Talk:Rowing (sport)/Archive 1

message: Shouldn't ocean rowing have a separate article? Like who the first people to row the atlantic and pacific were and a short history of how it was achieved. Is this somewhere else in Wikipedia? I'll try writing something when I get a chance. --CharlieP 11:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate article for ocean rowing?

message: As of this writing the entire oar article is devoted to the oars used in the athletic rowing.  It links to the article on rowing, and it too is entirely devoted to the athletic rowing.  If all one had to go by was the oar article one would think that oars and rowing were a recent invention!
Surely the historical use of oars for marine propulsion deserves space in the wikipedia?  Frankly, it seems to me, the use of oars for marine propulsion is more important than their use in the sport of rowing.  Similarly the act of rowing is performed by far more than modern atheletes.
This current article has no room for serious mention of non-athletic rowing.  Should there be a disambiguation page, that points to athletic rowing and rowing as marine propulsion?  Should the main page on rowing be devoted to conventional rowing, with a link at the top to athletic rowing?  Could the fans of athletic rowing be less parochial, and rewrite the article to make room for the long history of non-athleteic rowing?
:I agree with this.  I think we should move the existing page to Rowing (sport) and then rewrite the existing page with details about other kinds of rowing.  We still need a few paragraphs on the sport on the page tho - with a link to the main article.  Did some work in my userspace as a start User:Johnteslade/Rowing.  If no one has any objections i'll make the changes and start disambiguating all the existing links to rowing that need to be altered. Johnteslade 17:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer the article be called Rowing (Sport), as suggested rather than Sport rowing, since that phrase is never used. Any objections? --Applesawz 16:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason given (see Talk:Rowing) when the article was named was that it is preferable to avoid the use parenthesis of article names.  This fits with point 3 at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific_topic although i agree with you that "sport rowing" is not a commonly used phrase.  johnSLADE (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the guideline discourages parentheses. "If there is a choice between using a short phrase and word with context, there is no hard rule about which is preferred. Both may be created, with one redirecting to the other. For example, Mathematical analysis and Analysis (mathematics)." Based on what I have seen on Wikipedia, parentheses are used often, especially when the alternative is awkward. There was a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Parenthetical_disambiguation_.22deprecated.22.3F about this subject, the result being that parenthetical disambiguation is not "deprecated."--Applesawz 22:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why should an article on ''rowing'' be entirely devoted to ''athletic rowing''?

message: I know it is tempting for everyone to add their rowing club or school to this section. However I think we should keep it to only the best known clubs in each country. For example in the US the famous clubs are NYAC, Vesper, Penn AC, and maybe a couple others like Nereid and such. In England I know of Leander. In general I think the links to the clubs should all go to pages within Wikipedia since most clubs' webpages are generally biased, uninformative to outsiders, and very POV. Alex Krupp 16:36, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
*I'd agree with the listing only of significant clubs in this section - i.e. ones that either have significant historical influence, or significant modern influence (i.e. provide lots of Olympians, or are the top rowing club in their country. Average Earthman 08:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rowing Clubs/Organizations 

message: I like most of the changes you made on Nov. 4th. However I think you should add the difference between sweeping and sculling back to the intro paragraph because one of the requirements for a featured article is a full paragraph lead that provides an overview of the article.  --Alex Krupp 18:13, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
:Point taken, the intro paragraph did get rather small.  Have made the changes.  Johnteslade 20:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnteslade 

message: I have removed the following from the Nomenclature section.  It's specific to US clasification of events so don't feel its appropriate.  Perhaps someone could explain them in the USRowing article.
**N - novice
**V - varsity (collegiate)
**2V - junior varsity (collegiate)
**3V - third varsity (collegiate)
Johnteslade 10:51, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: The caption "Single scull" may be an appropriate use of "scull" as a type of boat, or in the sense of "[A guy performing the act of] single scull", or the work of another ignoramus like i, who thot "scull" and "shell" were synonyms.  I had almost decided the boat is always a shell and never a scull or racing scull.  What's the truth? Should Scull become a Dab among sport rowing (for the verb scull), Oar (the noun scull meaing the thing the rower holds), and Racing shell for scull, the thing she sits in?  In any case, some material in Sport rowing, specific to the vessel rather than the task of propelling it, should be moved to Racing shell. --Jerzy(t) 20:47, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
:Casually, the boat and the oar is known as a scull. It seems to me that originally scull referred always to the oars.--Applesawz 22:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Noun Scull (not a form of oar) 

message: This section seems unnecessary in the main article, though I wouldn't be opposed to it becoming its own article. Alex Krupp 07:34, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
*It does seem a bit odd. It would be like having a section 'notable people who played football' in the Football (soccer) article. Average Earthman 10:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Rowers 

