Talk:Water skiing

Linkage
Article was linked this week in the quiz portion of the website for PRI's Whad'Ya Know?. Z4ns4tsu 13:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Statistics
I've removed the statistics from this article and moved them to World water skiing champions, as it's rather long and unwieldy. User:Avililui (talk • contribs), this page will need some heavy editing to make it clear what competition these results are from. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 15:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Added reference for Show Ski section, message says unverified claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VegasMirage (talk • contribs) 23:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * A quick summary on getting up may be nice. Could use pointers on how to lean (forwards and backwards) could be a good addition.


 * On February 1, 2007 someone suggested that Water Ski Racing be merged with Water skiing.

No Way! Waterskiing and water ski racing are totally different! Keep them seperate.

As with barefoot skiing, wakeboarding and kneeboarding, water ski racing is a very specific type of water skiing, as defined by the official world governing body of water skiing - the International Water Ski Federation. If any one of these types is merged with water skiing, they should all be merged.

If Water Ski Racing would be merged with Water skiing along with barefoot skiing, wakeboarding and kneeboarding, the topic would become rather large.

Regards - Robbie Llewellyn


 * The entire last paragraph under Show Skiing was removed - it was entirely incoherent.
 * Read: "Anything to entertain a crowd-Half meter planks with high wrap bindings allowed similar rotations (See Freestyle jumping), with obvious difficulty. Kneeboards, discs, or tubes can be used. Show skiing also encompasses a team event. 1-8 skiers jumping together, or cutting under ropes of jumpers with a hundred applications."
 * It has been removed for lack of clarity and direction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmitche1 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

International Water Ski Federation Racing Communications Director

I disagree that slalom has a special meaning in the context of water skiing. Slalom means the same thing in every context: Going back and forth in a zig-zag pattern. It is just a coincidence that the slalom event in water skiing is (typically) done on just one ski. It is not correct to say someone is "slaloming" just because he/she is standing on a single ski. We should do our best to stop that incorrect usage, not promote it! Do others disagree? I guess it's the age old question of defining the language vs. reporting on how people use the language. -- Nathaniel Bogan, tournament slalom skier (Best of 3.5 @ 34/-38) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.29.100 (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "Slalom" is a movement. The rules of AWSA (USAWS) allow for the competitor to compete using two skis. It is just that the skis made especially for the Slalom movement are single skis. Thus, to say that I "slalom" means that I make that movement. To say, "hand me that 'slalom' ski" is to say that ski was made for that movement... —Preceding unsigned comment added by ToddLTX (talk • contribs) 22:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

While the article rightly focuses on the skiing, there are branches that might be mentioned in the history. Televised skiing shows in the 1960s and 1970s often included swings attached to kites, the "ski-wing", and others performing tricks with designs from John W. Dickenson and others. These water-ski sport designs branched into the modern kiteboarding and parasailing. Bwagstaff (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Deep-Water Starting
Am I the only one that deep-water starts on one ski with both my feet in the bindings, I've never thought dragging one foot behind was a good way to get up, I would think that balance would be thrown off. Jedi canuck (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While it really comes down to the individual, dragging one foot behind you does not interfere with balance as much as one would think. Properly done, the back foot acts a bit like the tail end of a ski. You can press down with your back foot, little at first obviously, and more as you speed up, and use that to make corrections as you come up out of the water.

Personally, due to the angles involved with having both feet in the bindings before you start (stuck closer to 45 degrees for a longer period of time), I find that coming out of the water this way takes more energy and strength, and balance, and horsepower. While with dragging one foot behind, allows me to slip out of the water with minimum effort, because the ski can plane off earlier. [meign - 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.80.145.80 (talk)

I start out with both my feet in the bindings as well. I would say that it requires more strength and energy, but far less balance. Depending on what you mean by "horse power", It probably takes more power from the boat for me to get up this way, but i can do it at pretty much any speed. How much is required from the boat doesn't generally matter when you deep start slaloming. Both feet in is also easier to learn, at least it was for me. Not that i'd say its trully better, afterall you can't have both feet in the binding when you do a hop dock.

