Talk:Rowing

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NZMKZ.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why should an article on rowing be entirely devoted to athletic rowing?

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)

• Sounds great, except that a decent stub today is better than brilliant prose tomorrow, let alone two weeks later. Please boldly raze my contrib to the ground to make way for what you're preparing.

But unless i'm mistaken about "sport rowing" being immediately understandable, it is preferable to anything with paren. (IMO, besides the British use of "athletics" for track-and-field sports, "atheletic rowing" to me is ambiguous: if your rowing is vigorous rather than diffident, i find it athletic even if you're just crossing the lake to pick up the mail.)

--Jerzy(t) 19:47, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

• Actually, "atheletic rowing" is done only by the "atheletes" mentioned earlier by someone else! I meant "athletic rowing" [grin, blush]. --Jerzy(t) 20:06, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Stern propulsion techniques

I'm not expert enough to write it myself, but the rowing coverage ought to extend to single-oar stern propulsion aka Yuloh - what used to be called sculling before sport rowing hijacked the term. Tearlach 17:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. I actually came to this page looking for information on just that.76.9.163.58 (talk) 14:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo

This is the article about non-sporting rowing, but the photo is a sport rowing boat, albeit an old design, and oars. A different picture would be ideal. 86.21.227.237 (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Howard I. Chappelle/Chapelle

The poor man's surname is spelt in two different ways. Which is correct? Wavehunter (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• It appears the latter is the one. Wavehunter (talk) 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

on working rowboats

I added some content on what makes a good rowboat, is a little rough but it is a start.

I would ideally like to add some information on the method of rowing that small boats use and used in coastal areas, and how the oars are much narrower that the oars used by sculls.

Additionally it would be nice to have some more information on classic rowboats. At the moment we have whitehalls, which are a nice boat, but have neglected wherries, dories, cobles, umiaks, curraghs, peapods, skiffs and more. Should this information be on a separate wikipedia rowboat entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterMelbourne (talk • contribs) 05:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This article ignores some rowing techniques used in asia

This article ignores some rowing techniques used in asia, like the standing rowing technique used on the mekong:

see photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.119.2.98 (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

See also the related RM discussion at Talk:Watercraft paddling#Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clear consensus that an overview of the activity of rowing is primary over the application of rowing as a competive sport. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Watercraft rowing → Rowing – The primary meaning of "rowing" is per definition something you do with a watercraft. More specific types of rowing, such as sports, rowing exercises and the likes can be referred from rowing (disambiguation) as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Peter ^Isotalo 17:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support, pretty clear primary topic, since all of the other substantial uses refer to this (rowing with an exercise machine is merely simulating the action of rowing on the water). bd2412 T 18:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I'll give you primary meaning but that does not mean it's the primary topic. For all we know the sport is just as likely or more likely to be sought than the article about the form of propulsion in general. Without a good argument based on strong evidence that the proposed destination is the primary topic, I can't support. --B2C 23:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • But the main rowing article would naturally include all types of rowing, including the sports which involve "watercraft rowing" (all of them). So why would we want to send readers to a dabpage full of minor sub-topics like indoor rowing and the tangential shouting match? Peter ^Isotalo 23:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Because someone searching with "rowing" might be looking for sport rowing or one of the other "minor" rowing articles, not this general one. Again, unless you provide page view stats or something to support the position that this is the primary topic, I can't support. --B2C 00:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As a matter of fact, it's no contest.
      • Watercraft rowing has been viewed 3251 times in 201403. [1]
      • Rowing (sport) has been viewed 22786 times in 201403. [2].

    The sport rowing article is viewed 7 times for every view of this article. No way is this article primary for "rowing". --B2C 00:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

    Why is that relevant? The proposal would not move Rowing (sport) anywhere, and anyone looking for it will find it in the lede of the article on rowing watercraft as easily as they would find it in a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 01:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

    You're asking why the lack of primacy of this article is relevant to whether it should be treated as the primary topic? The 7x higher page view count of Rowing (sport) compared to this article demonstrates that this article is not the primary topic for "rowing", and therefore should not be at the base name Rowing:

    If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page (or should redirect to a disambiguation page on which more than one term is disambiguated).