message: The topic of high power outputs is relevant, but it would be interesting to read how much power has been measured. That would enable comparison with the extensive power-related information available in the cycling entry (these two sports are often quoted in discussions of the highest measured human power outputs)EdX20 23:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which cycling entry? As for power in rowing, rowing ergometers generally have a power measurement option, so power output over a 2000m ergo test is out there on the web. Average Earthman 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition 

message: I've never heard of this kind of race (I was a coxswain in college)! Wouldn't that be extremely dangerous, making "physical contact" with another shell? If you hit an oar (which I can't see how you wouldn't getting that close) someone could get seriously injured and/or thrown out of the shell! How do they avoid this? Or is that the point? Kind of a Demolition Derby for rowers? —simpatico hi 07:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not really a demolition derby. The chasing crew must hold it up as soon as contact has taken place, or the cox of the boat ahead has conceeded by raising an arm. Umpires/bank parties usually help the chasing crew's cox to tell them when to hold it up. The crew which has just been bumped is under strict instructions to continue rowing hard for at least 3 or 4 strokes to get clear of the chasing crew. Each division has quite a few umpires and all coxes must undergo a full safety talk and briefing prior to the races. As a result, it's actually pretty well controlled. Of course it's not always possible to avoid damage/injury, but it's pretty uncommon. Crews can (and do) get fined if they do not follow the safety rules. In addition, if a cox feels threatened that a bump is inevitable, they can conceed a bump by raising an arm before physical contact has occured. The reason why many do not, is that crews can escape from significant amounts of overlap, especially in the top divisions. Richard B 14:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Big pile-ups have been know to happen though (but not that regularly afaik)... Willkm 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most "pile-ups" I've seen have basically been where one or two crews end up blocking the river - and all others behind have to stop - before they've hit anything. Not the same kind of pile-up you'd associate with a motorway collision. Richard B 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bumps races 

message: It's not just 'politically incorrect', it's bad coaching. The crew well-trained in technique will be superior to the bunch of meatheads who think they can just bully the boat along. Or in other words, ergs do not float. Average Earthman 17:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "women's rowing" as a derogatory term 

message: I agree with CharlieP that 'ocean rowing' should be separate. It has a long history and a lot of activity in it's own right.
Also, given that 'coastal rowing' (European) and 'open-water rowing' (US) are one and the same, should the article not be 'Coastal and open-water rowing'?
Cristofa
:Ocean rowing has its own article - see Ocean rowing.  If coastal and open-water rowing are the same thing then feel free to rename the Coastal and ocean rowing article and text in sport rowing. johnSLADE (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If coastal rowing already has an article, why is so much information included in the sport rowing article? I do not consider it a subset of the kind of rowing here, but a separate sport.--Applesawz 16:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coastal and ocean rowing 

message: Much as I hate to admit it, the first Varsity Cricket match was in 1828, beating us rowers to it by one year.Gingekerr 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Duly noted.--Applesawz 22:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boat Race "first intercollegiate sport" 

message: Here in Cambridge, a Head-to-Head involves doing a head race, waiting for everyone else to finish, and then doing another head race in the opposite direction over the same course, with the times added together to give the final ranking. I would call what is described here a regatta. Gingekerr 15:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head to Head 

message: Move. Duja 08:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I just reviewed the Rowing disambiguation page and disagree.  It's fine.  Rowing for sport is but one of the common uses of the term. The line referring to this article simply needs to be slightly altered after this page is moved to Rowing (sport). --Serge 22:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That was nice of you, but the capitalization was wrong: should be ...(sport), not (Sport). I'll fix it. Duja 08:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move to [[Rowing (sport)]], October 2006 

message: Vote with * Support or * Oppose followed by an optional brief comment; sign with --~~~~~.
* Support per nom. Also, note that if the title is Rowing (sport) references can be made with the following "short cut" syntax:  which generates: Rowing. --Serge 20:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I just reviewed the Rowing disambiguation page and disagree.  It's fine.  Rowing for sport is but one of the common uses of the term. The line referring to this article simply needs to be slightly altered after this page is moved to Rowing (sport). --Serge 22:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: Unless someone objects i'm going to do this tommorow as all the votes so far have supported it. Nate1481 00:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was nice of you, but the capitalization was wrong: should be ...(sport), not (Sport). I'll fix it. Duja 08:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Someone removed the govening bodies, i've replaced as removing them & keeping clubs & companies makes no sense. but tidying all to only notable might clean up a bit (wiki article it on is prob a good standard) coments? Nate1481 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists

message: This seciton has been edited so it is now based almost entirly on eights, it origanlly tried to describe all boats some replacment of the old materal may be a good idea. Nate1481 23:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I've done some rewriting of the section myself, but I am reluctant to remove stuff to avoid offending contributors.  It has become too long and too 'eight' specific.  Baring an objections, I'll try pruning the section down next week. Swlenz 19:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Crew section 

message: I suggest that we archive this talk page and start anew.Swlenz 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest: Archive Talk Page