Talk:Canoe/Archive 2

Untitled
Some of the article's content appears to have been lifted directly from the following website (or the reverse happened) 129.2.135.201 (talk) 19:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Our Canoe article is the result of a long history of edits. The article as shown on the webpage is an earlier (probably 2 years old) revision from Wikipedia. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Canoe museum
The section on the Wisconsin Canoe Heritage Museum will be removed because it is not intrinsically ("belonging to the essential nature of a thing") part of the topic itself. Likewise, the automobile article doesn't have any info on museums (even though there are some great car museums), nor does the boat article have any info on maritime museums. Besides, placing the WCHM info as the lead section is purely promotional, as if this is the first thing we need to know about canoes. If this museum is so notable (see WP:ORG), follow the example of the Canadian Canoe Museum and it can have its own article dedicated to it. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Notables
Should the last two listings under the "modern" section go? Nothing against them, but there are at least hundreds of people who have done that level of thing, and many who have done more and/or are more notable. . North8000 (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, this section needs some work. Entries listed here should have better proof of notability, and certainly need references. And yes, long-distance trips are not so uncommon so we need to set some criteria for inclusion. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Here would be my first thoughts. First, the trip itself should be significant as a trip.(e.g. length etc) In addition to that it would have to meet one of the following:
 * Where there is a published (and not self-published) book about the trip.
 * Where there was substantial regional or national media coverage about it as a canoe trip
 * Historical trip with substantial coverage of the trip in history books.
 * Any extreme long distance, and distance record holders (even cumulative)


 * Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems good. Any extreme long distance, and distance record holders (even cumulative) are worthy for inclusion. It would be good to include ground-breaking trips with lasting impact or legacy but this may be harder to establish. With the last criteria, do you mean recreating/retracing of historical trips? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I meant the original historical trip in that last category. I expanded it to clarify.  Recreating/retracing type trips would need to pass under one of the two previous categories. Again, these are just my ideas, nothing more.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, let's go with this until someone else has another idea to refine it. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Propose moving "notable canoeists" to canoe and/or canoeing. As a matter of fact I just did that and it was reverted by User:North8000 with the comment "Lets wait until this material is placed elsewhere" ... but that's exactly what I did namely in canoe and canoeing. With the exception of the last two who do not appear to qualify as notable as already discussed. --Cornellier (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. But I looked then and just looked again and don't see it there.   Can you double check and / or point me to it?  Thanx. North8000 (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The two marathoners are here: Canoeing. --Cornellier (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool. But the section I was most looking at is the "traditional" section. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictures: quantity and quality
Was: "A few pictures in the gallery" Two pictures in there of people canoeing don't seem to serve a purpose. The one showing the aluminum canoe (which doesn't really show it) and the other just people canoeing on the Shenandoah river. Should these go? If not I have a lots of my vacation pictures like that to put in here. :-)  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I've periodically been culling the picture gallery. Everyone seems to be adding their vacation pics to it. I left the two images as examples of an aluminum canoe and canoe camping, because the intent is to give a broad spectrum of canoe types and uses. Of course, as better images get uploaded, we can replace the poorer ones with these. I think it is time to update and cull the gallery again... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I can supply a nice looking one of aluminum canoes which shows them well and has no people in it. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are already several alum canoe pics on Commons. But I don't mind pics with people in it; that shows use and context. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think is best. Leave as-is, change etc.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get some discussion of which how many pictures are needed in this article, and of those, what is their purpose. At WP:IMAGE it says "Images on Wikipedia should be used in an encyclopedic manner. They should be relevant and increase readers' understanding of the subject matter. In general, images should depict the concepts described in the text of the article." I feel that if we applied that test to images in the article then they would fail. Also I think that the pictures should relate to the text they are near, or else they should be in the gallery. --Cornellier (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, totally agree. There are too many images, cluttering the page. Any we don't need such a large image gallery IMO; that's why there is Commons. As stated above, the gallery should only have images that show a broad spectrum of canoe types and uses (why is this Gerrish-name-plate.jpg kept on being added???). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK I propose the following consider another picture at the top of the page since the identity of the canoe seems questionable, as discussed elsewhere on the page; have one picture per section, that is relevant to that section. History: an old picture or painting e.g. the voyageurs; Design and construction: keep the diagram of parts and add the picture of the prospector already on the page to illustrate rocker; Types: some pictures of different types of canoe, but not too many; remove most of the pictures currently in the gallery --Cornellier (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Year on the first pic
A B. N. Morris wood-and-canvas canoe built in 1910