    Practically, with the current setup anyone looking for the sport rowing article with the search term "rowing" is taken to the dab page Rowing. From there they are one click to their article. If this proposal succeeds, then they will be taken to the generic article where they will need to figure out they are on the wrong article, get to the dab page, then finally get to their desired article. Reducing that type of experience for as many users as reasonably possible is what primary topic is all about.

    If any article (rather than the dab) should be at Rowing, it's the article currently at Rowing (sport). But no way should this article be there. --B2C 05:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

    Well, "rowing" is a much broader concept than the sport (of which there are several), regardless of the number of hits. How about solving it with a compromise hatnote that goes something like this:

    For the sport, see rowing (sport). For other meanings, see rowing (disambiguation).

    Peter ^Isotalo 13:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

    What does broadness of concept have to do with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC determination? --B2C 18:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

    See victor's motivation below.

    Peter ^Isotalo 18:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per the non-quantitative criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Disambiguation is best handled with the appropriate {{distinguish}} template designed for these circumstances, as suggested above. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oy. That. I opposed the inclusion of that contradictory "long-term significance" consideration into WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for precisely this reason - now we have two guidances, each indicating we do something different in this case, and others like it.

    If it was closer in terms of the usage consideration the long-term consideration factor might be worth considering, as a tie-breaker. But here this use is relatively obscure in terms of how often people seek it. I mean, rowing itself, in general, is a very mundane activity. It's no surprise that few seek an article about it. I think it's a disservice to put an article few are interested in at the base name, when there are other articles associated with that name that people are much more interested in. --B2C 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

    • You're making two inaccurate assumptions: a) that the general article can't contain anything about the sport(s) and b) that everything else about rowing is "very mundane". Ever heard of galleys or galley slaves? Hardly mundane stuff, even if doesn't have the immediate recentist appeal of rowing crew. Peter ^Isotalo 20:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not making those assumptions... what makes you think I am? Anyway, we're talking past each other. You're talking about your evaluation of "importance", and I'm talking about likelihoods of being sought. There is a relative lack of interest in this article, about what they apparently consider to be a mundane activity, by those searching with "rowing".

        The relatively high interest of the sport rowing article as compared to this article is not due to WP:RECENTISM. RECENTISM refers to short term blips in popularity, as the sport rowing article might experience during the Summer Olympics - a popularity that subsides about as quickly as it rises, and soon after. That's not what is going on here. --B2C 21:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

        • I write mostly about early modern history or even older stuff. To me recentism is a concept that's longer than the latest news cycles. Might be mistaken on the terminology, but to me it's the same. Either way, I always prefer general articles for general concepts. If anything, compare this with smoking. Peter ^Isotalo 22:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
          • The purpose of RECENTISM is to avoid changes for conditions that are likely to change again within the near future. Interpreting it any other way is ignoring what it says and what it is for.

            I don't get the comparison with Smoking. The article I expected is there. Is there another article likely to be sought with "smoking" that is viewed much more often than this one? --B2C 22:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

            • Tobacco smoking. Notice the difference? Peter ^Isotalo 23:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Yes, I do notice the difference. The general article is the primary topic, and is thus at the base name.
              • Tobacco smoking has been viewed 30389 times in 201403. [3]
              • Smoking has been viewed 57210 times in 201403. [4]
            • Notice the difference? Now if Tobacco smoking had about 400,000 views, then it would be a comparable situation. --B2C 00:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
              • It's the general article because someone actually made it that way. This is what the article used to be before Quadell and I made something out of it. Had we followed the line of argumentation you've presented here, it would have probably ended up at something like general smoking or smoking (activity). Peter ^Isotalo 14:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
                • No, the argumentation presented here says to determine the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (based on usage) and title accordingly. Based on that argumentation the titling for Smoking would be exactly what it is. Does that make sense? --B2C 17:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
                  • People who are rowing as a sport are engaged in the act of watercraft rowing, are they not? Unless there is a prominent kind of rowing sport that does not involve rowing a watercraft, the sport is merely a subtopic of the concept of rowing. We don't have a disambiguation page at Canada merely because Sports in Canada exists. bd2412 T 18:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
                    • You too are missing the point. If there was another use for the term "Canada", even though it was a subtopic of the country (perhaps it had a province also named Canada), and that subtopic received 7x more views than the country, then we probably would make Canada a dab page. --B2C 06:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
                      • We would if there was another use of Canada unrelated to the country. In this case, the sport of rowing is not unrelated to the action of rowing a watercraft; it is the action of rowing a watercraft, with other aspects thrown in to make it a sport. This is exactly why running is a primary topic title and the various sporting events that involve running are subtopics of that title. bd2412 T 15:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

