Talk:Taut-line hitch

message: ===Tying description and illustration for #1799===
Now that there is a discussion of the different versions, the different tying methods should be illustrated -- Especially #1799 since that seems to be the most secure version of this knot. --Dfred 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit the bullet today and created images for all three variations.  Other major edits as well. --Dfred 23:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope you didn't chip a tooth. Great job. Sfahey 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh,  thanks.  I've been doing related stuff on Rolling hitch also.  This work has made clear to me that coming up with reasonable guidelines to address the vagaries of knot naming (i.e. how to handle naming conflicts, consolidation, disambiguation, redirects, etc.) will be an important step in making progress in getting the knotting topics into better shape overall. --Dfred 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests

message: Now that there is a discussion of the different versions, the different tying methods should be illustrated -- Especially #1799 since that seems to be the most secure version of this knot. --Dfred 15:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit the bullet today and created images for all three variations.  Other major edits as well. --Dfred 23:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope you didn't chip a tooth. Great job. Sfahey 14:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh heh,  thanks.  I've been doing related stuff on Rolling hitch also.  This work has made clear to me that coming up with reasonable guidelines to address the vagaries of knot naming (i.e. how to handle naming conflicts, consolidation, disambiguation, redirects, etc.) will be an important step in making progress in getting the knotting topics into better shape overall. --Dfred 04:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tying description and illustration for #1799

message: Um, shouldn't the foto of the finished taut-line hitch be, uh, taut?  I mean, like, isn't that kind of the point? ;>)} jaknouse 17:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree there... :) --Dfred 21:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taut?

message: Most pictures I've seen of this knot show the final half-hitch tossed in reverse of the way the photo demonstrates, in this case being thrown "over and under" instead of the "under and over" shown. Either way, it tightens pretty well, but I wonder which version holds better. Sfahey 21:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the real taut-line hitch is not what's shown in the photos.  The last half hitch is backwards. Rracecarr 22:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, I believe the main issue here is one of nomenclature, which is a big problem in general for knotting...  The actual question is whether the "taut-line hitch" is a description of a class of knots where a friction hitch is tied around the standing part of the rope in order to produce a tensionable setup or whether it only describes one particular method of accomplishing that.  Specifically two similar hitches are often tied around the standing part of a rope resulting functionally in a "taut-line hitch", they are: the Rolling Hitch (Ashley #1734) and the Magnus Hitch (#1736).  It is possible that Scouting or some other organization considers the Rolling Hitch version "correct", but they are both equivalently secure if worked up properly.  (And, in fact, there are other friction hitches that would give even more security.) Personally I'm in agreement with Ashley that the Magnus Hitch version (pictured) lays better and has somewhat less propensity to roll. However I believe that both forms are valid and should be discussed by the article.  Actually it would be nice to have a photo of both versions, preferably in the same image, for comparison purposes.  I'll wait a little while for comment on this before proceeding with editing in this direction. --Dfred 21:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Are you saying that the Magnus hitch (illustrated on http://www.cruising.sailingcourse.com/advanced_knots.htm just under a picture of what I think is the "correct" taut-line hitch) turns into an effective adjustable knot that can be called a "taut-line hitch" if they're tied around the standing line? They look way different to me. Sfahey 02:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that page discusses some of the difficulties with terminology surrounding these closely related knots.  But it nevertheless falls prey to the allure of trying to use names to unambiguously describe knots.  The main problem is that the term Magnus Hitch has historically been used for both #1734 and #1736, this is discussed in Ashley's description of #1736.  Regarding the two knots in the lower picture, the top one is #1735, which is very similar to #1734 (the lower knot) but rearranges the initial wraps.  This rearrangement is sometimes referred to as a making a "tuck" when forming #1734, for instance at .  (Note the specific reference to #1735 there.)Ashley refers to what we are calling the Taut-line hitch as the "Adjustable Hitch" (#1800) and illustrates it in the manner of , which you referred to as "correct".  However in the description for #1800 he states (and the caps are original, not intended as shouting): "The ADJUSTABLE HITCH is based on the MAGNUS or ROLLING HITCH and is closely related to the MIDSHIPMANS'S KNOT, the difference being in the arrangement of the second turn.  If the concluding hitch is reversed there will be less tendency to twist.  Slide the knot either way and it should remain without rendering."  The comment about the "concluding hitch" is germane to the discussion here and appears to indicate that the adjustable hitch/taut-line hitch may be tied either way and still be considered functionally the same knot.There is no question addressing which knot is which is a difficult subject sometimes, and it's easy to make mistakes.  I've not had nearly enough tea this morning, so please check my comments for accuracy.  :-).  Dfred 13:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I should have also noted that Ashley #1799 illustrates a knot which uses #1735 to form an adjustable knot (as suggested in the animatedknots.com citation above.)  All three (four?) versions of these very similar "adjustable hitches" are probably worth discussing in the same wikipedia article with an explanation of the strengths and weaknesses of each.--Dfred 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: So I went for it... I added a Variations section with accompanying illustration.  Hopefully it's suitable.--Dfred 03:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Backwards?