Is that really from 1910? Picture's own description does not mention any year, only when it was taken (2008). Seems somewhat modern to be 100 years old. 82.141.65.207 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is in mighty fine shape for a 100 year old boat, particularly if it actually gets used rather than just put in the water for photo shoots. I don't know those well enough to comment myself, except to note that the breastplate design looks like something I've never seen in any of the in-use canoes I've seen during the 5 decades that I've been looking at canoes. The date was added to the caption Feb 21st 2010, long after the original image and cation were added. The editor who edited it was an active editor for a few years and left April 2010. If nobody comes up with anything on this I think we should remove the date from the caption. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A cursory search shows that Morris canoes were only built from the 1880s to 1920, so the year in the caption seems reasonable. However... Replica Morris canoes are still being built, see http://www.wooden-canoes.com/canoes/morris.htm. So the question is: Does the photo show an original or replica? -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> • TALK 13:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me weigh-in here, as I am considered "a Morris expert" in the Wooden Canoe Heritage Association, am on the board of that organization, have researched the Morris canoe for nearly ten years and am in the process of writing a book (the title of which is "The Morris Canoe") which will be published prior to the 2015 WCHA international assembly (the topic of which will be The Morris Canoe). I share all that gobble-de-gook so that I might be taken seriously. When the book is out, someone can cite to it, but until then you may have to take my word for the fact that a carefully restored Morris will appear as good if not better than the day it left the factory. These canoes were sold commercially from 1891 until the factory burned December 15, 1919. The Morris in the picture is known to me as having been owned by the Deans, who donated it to the Wisconsin Canoe History Museum. I have spent much time on the dating-system of Morris canoes. There are no records, but collecting information on known Morris canoes it seems serial numbering is sequential and began in about 1900. There are a few canoes with paperwork containing serial number and shipping date, and using that information plus correlating with the demand for canoes that can be seen in Old Town's records, a table has been developed that permits these canoes to be given an approximate shipping date. Those with a missing serial number tag can be given an approximate date based on aspects of construction. I could go into greater detail but would bore you, and the upshot would be that the date "1910" for this canoe may be off by two years, as I have it as Morris number 9329, which makes it 1912 according to my research. The dating theory is a "theory" but like the theories of evolution and relativity, it is holding up well. Anyway, I will shut up now. Thanks for listening. Kathrynklos (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sincerely,  North8000  (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Me again-- and you're very welcome! But I did some digging and the canoe in the picture is Morris number 10806, which puts it c.1914. The Deans (who founded the Wooden Canoe Heritage Association) had two Morris canoes, and I thought it was the other. But the picture used in this article was used on the cover of "Wooden Canoe" issue no. 21, Winter 1985, and it's 10806. At that time (nearly 30 years ago now!) it was believed the first two digits of a 5-digit serial number indicated the year. We've refined the dating-theory with the inclusion of another 250 or so canoes in the database. Anyway... I am thrilled to help with information in Wikipedia! Kathrynklos (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Canadian Canoe???
I'm British, and I've never heard the term 'Canadian Canoe'. I would call the boat in the picture a canoe.59.33.92.212 (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge there. A quick Google search indicates some used of "Canadian canoe" in the UK, but perhaps that is obscure and them main term there is just "canoe"? North8000 (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Internationally, the word canoe means "vessel paddled by a paddler facing in the direction of travel". Internationally "Canoe" includes two subgenres: "canoe" and "kayak". So a canoe is a canoe. For example, in the olympics "canoe sprint" includes both canoe and kayak events. Anecdotally, I lived in the UK for 10 years and am not familiar with the term "Canadian canoe". In Germany they talk about "Kajak" and "Kanadier". A Google image search returns roughly 99 per cent of the pictures are canoes as described in this article, not kayaks. A Google search for "Canadian canoe" returns various canoers in the country of Canada. I think the article should reflect the general usage of the word, and the talk of "Canadian canoe" is more confusing than helpful. Cornellier (talk) 16:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC) The British Canoe Union website  is a little inconsistent, canoe seems to include both canoes and kayaks, but for e.g. the gear page starts off with "If you are new to canoeing and kayaking" which suggests the two are exclusive, and they also talk about kayaks a lot. Sometimes regular canoes are referred to as "open canoes". --Cornellier (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just updated Canoe_(disambiguation). From looking at the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica it looks like they didn't have a word for kayak (the word kayak being considered to be some kind of arctic fishing boat). But I think nowadays we can consider this usage archaic in English. The official olympics site uses the term canoe / kayak, for example. --Cornellier (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Splitting bits out to separate articles
There are probably other bits of this article that might be better moved to a separate page (leaving an appropriate link of course) - for example there's a chunk of text (some uncited) that might be better at War canoe. DexDor (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm against complete removal of strokes from this article. Possibly keep the 4-5 most used ones in here? North8000 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Much of the info about strokes could be removed from this article (the info is still only a mouse click away). A lot of it is unreferenced or fails WP:NOTHOWTO (I'm less bothered about it being in the subsidiary article and, from what I know, it looks reasonably accurate so I'm not proposing deleting it from WP). This article only needs a few paragraphs explaining why a variety of strokes are used and describing the main ones. DexDor (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Areas for improvement of this article
I propose to work on improving this article as follows:


 * add content to the history section (which I just created): there's a ton of good material on the web that can be referenced e.g.http://www.canoeicf.com/icf/AboutICF/History.html
 * move some or all of what is now under "Traditional designs" to history section
 * also move some of the discussion of material (e.g. birchbark) to the history section
 * clean up notables as already discussed on this page and move some of the Notable canoeists into history section
 * as already discussed on this page move some content - text and images - to their already-existing articles, e.g. war canoe. I've already done that a bit with Old Town Canoe, Chestnut Canoe Company, strip-built, kayaks, rowing, etc.
 * generally copy edit the Design and Construction section which has a massive amount of unreferenced content, as with history there is a lot of good material to be referenced on the web e.g. by John Winters
 * See Also, References, Further reading, and External Links all seem crufty. There are not enough refs and too much of everything else, I think, according to what I've read in wiki guidelines. Material in See Also, Further reading, and External Links needs to be investigated and converted in references, which are sorely lacking in this article.
 * move most of "Use" content to canoeing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornellier (talk • contribs) 13:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * once the content and structure is sorted out better I think it'd be good to consider which images should be in the body of the article and which should be in the gallery, to my eye there is a few too many on the page now, just in terms of visual appeal and layout

By no means can all of the above be done in one or a few edits, so I hope to chip away at it.... I think this has potential to be a good article. --Cornellier (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * One vague thought, IMHO the main article on a topic should include all of the key germane areas in summary form. Including anything that is covered in sub-articles. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your comment prompted me to look up the guidelines at WP:LEAD. In a nutshell it says "the lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." So OK I'll try to do that. Thanks for the idea. --Cornellier (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I was vague/ unclear. I was thinking more about the body of the article.  Just saying that when we move material to a seperate "sub" article or refer to a sub-article for coverage of a topic, we should still cover it in summary form in the main article.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi North8000 Aha. So for example, I just moved the whole "Use" section to canoeing, but there should still be some summary of use in the canoe article, along the lines of "canoes are used for recreation, racing ... see canoeing. Right. Good point. I shall try to fix that!

Hi Cornellier, thanks for your efforts to improve the article. But I think you are making some of the info too concise, too much buried within other content. Especially design, materials and construction; it is no more than just a summary. A lot of info is lost. In case of unreferenced material, there are a lot of books on canoes, so finding references shouldn't be hard and adding a reference is better than removing the info simply because it was unreferenced. My suggestion is to add content, not removing so much... -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 13:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK P199 I took your suggestion and added some content from a book, to the hull design section. More to come! --Cornellier (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Canoe types
The current canoe types is a bit of a mess. A Chestnut is not a type of canoe, nor is the Prospector. That's way too specific. They are sub-types of touring and camping canoes. We have "whitewater" as a type, but also inflatable canoe as a type of whitewater canoe. We have square-backed as a type, but that should be a sub-type of recreation canoes. I propose that the type section be related to what the canoe is to be used for, and the main ones are the following: General recreation, Flatwater touring and camping, Whitewater, Freestyle, and racing. I think this is a good starting point for classifying canoes and it lines up with citeable sources I've seen. Comments? Suggestions? Shall I go ahead and implement something like this? --Cornellier (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC) -- <b style="color:#199199;">P 1 9 9</b> ✉ 15:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Cornellier, I totally support this idea. I was the one who originally formatted the canoe types in its current format, but over time, many changes were made and sub-types were added. I had been looking to redo this section too, but finding references for canoe types was problematic because there seems to be little consistency among publications. Without authoritative references, it will be open to many changes again. Yet, I agree with the 5 major types you identify above. I suggest making headings in the table and then show the sub-types. If you don't add the sub-types, then it will be added anyway over time by other editors. Besides, some sub-types are so different that they do require mentioning (like inflatables). Maybe something like this:
 * might want to investigate another layout though. I've viewed the article on a few mobile devices and the rendering of the table can be problematic. Can post a screen shot. --Cornellier (talk) 18:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Good luck! I think that my head would be spinning trying to categorize. I'd probably give up and just go with variations in attributes in key areas, handled seperately:


 * Material it's made out of
 * Main type of use they are designed for (with related hull styles and sizes)
 * Major unusual construction features (decked, outrigger etc.)