*We don't have a running (sports) either. It simply redirects to running. Peter ^Isotalo 16:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dabconcept it and merge both rowing (sport) and Watercraft rowing into rowing. Red Slash 03:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support: It's completely absurd that a title like the made-up Watercraft rowing even exists. That article should be rowing, and the one on the formalized, modern sport should remain at rowing (sport) or be at crew rowing. Despite the piles of verbiage above, this is a no-brainer. It does not have anything like the linguistic complications of billiards having conflicting meanings resulting in the article being at cue sports (a properly sourced umbrella term, unlike "watercraft rowing"). Peter Isotalo's DAB hatnote is sufficient. Crew rowing is just a type and application of rowing, and while a somewhat popular one, it has not replaced the general topic of rowing, which has a long and important history, and remains relevant for other reasons than that sport today, including other sports than the Oxford/Ivy League one, e.g. coastal and offshore rowing and ocean rowing, plus more variants taht are technically paddling, like dragon boat racing. Consequently, Rowing (sport) is ambiguous and should also be the title of a disambiguation page. Redslash's dabconcept idea is okay, too, as long as the resulting article included all the rowing sports in WP:SUMMARY style.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree that 'Watercraft rowing' is a terrible made-up title, however moving rowing (sport) to crew rowing would be no improvement. Crew is an American-centric term for the modern sport of rowing, which is not used outside of the United States. I'm more in favour of Redslash's idea, much of the 'Watercraft rowing' page could be presented in Summary style (articles for History of rowing, Oars already exist) Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Note that I just moved history of rowing to history of rowing sports; that was the scope of the article. If we want a separate article on the history of rowing in general, the redirect can always be turned into a separate article. Peter ^Isotalo 00:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, clear case of a main article with a more specific sub-article; in these cases the general article should always be at the more general name too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per PRIMARYTOPIC. The current one sounds made up. Calidum 05:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Primary meaning. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This is one of those cases where pageviews alone are inadequate to the determination of the primary topic. I am sure that the overwhelming majority of those many people who view the article on the sport of rowing would concede that the sport is secondary in importance, prominence and history to the act of watercraft propulsion from which the sport is derived. An ancient activity, fundamental to naval navigation, must logically be the primary topic as against the leisure activity which is an imitation of it. Xoloz (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Edits

Hello

I am new to Wikipedia and I am currently working on a project for a class. I noticed that this article could be improved and I will be working over the next 2 weeks on it. I would love to hear from anyone who has any suggestions or concerns. I will be working on it in my sandbox User:NZMKZ/sandbox.rowing before I publish my changes.NZMKZ (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Major editing suggestion -- implementation soon

Dear all,

I have been working with this article for the past few weeks. I reached the section on the design factors and I think it needs major editing. The main issue in this section is that it seems like original research. I tried to find strong sources to link it to but I was not able to (But I Will keep looking). My suggestion is to divide this section up into subsections. This will make it easier for other people to include additional information on more specific design factors (which will make it easier to find sources/ references). I made these changes in my sandbox User:NZMKZ/sandbox.rowing . I will be implementing these changes in the next few days and I would really appreciate it if you give me some feedback so we can reach the best solution possible. NZMKZ (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

That section needs many more sources. The vast proportion of the existing section is unsourced and needs deleting if sources are not provided. It has been tagged as OR for years. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

What about rowing in the age of sail?

I was wondering what rowboats were used for during the age of sail (think about 1600 to mid 1800). But this article cuts off at Ancient Greece and then has a ton of focus on sports. I don't really care for sports.