message: The variations section is a plus; but to get the next grade (B-class): the lead should summarize the article and there should be references. Also, there article seems to waffle between is this a specific knot or a class of knots? With many variations (I personally never saw it tied to post before but rather around the standing part of the rope), the article should probably cover it as a class with variations. A photo of the knot with all three half hitches the same way would be good too (which is also how BSA any others use it). Leave response here, I've set a watch. Rlevse 17:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't necessarily expecting an upgrade in the quality scale,  but it is helpful to receive feedback from someone more familiar with scouting whether this seemed like a reasonable direction to go for this page.  I'll see what I can do about the waffling.  :)  If you or someone else sure of BSA's specific method of tying wants to note which one it is at the end of the Variations section, that would be great.  I've already put a request up top here about adding tying instruction text and photos for the purportedly most secure version, #1799, with the "tuck" and final half-hitch in the same direction.  Thanks.  --Dfred 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The place you left a request for reassessment is for asking for a change in the quality/class rating. The photo here: http://www.animatedknots.com/rollinghitchboating/ with the white rope of the right side of the page is how BSA teaches how to tie it. Rlevse 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood, sorry about that.  Thanks for the info. --Dfred 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Very nice, B-class now. Rlevse 09:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reassessment

message: I feel somewhat stupid, can someone please explain the purpose of the tautline hitch in a simpler way?--Montaced (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I like ot for two reasons: 1. It is perfect for tent lines, where you pull the center of the shorter length a bit to tighten it, and then slide the knot down to "lock" the line at the new, shorter, tighter length; 2. Trying to tie it every couple of months tests my memory! All the knots I learned thirty years ago I can do blindfolded, but these newer ones need ffrequent updating. Sfahey (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Help?

message: A user at 130.76.32.145 removed the referenced claim that this knot was used on STS-82 to service the HST.  This edit appeared to be made in good faith.  The referenced article quotes a ground engineer saying he instructed the astronauts to use the "tent-line hitch" in parachute cord as part of an improvised repair to the telescope's outer insulation blanket.   I admit this isn't the strongest reference as, technically, it is hearsay since the engineer may never have verified that the astronauts actually used the knot he recommended.  However, given the way NASA scripts things like this it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume they followed the instructions carefully.  If this is the objection, and others think it's significant, then I propose adding something along the lines of "...is said to have been used...". 
And of course removal isn't out of the question, but I do think it provides a nice concrete example of the relevance of knots in the modern world.  Thoughts?  --Dfred (talk) 14:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Hubble Space Telescope reference okay to use? 

message: Both the infobox and the "Security" section make reference to #1799; however, the knot numbers illustrated in the article are marked as 1734, 1735, 1736, 1800, 1855, 1856 (illustration implies that it's the same as 1800), and 1857. Also, the "Security" section mentions two versions of 1800, one of which has a reversed concluding hitch - is this alternate version 1857? Someone familiar with the topic should probably clarify these points. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing that.  Originally I had used #1799/#1800/#1800-reversed for the three variations, later I found in another ABOK chapter the three knots were covered by three sequential numbers and switched to that numbering.  I apparently missed those old numbers in the security section.   Fixed.  --Dfred (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that makes much more sense now! cmadler (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  #1799 ? 

message: I've seen wikipedia entries that are how-to articles get edited out because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be how-to. I've long felt that was too doctrinaire. Knots are a nice place to include step by step instructions.  It's so nice to show people how to make the knots, perhaps allowing individual to make the knot and work it while reading about the knot.  I hope the excellent illustrative photographs or drawings are kept. Kd4ttc (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nice to see knot instructions 

message: Kinda a newbie question i guess Thetreespyder (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , I took a look at your now reverted addition. The main problem was that it included unattributed opinion, presumably yours. Wikipedia has no opinions about anything. We only report opinions that recognized commentators have published elsewhere. "Joe Blow wrote that the reef knot is suitable for tying parcels.(reference: Joe Blow's Big Knot Book, 2006, The Publishing Co. London. page 146)" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  i just started a section and as editing Kinda a newbie question, the credits and it my efforts were undone w/o explanation?