File:Water skiing on the yarra02.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Water skiing on the yarra02.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on September 9, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-09-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 21:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

water ski or waterski, make up your minds
water ski or waterski, make up your minds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.236.80 (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Waterskiing is one word, however water ski is in fact two. Chantalduboisadam (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

History part of Waterskiing page is faulty plus proposed clarifications
If one compare with se.wikipedia.org and search for 'Vattenskidor'

1 se.wikipedia.org state (right or wrong) Water ski was not invented in USA and not in 1922. To water ski was commonly known in Sweden already before 1841. (I have not found out how they skied but assume after a horse parallel to the water line). One patent was filed in Sweden for water skis 1841. The first water ski competition was held approx 160 years ago. It also mention that water skiing was described in 1921 in Nordisk Familjebok (= Encyclopedia).

I could not find the patent from 1841 on the web (one has to visit Patent Verket to read it) but well another Swedish patent from 5 of April 1909, Anordning för vattenskidor (type Device for Water Skis). Reference: http://www.prv.se/spd/pdf/bRr8urZbaznSfAo8BkBrHw%3D%3D/SE32302.C1.pdf

The references seems to go in circles. Water ski Hall of fame has same errors.

My 2 cents (Clarifications): 2 Speed is measured in Km/h and line length in meters. Commonly used speed are form approx 37 up to 58 km/h in increments of 3 km/h. Youth, women and senior use max speed of 55 Km/h and men 58 Km/h. In US mph is used. The increment is denominated to 23,24,26,28,30,32,34,36 mp/h. Most boats have cruse control (for example Perfect Pass and Zero Off) that compensate for the difference.

3 In tournaments the contest would be eliminated one by one: - first increase speed for each pass through the course (not all speed are used) - Second the line would be shortened (not all line length are used) - Thirdly count of how many buoyancies has been taken. (also 1/4 and 1/2 buoyancies are counted. That is defined how far after the final one you manage to ski).

4 The line length are in Europe normally defined as the actual length in meters. In US the remaining line length is specified as the part that is taken off. Recreational skiers normally uses a 23 m (approx 75 feet) line. In slalom the starting length is 18.25 m (denominated as 15 feet off an 23m, 75 f line)

5 Error. The record is not on a 13 meter line length (a miscalculation of feet off and not used real line length). For example Jamie Beauchesne has managed 2 buoyancies 9,75m (43 off) at 58 km/h. Note that from the center line of the boat, center of the course it is 11,5 m out to the buoyancies.

Errors must be corrected. The rest is only a proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.43.115 (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Waterskiing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121007225158/http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/29/136651_tasmania-news.html to http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/29/136651_tasmania-news.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC) –   Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  02:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Adaptive waterskiing
Should I add an adaptive waterskiing (seated, amputee, and blind) section to this article, or create a stand-alone and link it in?Shoemaker.james (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Water skiing. 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/20080421022737/http://www.abc-of-skiing.com/water-skiing/history.asp to http://www.abc-of-skiing.com/water-skiing/history.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.waterskihalloffame.com/pages/Bios/Ralph%20Samuelson.htm

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) 00:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  02:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2018

