space, but since this is kind of the core illustration to the article, this would be space well used. -- Theoprakt (talk) 01:34, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, I actually prefer 3! Do you find that objectionable? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call it objectionable, but I think the other variants are more compact and give the best overview and look. -- Theoprakt (talk) 09:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I have implemented a slightly edited version of your original suggestion, Theoprakt. See whether this works for you, or whether we need to go in the direction that I was suggesting in my previous post. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much HopsonRoad, I think this looks very nice and improves readability a whole lot. -- Theoprakt (talk) 21:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impractical legends 

message: Hi , You added the statement that "If the curve along the foot is unusually pronounced, the sail is said to be 'hollow-footed'." After I reverted this addition, you reinstated it with a 1794 reference. Thank you! However, the reference doesn't support the wording that you provided. It says of the term, "hollow" (my emphasis):
# In the leeches of topsails cut hollow, the upper gores are longer than the lower ones; and, in sails cut with a roach leech, the lower gores are longer than the upper ones.
# The head is extended by haliards, fastened to its earing-cringles, in the upper part of the hollow foot of the top-sail, and the foot spreads the cross-jack-yard between the clues of the topsail.
# In the royal navy, mizen topsails are cut with three quarters of a yard hollow in the foot; but, in the merchant-service, top and topgallant sails are cut with more or less hollow in the foot.
The only other reference to "hollow-footed" in the literature that I found says, "Sovereign of the Seas fore and main courses and topsails were roached, or hollow-footed: that is the foot was arched up so as to conserve canvas;...."Sovereign of the Seas, 1637, A Reconstruction of the Most Powerful Warship of Its Day By John McKay · 2020. Pp 91-2
This suggests that the term is no longer common, indeed it is archaic. None of the quotations support "If the curve along the foot is unusually pronounced", since this seems to be a usual feature in sailmaking. I'm not sure that I understand completely, what "hollow" means, unless it refers the the amount of roach—the departure of the curvature of the foot away from a straight line—a standard feature of square sails. 
I suggest that the topic be discussed under "Roach", where we might say, "Roach is a term also applied to square sail design—it is the arc of a circle above a straight line from clew to clew at the foot of a square sail, from which sail material is omitted. The greater the departure from the straight line, the greater the 'hollow' in the roach." Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  On a hollow foot