Talk:Sail components

Sandbox for development of revised article
Please look at proposed material, here. Please comment at Talk:Sail components. User:HopsonRoad 13:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

about reefing
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)

Leach/leech
There doesn't seem to be a particular preferred form of the spelling. A web search shows: 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)
 * about 263,000 for "leech"+"sail"
 * about 140,000 for "leach"+"sail"

PS: A search restricted to ".uk" produced: So it seems there's just as much confusion there as there is globally! Noel (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * about 1,210 for "Leech"+"sail"
 * about 1,080 for "Leach"+"sail"

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

Square sails have a roach too. It refers to the curved lower edge. This curvature is required to allow the sail to clear the lower yard when it pivots around the mast. I will get back with a reference from Eric Newby.

--AJim (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The roach is the curvature of a sail more than a specific area and can apply to the leech or the foot (on loose footed rigs) RobertShaftoe (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes.71.136.229.150 (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sailing reorganization
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)

Merger proposal
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)

I disagree, unsurprising since I just created the earing article, I guess. I feel it is particularly good to keep it separate because of the potential for ambiguity with the term earring, not just from an organizational standpoint but from an informational standpoint. Not to mention, as far as my understanding goes, it is not technically part of the sail, but actually a line attached to the corner of the sail. Intelligence3 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, no one else seems to care. What's the rule, there? Intelligence3 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Earing is no longer a common sailing term. The closest synonym is pennant, a short line used to hold the corner of a sail to some point of attachment (like the tack of a jib to the stem of the boat). Owner, New Day, Tartan 37 #16 Nov 9, 2009.

Disambig'ing "Clew"
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)

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

On a gaff (or any quadrilateral fore-and-aft) rig the throat is the upper corner where the head (top edge) and luff join and the peak is the corner at the head and leech. I've never heard of a term for the upper corners of a square rig. Maybe they are both peaks because both are at the head/leech junction? RobertShaftoe (talk) 01:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Triangular Sails Section
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)

Title of article?
The title, "Parts of a sail", has long struck me as odd. Does it refer to portions of a sail, to the pieces out of which the sail is made (gores, threads, grommets, bolt ropes, etc.), or are such elements as reefing lines, reinforcements at attachment points, lettering, or windows "parts of a sail", too? Is the roach or draft a "part"? I would prefer something more general, like "Sail terminology" "Elements of sails" or "Sail terms". User:Akerbeltz, User:7&6=thirteen, User:Mysha, User:Mcapdevila, User:Niceguy149, User:Chalexthegreat: What do others think? Perhaps you can register your preferences and why, below: User:HopsonRoad 17:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:HopsonRoad, the phrase "Parts of Sail" has become widely accepted in the sailing community to specifically describe the corners and edges of a sail. For example, U.S. Sailing's instruction books, as well as their Instructor Training courses use the phrase "Parts of Sail" to describe what is also described in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalexthegreat (talk • contribs) 15:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Sail terminology"
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)

Commentary
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)
 * 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)

"Sail: parts and terminology"
Enter your support for this with a reason and a proposed Lead sentence, below:
 * Leads with the word "sail" and succinctly describes the content of the article. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead: Sail parts and names or Sail parts and nomenclature 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 22:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Commentary
I'm still confused with the use of the word "parts" in this option. What are "parts"? Are gores, grommets, and reefing points parts? Is the roach or the draft of a sail a part? User:HopsonRoad 23:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a point. In a generic sense they are all "parts."  I am loathe to suggest that we merge this article with others.  Sail points and surfaces?  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 23:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that we are unclear about the scope of this article. If it's just about the sail's edges and corners, it's pretty limited. If it includes elements, such as roach and draft, then it begins to describe the sail, itself, not just the nomenclature. My feeling is that detailed descriptions of every element of a sail and its constituent parts, together with their nomenclature, could be here and have it be the "Main article" at Sail. User:HopsonRoad 23:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As they say about Chicken McNuggets, 'parts is parts.'
 * If I were king I would broaden this out to be more inclusive, not less. I also think that the template at the bottom about sailing should be reworked to group a lot more about sail trim.  But that is another issue for another forum.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 23:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur with inclusiveness. User:HopsonRoad 00:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Elements of sails"
Enter your support for this with a reason and a proposed Lead sentence, below:

"Sail terms"
Enter your support for this with a reason and a proposed Lead sentence, below:

Other alternatives
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)

"Parts of a Sail"
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)


 * 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)

True, I hadn't paid attention to that. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that observation, Akerbeltz, does that lead you to a preference, above? Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 13:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

As I commented above, the phrase "parts of sail" is used in the sailing community to specifically describe the corners and edges of a sail, and not generally the material of the sail, or any rigging attached to it. Therefore, I think that, in its current form, the article should be titled "parts of sail," and a separate article should be made for the subject of sailmaking, sail material, and or sail components. Chalexthegreat (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolution?
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? 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)
 * 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.
 * 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.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Agree. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Then how does Sail components sound? It begins with Sail and we're really talking about the constituent components of a sail. It's also two words to the current title's four. The lead could be, "Sail components include the features that define sail shape and function, plus its constituent parts from which it is manufactured." Your thoughts, User:7&6=thirteen and Akerbeltz? User:HopsonRoad 12:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

See the following dictionary definitions of "component": These are consistent with the usage in the article's title. User:HopsonRoad 15:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merriam-Webster: "a constituent part".
 * ''Dictionary.com': "a constituent part; element; ingredient."
 * English Oxford Dictionary: "A part or element of a larger whole, especially a part of a machine or vehicle".
 * 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)
 * 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)

Use of boldface
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 (the term panning is derived from panorama; the most common letter in English is e)." Unless there are objections, I plan to convert terms in this article from bf to ital. User:HopsonRoad 01:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Of note, some qualifying circumstances are covered in Redirect and Manual of Style/Text formatting. 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)

Inefficient presentation
There is a lot of redundancy in the organization of this article. I propose to order it in the following hierarchy: 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)
 * 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
 * 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.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I concur. I think the outline/list looks good.  Its good to work with a motivated editor who understands the subject matter.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:32, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert but looks good. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Watch this space for a reorganization and rewrite
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)
 * 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)

Hi User:HopsonRoad Your proposed rewrite is quite good. I think the as you have it should be divided into two, with the dividing point at the section titled construction. Chalexthegreat (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 would link to #Shape and perhaps be renamed "Shape" and Sail 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)
 * 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)

Head
Should Sail components redirect to the part in Edge or in Corner? Banak (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

Help
Why does the Sail components 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)
 * 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) <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 19:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T160836 <b style="border:1px solid #dfdfdf;color:green; padding:1px 3px;background:#FFD">Ron h jones </b>(Talk) 19:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to div col, which seems to have fixed the issue. Primefac (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

merge with Sail
Move content to sail: many sections overlap D1gggg (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Non-concur Sail is an overview article, which is fed by this article and a variety of other similar linked detailed articles. Those articles are the proper venues to develop details. Of course, highlights from each of those articles occur in Sail. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 22:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At least #Materials and #Edges #Corners should be at Sail
 * Details how to craft sails maybe kept here if they would be extended over time D1gggg (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Only because each article is rather large, with potential for further expansion. So I think a merge would make a single article that is too long. MartinezMD (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We can trim section Sail (similar to Sail)
 * ...and possibly Sail D1gggg (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion page for Sail components. Any discussion about what should happen to the Sail article should happen at Talk:Sail. User:HopsonRoad 01:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Roach (sail) and other broken redirects
Hi y'all,

While reading up on some naval history I noticed that Roach (sail) (direct link to redirect page) presently lacks a specific target at Sail components to land upon. In section Sail components this actually results in the 'roach' wikilink there just looping back to the top of the article it's placed in. In looking into this I also noticed a number of other broken redirects listed for other terms redirected to this article. A lack of a clear targets here may well be confusing to readers arriving from use of such redirects in other articles.

Seems like there are already a few editors with an established interest in working on this article and the topics which it covers so I thought I'd bring the situation to y'all's notice for consideration.