North8000 (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, sorry to butt in and I hope I am doing this correctly and in the right place. I am new to editing and mostly interested in biography. But I Do know canoes and am writing a book on the Morris canoe and the men who built it. The best and perhaps ONLY good source for "types" of wood canoe is the Wooden Canoe Heritage Association. I am a board member of this organization and know whereof I speak. I have read a bit of this article and changed the description under a picture of Rushton canoes at the Adirondack Museum because it had a link to "strip built canoe", which was wrong. A strip-built canoe is not the same as an antique all-wood canoe. I am at least as busy as the next person, but will have it on my "list" to go through stuff here from time to time. For "types of canoe" when it comes to the wooden ones, you might take a look at the headings in the Forums on the Wooden Canoe Heritage Ass'n site (wcha.org). Nice work though overall. Kathrynklos (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition of "canoe" and scope of this article
Some of the discussions on this page would I think be illuminated by having a working definition of what the Canoe article is about. Some dictionary definitions of canoe: There's a consensus among the above three. I propose that this be the focus of the article. A canoe can be like many types of boat, but not all types of boats can be a canoe. Yes you can bolt a small motor onto a canoe, but you can't necessarily paddle a motorboat. The fact that a motor can be added to a canoe does not change the fact that a canoe is essentially a lightweight human-propelled boat. When camping one might use a canoe as a picnic table. But this auxiliary functionality is not part of the essential definition of the thing. And the essential definition of the thing is what the article should be primarily about. I think it's helpful to mention that there are secondary uses for a canoe, variations, hybrids, and grey areas. Likewise there are related topics, e.g. canoeing, canoeists. All these things need to be discussed in a way that does not overshadow the core topic of the article. --Cornellier (talk) 16:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "A light narrow boat with both ends sharp that is usually propelled by paddling" - Merriam-Webster.
 * "A light, narrow boat with pointed ends and no keel, propelled with a paddle or paddles." - Oxford Dictionary.
 * "A small light narrow boat, pointed at both ends and moved using a paddle" - Cambridge Dictionary.
 * Sounds good.  BTW,
 * I think that the definition of a "keel" in the second definition is different than a canoe definiiton.
 * "Pointed at both ends" is important. Even if a few (e.g. "square stern canoe")are not 100% pointed in back.
 * North8000 (talk)

Excellent recent work
What a large amount of excellent work Cornieller has done in their recent edits! One quibble, the hull speed is quite irrelevant (and thus misleading/confusing) with respect to paddled canoes and may not be a good addition. Or, better yet, keep it included but explain that. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Under "see also" at the foot of this article, I have placed a list of articles on the historic canoe companies, which, with the exception of Old Town, are no longer in business but which contributed to the history of recreational canoeing. This is a focus of mine (recreational canoeing AND documenting these companies in the Wikipedia). If "see also" isn't the best term to use, please change it. Several of these articles need expanding and I hope other canoe historians will jump in. There should be a major article on J.H. Rushton. Squirrelwhisperer (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Polynesian canoes
I am no expert on canoes (well, I can handle one, but I don't know anything about their history,) but I hope someone who is will fit large war "canoes" into this article. In what sense is a Waka (canoe) What about a Malia (canoe). Or an old time Hawaiian war canoe? And the often very large war and pirate and trading canoes described in historical sources from the early contact period in the Caribbean and also up until quite recently in the Indian Ocean, where they canoes in the technical sense, or not? And if not, what separated them (and the big Polynesian and South Pacific ones) form canoe as used int this article. Those old-time war canoes were made of dense wood and carried large crews. It would be useful to have them covered in this article, with links leading to longer articles. And to explain what makes a canoe a canoe and not, say, a galley. I'm not particularly nautical, but I hope someone who is will undertake this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canoe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130104164108/http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/how/find/films/indian/e.html to http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/how/find/films/indian/e.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Types
Maybe portable type could be added.
 * folding /Collapsible subtype: MYCANOE, Tote 'N Boat Canoe, Ally canoe, Stakanoo, Pakayak, Justin Case Kayak, Hypar, Trak 2.0, Beach LT
 * Inflatable subtype. 95.178.150.90 (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Portable is not a type like Sprint, Touring or Whitewater canoe that are all portable too. Folding/collapsible and inflatable is more a building method and as such already mentioned in Canoe. -- Kanoniem (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC)