Talk:Cross constrictor knot

Notability and relation to constrictor knot

While this is an interesting knot, there are a few problems with this Wikipedia article.

The most serious it that is almost unknown and very likely fails WP:NOTABILITY. And neither this article nor the source contains any references. (Please correct me if I'm wrong about the Turkish article.) Wikipedia is not the place to publish or advertise new knots.

And although it is a binding knot with superficial similarity to the double constrictor, the so-called "cross constrictor" should probably not be considered a true constrictor variation. In particular, it requires the line to be tied in an overhand knot as the first step. This means access to at least one end of the rope is required and therefore it cannot be tied in the bight by any method. All the variations listed in constrictor knot can be tied in the bight. Several years ago an editor added ABOK #1253, a knot similar to the so-called "cross contrictor", to the constrictor article as a variation. While also superficially similar to the constrictor, #1253 starts with an "overhand hitch" and also cannot be tied in the bight. It was removed from the article on similar grounds.

If this knot does get wider exposure it would be worth considering referring to it by some other name than "constrictor" as it is just likely to cause misconception and confusion. --Dfred (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your informative opinion.

You can start this knot with a simple turn rather than with an overhand hitch. That way you can make a triple turn hitch with two crossing riding turns on the bight. This will then be a kind of cross clove hitch, i.e. with two riding turns that cross, rather than follow each other as in double clove hitch. I would not think of calling that one cross constrictor just because it is can be tied on the bight. The result will lack the half a turn around each other of two ends leaving the knot. I had the impression that ends wrapping around each other on the way out from under the bridge(s) was the defining characteristic of the constrictor family; I am surprised to read that tying on the bight is.

Do you know under which name ABOK#1253 (or ABOK#1200 which also is the same but is listed as a decorative knot) goes in Wikipedia? Or is it absent?

Cobanyastigi (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with the constrictor knot page

Done. This page may be deleted. Cobanyastigi (talk) 09:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done Klbrain (talk) 10:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]