 * The following is a closed 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: no consensus. See good args from both supporters and opposers to this page move, yet there is no general agreement. While the longstanding title will remain, as is usual with a no-consensus outcome editors may again attempt to rename this page after a few months. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 15:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Water skiing → Waterskiing – Dominant spelling out of "waterskiing", "water skiing" and "water-skiing" is waterskiing. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC) --Relisted.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 18:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)  --Relisting. — usernamekiran (talk)   11:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Relist comment. Members of WikiProject Water sports have been notified of this debate.  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  18:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: Text will need adjustment, and the associated categories checked (including subcats) after the rename.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per the ngrams supplied by the nominator, and per major dictionaries: Cambridge, Oxford, and Merriam-Webster. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 *  Support  Oppose per below discussion and taking the ngram back to 1950 Waterskiing (but Oppose if "Water ski" is included, which SMcCandlish assures me it's not), nonetheless, per this n-gram for the words 'water ski', as well as the n-gram listed in the nom is from 1980-2008 and includes two forms of the word-break which, when combined, outweigh the single-word form. N-grams which go back to 1940, when the word was picked up, show a different historical-use story, and again note the two word-break forms. And per Water Ski Hall of Fame and Museum, List of members of the Water Ski Hall of Fame, Water skiing at the 2014 Asian Beach Games and other similar titles, USA Water Ski, South African Water Ski Federation, Water Ski World Championships since 1949 (List of Water Ski World Championships champions), U.S. National Water Ski Championships since 1939, Masters Water Ski Tournament since 1959. The only fly-in-the-ointment is International Waterski & Wakeboard Federation, which, given the weight of the many other Wikipedia articles and real-world naming standards, apparently hasn't been accepted by the other organizations at the named links above. (EDITED on 3 March) Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:COMMONNAME based on OP's ngrams. Good call. --В²C ☎ 17:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * tentative oppose - Ngram is still very close, and I think we'd need some other more conclusive evidence. I don't like the idea of a major renaming/recategorization/reediting away from a longstanding usage without some much more solid evidence. A second main concern is that the equipment used for this sport is vastly called a "water ski", and so mixing uses could add to confusion. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The nom’s ngram doesn’t show “dominance”, doesn’t even show majority, is shows merely a plurality. More importantly of the first 10 non broken references, the spaced two word term dominates. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * They said "dominant" not "dominance". Merely being more prevalent is all that is required to be dominant (most important) with respect to claiming WP:COMMONNAME. --В²C ☎ 22:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Disagree. You appear to have a non standard dictionary. 45 - 30 - 25 does not include a dominant.  A dominant runner is much stronger than a majority winner (>50%), the noms ngram shows the proposed is not even the majority.  A mere plurality is not good enough, the ngram is not compelling, so go to quality sources, specifically the quality sources used.  Many appeared to be broken to me, but the ones I read featured the two word term prominently.  TITLECHANGES is not overcome.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be insisting on a particular definition of "dominant" that was not intended by the OP. Here are typical ones: "most important, powerful, or influential", and "in decision theory, (of a choice) at least as good as the alternatives in all circumstances, and better in some."  Anyway, what about BHG's dictionary findings of "waterskiing"? Cambridge, Oxford, and Merriam-Webster --В²C ☎ 20:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I will insist that 45 is not “dominant” over competition at 30 and 25. The majority use is NOT “waterskiing”.  Disctionaries are good, but note that they have a bias to compound words over two-word terms.  My answer was to look at uses in the quality sources for reputable others’ use.  Against that, you may argue that quality sources are biased to old sources and that there is a trend for change, but I am waiting for that argument, I haven’t seen evidence, the ngram data doesn’t indicate dramatic changes.  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Where do you get the impression that "dominant" necessitates "majority"? Dictionaries reflect usage in current quality sources. I don't see any justification to counter their usage. Anyway, this is not a primary topic determination - it's WP:COMMONNAME determination, which merely requires plurality, not majority. --В²C ☎ 22:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's leave the "dominates" points as: I take issue with the nominators strength of language exceeding the strength of the data cited, ok? The 2008 values, which are not dramatically different to the previous 50 years, are (waterskiing 75280; water-skiing 32378; water skiing	55329).  Amongst the three, these equate to 46%, 20%, 34%.  The status quo is at 34%.  The proposed at 46% is 36% (46/34-1) better.  There is a case, but it is only moderate.  It justifies a call for examining source use, but not for moving solely on the basis of the ngram data. My review of the source use is that the status quo dominates. "WP:COMMONNAME determination, which merely requires plurality, not majority"?  Sometimes you make such nonsense statements I am strongly reminded to never trust anything you say.  You do say intelligent sensible things, but interspersed is some very blinkered, narrow perspective, original nonsense.  What is a "COMMONNAME determination"?  Is it a decision-making algorithm?   "merely requires plurality, not majority"?  say what?  Who says that?  Analysing nonsense just leads to madness.  Maybe you could rewrite that to communicate what you really mean.  