Pulling and rowing terminology

I do not agree with the latest addition to the article, regarding "..some strict terminologies..". A quick search on internet shows that there are other opinions and possible interpretations cf. online Collins pulling boat a noun in American English: a boat propelled by oars alone; or a Google search for images of pulling boat, some American examples of which of which are clearly for one person with two oars.
We are being too strict here ! If this is only true for some terminologies, here are some alternatives

1. this information should not be in the lead of the article
2. should we also perhaps mention 'hauling' 'heaving' 'pushing' (cf. and 'paddling' !?
3. the wording should be less constraining - for example by adding a more general statement such as rowing may also be called pulling in a maritime context, together with discussion of sculling.
4. the 'pulling' paragraph should be removed entirely

My vote would be for #3: what say you, fellow wikipedians ? jw (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is the quality of the sources used to understand this point. There is little point to Wikipedia (as an online encyclopaedia) if it only seeks to replicate what can readily be found online. The sources to support this text are missing - and will be added later today.

What is clear is that there are three main ways that people describe the method by which a boat is propelled by oars. The first is to use the word "rowing" to describe any time when someone is using an oar. Second and third, someone might have one of the technical usages, where the meanings of "rowing" and "pulling" are reversed depending on context. Then there are the complexities of meaning of the word "sculling".

In cases like this, it is certainly fundamental to an encyclopaedia article to say at a very early stage that the terminology is used differently - because how, otherwise, is the encyclopaedia user going to understand whatever they have consulted Wikipedia for? The words "strict terminologies" makes clear that there is a looser general usage. Therefore the encyclopaedia user can judge which situation applies in their circumstances. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The authority of McKee as a reference (as now added to the article) is strong. His book was the result of his appointment as a Caird research fellow at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich. You can find him cited as a reference by other serious maritime books - for instance, many citations in: Inshore Craft, Traditional Working Vessels of the British Isles. McKee is also cited by Jenny Bennett's very useful Sailing Rigs, an Illustrated Guide. A bit of digging would reveal other technical books that cite McKee. To further support the usage of the word "pulling" for the seaman's, take a look at The Whaleboat, Mystic Seaport Museum's work on the subject. This book clearly uses the word "pulling" to describe the use of an oar.

Nautical terminology is both precise (because a seaman's life depended on understanding exactly what was meant by terms like the "mizzen-lower-topgallant sheet" - spelling taken from Underhill's Masting and Rigging) and imprecise, because of regional variations (sometimes differing between neighbouring home port, as observed by Basil Greenhill) and a large number of amateur and (courtesy of two world wars) temporary seafarers. Since we do not know the purpose of an encyclopaedia user consulting Wikipedia on this subject, it is important to lay out the different terminological uses in this subject.

Incidentally, McKee is a good source for the mechanics and design principles of rowing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Brief comment on the above as a statement at the beginning of this article[5]. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

References

I fully understand what you are saying, but I would add -

1. please see my comment above re.google search for images of pull-boat which I have clarified
2. if we are referring to usage in the Royal Navy or in UK+USA then we should probably say so
3. Rowing#Rearward-facing_systems might be a better place to put the detailed explanation
   I was astonished to notice that you already did ! (in Sept2021) You should clear this up, I think. I personally would still go for all the finer details there, with a somewhat simpler statement in the lead.
4. a link should be added to Pull and/or Pulling disambiguation page(s) - jw (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

   I am not sure what one can definitively learn from google images of a pulling boat. What you see for any such search may or may not match the explanation of the terminology in the article. What is key is: is this a seagoing boat or for rivers/sheltered water? It is not really possible to tell - though pictures of the Whitehall boat that describe it as a pulling boat fit with the general description of this not really being a seagoing boat.

   There are a lot of things wrong with this article - but Rome was not built in a day. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Picture needed

Until the arrival of engines, in particular the outboard motor, rowing was the major method of moving a small working boat (if only initially, before hoisting sails). Ideally the article would have an image of a working boat being moved under oar. It is possible to find naval vessels propelled by oar, but the vast number of civilian, non-pleasure boats are unrepresented. I have tried to find a usable (copyright) picture, but with no success. Do other editors know of an example? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Whitehall rowing boat does not seem particularly noteworthy

The section describing Whitehall rowing seems to be simple advertising, or at least an unbalanced inclusion in this page. <brf>If it isn't advertising, then there are countless other types of rowing boats which would be similarly noteworthy.

I propose that
EITHER this section should be eliminated from this page
OR new sections should be included for every other type of rowing boat.

I would also suggest that the page Whitehall_rowboat needs a similar review. 78.114.97.77 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)