Thanks for your time and attention, --75.188.199.98 (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps relevant, I noticed the existence of Talk:Sail components/Sandbox for revision development which presently has a #Roach section but perhaps not yet sections/subsections/obvious-targets for some of the other redirect terms.


 * A side point, might it be perhaps useful to move the Talk:Sail components/Sandbox for revision development page as it stands to Sail components/Sandbox for revision development instead so that its talkpage could be used for related collaboration (copy proposals, discussion, etc.)? --75.188.199.98 (talk) 08:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Impractical legends
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)
 * 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)
 * I don't think it looks too bad, do you? -- Theoprakt (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Hmmm, I actually prefer 3! Do you find that objectionable? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

Here's my thinking, Theoprakt: I suggest that, in any case, the two illustrations should be similar in size, as shown in Treatment 3.
 * Treatment 1 is suited for in-text use, but in my opinion takes up too much space with the long legends in the captions, which crowd out other illustrations.
 * Treatment 2 is more efficient and could be placed where the current gaff-rigged example is located; but its location there is in connection with reef points. Treatment 2 mysteriously has an extra gap between the penultimate and last lines in the caption.
 * Treatment 3 would replace the "Legend" section with an "Illustrated overview" (or something like that); in which case, compactness is less important. There could be some summary text that points out the differences between a triangular and quadrilateral sail (the "head" being a corner on one and a side on the other) and the terms in common—almost everything else.

Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 12:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Referring to square sails is too limiting
Hi Wikiuser100, your recent edits pertaining to "luff" appear to apply too narrowly to a square sail. Symmetrical spinnakers are more widely used, today, and the term "luff" is not an occasional one, when referring to the windward side; nor is the windward side a luff only when the sail is close-hauled, since they are reaching sails. See, for example, The Best of Sail Trim, edited by Charles Mason and Go Dinghy Sailing by Barry Pickthall Pertaining to square sails, I would give King and Hattendorf precedence over the Oxford dictionary when it comes to nautical terms. They say that (of a square-rigged vessel), "In some seamanship manuals this (the luff), was called the weather leech". Let's find a way to accommodate this breadth of definitions. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just a drive-by editor.  Thanks for the invite to work this out, HopsonRoad.
 * I wasn't free to respond immediately yesterday, and see you went ahead on your own. The result is improved, but more confusing.  I believe that can be easily resolved by condensing the seemingly at odds parts of the definitions of leech and luff, vis-a-vis when a leech is a "luff".
 * Presently this clarification is under the definition of Luff. Preceding it is the unqualified statement under Leech that "The leech is either side edge of a symmetrical sail—triangular or square."  First, this statement does not indicate that a leech is sometimes referred to as a "luff"; second, it appears directly contradicted by the declaration "The windward leech of a spinnaker (symmetrical or not) is called the luff," directly following under the definition of Luff.
 * This confusion can be resolved by simply moving the relevant content of when a leech is a "luff" from Luff to Leech, then adding some brief associating statement under the definition of Luff, along the lines of "The weather leech of a four-sided sail is increasingly referred to as a "luff". (See above)"  That way the sequential reader learns when a leech is a "luff" under Leech first, then sees under Luff only reference to that exception.  Alternatively, a reader going directly to the page to learn what a Luff is will get its normal definition first, then both a brief reference to an exception and a clear redirect to a fuller explanation.
 * Fundamentally, that should do it. It remains important, however, to retain under Leech the note I provided, functionally verbatim, from the Oxford dictionary of sail, to give the traditional definition(s) as stated, which provide the etymology for the "weather leech" coming to increasingly be referred to on today's modern four-sided unstayed sails as the "luff".
 * Ping me when you've given this a go. Thanks.  Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the second set of eyes, regarding whether the text would be confusing to a reader who is not familiar with the topic. Take a look at my most recent edit and see whether we have made progress. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Only getting back to this now. Wow, big edit, then lots more.  Much more confusing.  My head spinning.  Just can't get invested right now in trying to make this all clearer, not less so.  Too many angels dancing on the head of a pin.  I gotta walk.  At least we tried. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 12:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

On a hollow foot
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): 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;...."
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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.

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)