I will say that all three, "waterskiing", "water-skiing", & "water skiing" meet COMMONNAME easily without any apparent issue.  All three are acceptable.  The current is still well supported in quality sources.  No other use dominates, contrary to the nom's statement.  Despite some fiddling and a history merge in 2009-2010, the title has been stable since September 2001.  The nominator's case is very weakly put, doesn't speak to quality source use, and doesn't overcome WP:TITLECHANGES.  The benefits of the change do not approach the drawbacks of pointless page moves.  In addition, the strength of the related "water ski" versus "waterski" provides a CONSISTENCY reason to not move.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And sometimes you come across as being oblivious to the basic WP conventions. "COMMONNAME determination" is determining which name is most commonly used to refer to the topic in question. You know, like what WP:COMMONNAME says: "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." Of several candidates with usage in reliable sources, the one among them with a simple plurality of usage is sufficient to be determined to be the COMMONNAME; it doesn't have to have the majority of usage. --В²C ☎ 00:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * COMMONNAME prefers the most commonly used name. In reliable sources. This is great if there is a most commonly used name.  "Most", I take to mean, and I am sure I am not far out on a limb here, to mean >50% of the uses.  Note that neither the ngram, nor leading use in sources, uses the proposed more the 50% of the time.  This preference cannot be met for this topic, and that is a common outcome. Failing the above, COMMONNAME requires (requires is bit hard, recommends is a bit soft) that the title used is commonly recognised.  All three are commonly used. You appear to be arguing that "most" means a plurality.  I disagree, "most" means a majority. You are not, however, being particularly unusual, many in general speech use the term "most" loosely.  But when push comes to shove, technical beats loose speech. Your plurality is, technically, considered the Mode (statistics), it has few technical uses, and Plurality (voting) is widely recognised as a highly flawed method of decision making.  An example:  Are most M&Ms brown?  Yes or no?  The internet says M&Ms are: 30% brown, 20% yellow, 20% red, 10% orange, 10% green, and 10% blue.  Apparently you would say "yes", I would say "no".  I would ram home my position by saying that most M&Ms are not brown.  70% are not brown.  To argue that most are brown is absurd. And anyway, titling decisions should not be made on ngram data.  ngram data is not a reliable source.  It is useful, but it is not to be relied upon.  After going to the sources, and rolling in the "water ski" consistency desire, my !vote is "oppose".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Context matters. Yes, "most of the M&Ms are brown" means the majority of the M&M are brown. But the "most common M&M color is brown" means there are more brown M&Ms than any other color, a plurality, not necessarily a majority. Similarly, "most" is used in this latter plurality sense in the phrase, "most commonly used". --В²C ☎ 16:36, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Context, yes. Do most google ngram references to this topic use the term "waterskiiing"?  No.  Is "waterskiing the most commonly used term?"  Yes.  The second weaker statement is true, but weak, and too easily misused for it to be fair reading of COMMONNAME.  And again, all that is tossed aside because what matters is use in reliable sources, and google ngram is not a reliable source.  Interesting, yes, reliable, no.  Waterskiing is an acceptable alternative title alongside water skiing, but it is unjustified fiddling that doesn't cross the TITLECHANGES threshold.  Title stability is good, and title fiddling is bad.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - The term is two words, and not enough sources exist to contradict those that properly distinguish the term as such. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 09:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator, and dictionary checks by . Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. We're not the only ones pondering this question. Curiously, this article is mentioned. . --В²C ☎ 20:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting yes, but not usable by us. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * We can give it as much or as little weight as we choose, based on how sensible we find it to be, just as we do with other editors' comments in this discussion. --В²C ☎ 16:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It can't have any weight for both of two reasons: (1) it is not a reliable source; (2) it heavily references Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose somewhat reluctantly. I note water ski is a redirect but to me it still tips the balance of a very close call; waterski as a noun is just not English. Either title is fully acceptable IMO, but on balance I'd leave it as is, with a great deal of empathy for those proposing a move. Andrewa (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per SMcCandlish's reasoning and the sourcing provided by BrownHairedGirl. It meets COMMONNAME, and would be the most identifiable spelling. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per usage in recent several decades, while acknowledging that it was not always so. Dicklyon (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion
Article seems to have been moved there and back previously: - I thought we should capture that history in case it gets overwritten soon. Andrewa (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 02:16, 2 November 2015‎ Robert McClenon (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (33,280 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Robert McClenon moved page Waterskiing to Water skiing over redirect: To be consistent with lede, and more common form is two words)
 * 11:03, 19 May 2010‎ Graham87 (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (6,716 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Water Skiing to Waterskiing over redirect: revert)
 * 11:02, 19 May 2010‎ Graham87 (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (6,716 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Waterskiing to Water Skiing: history merge)
 * 22:40, 12 April 2009‎ Bka9 (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (16,484 bytes) (0)‎ . . (moved Water skiing to Waterskiing over redirect)


 * 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.