Jump to content

Talk:Paraglider

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Work on article start Oct. 3, 2011

[edit]

References and furthering will continue daily by at least this editor. Talk is welcome.Joefaust (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sections-needed talk

[edit]

For those wishing to work together on this article, this section is invited for sorting the sections yet needed. Video, materials, drawings, images, quality of references, NPOV, verifiable by reference, logic,

  • Distinguish from non-gliding kite systems.

A paraglider is not a kite. It is a "flexible glider", "flexible wing" or "glider": Rogallo, 1960, http://www.australian-hang-gliding-history.com/pass-word-only/reports/TN%20D-443.pdf 88xxxx (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proper subset of gliders, That is easy; all paragliders are gliders. There are gliders that are not paragliders. So, paragliders are a proper subset of glider superset.

A paraglider is a subset of gliders. Agreed. 88xxxx (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragliders are a proper subset of kites; paragliders are kites; there are some kites that are not paragliders.

No it is not. A paraglider is not a kite. It is a "flexible glider", "flexible wing" or "glider": Rogallo, 1960, http://www.australian-hang-gliding-history.com/pass-word-only/reports/TN%20D-443.pdf 88xxxx (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some paragliders are hangliders; Paraglider (hang glider) This will probably best stay a section in this article; however, there has been noteworthy poor recognition of what the FAI actually recognizes, that in the popular sport paraglider sector, all of the sport paragliders are actually hang gliders of the paraglider sort; then there are classes of hang gliders that are not paragliders at all. The design and safety issues have some remarkable distinction followed by expert between the paraglider hang glders and non-paraglider hang gliders. This matter should be referenced carefully and written to get high clarity for readers.

For competition purposes only, paragliders are classified as hanggliders. This is nothing to do with the definition of the glider. This is competition/scoring related details that do not in any way relate to the equipment definition, it relates to paragliding the sport/pastime. 88xxxx (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some hang gliders are not paragliders; this is to be given references that illustrate how some noteworthy hang gliders do not meet the essential parts of a paraglider.

This is information that should be on the hangglider page and has nothing to do with the definition of paragliders. 88xxxx (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Applications of paragliders could become an article itself, as there is a large noteworthy literature on varie applications for paragliders in play, recreation, art, photography, entertainment, police work, national security, commerce, industry, Paraglider (applications) Joefaust (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page should redirect to paragliding a page which covers the uses of paragliders. 88xxxx (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You and Jontyla have consisting blocked letting Paragliding article to be broad spectrum for applications; the narrow sport and recreation target that you press so strongly has shown to balk at including non-sport and non-recreation uses of paraglider. Let is be clear also: there are non-flying machine paragliders that do not fit in Paragliding article. Art, sculpture, digital objects in code, and other objects that are paraglider.
That you do not know your sport system as a kite is your matter; but many in the sport know they are kiting on the ground and kiting in the air and that their body is part of the kite. The "ground kiting" is big clue to this matter where both feet during ground kiting frequently leave the ground and return; gliding the kite paraglider is nothing new: Paraglider (gliding kite).

Images are needed for the article

[edit]

Images are needed to illustrate versions of paraglider. I am with just small coding practice in WP to install images; I have done it and will do more. Others are invited to install images that illustrate the article's contents. Joefaust (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is called a paraglider and there are plenty of images on the paragliding page. Where this page used to redirect to (and still should in my opinion). Duplication of effort, suggest WP:REDIR 88xxxx (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is called a hangglider and the page will, no doubt, have images. Inaccurate description. 88xxxx (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as all paragliders are hang gliders (manned or not); but they are still paragliders. But the single tether airframed paraglider are of many sorts in the literature, not all manned. Take an Allison Sled kite with two-line bridle going to single tether to a payload set say 100 m below the wing and let such go off a mountain or hill or during a thermal and watch: presto one gets a glider that is a kite that is gliding, yet this known example of simple toy paragliders of single tether to its essential falling mass payload is common yet important. Consider those bombs balloon-sent from Japan to USA; a similar terrorist abuse of unmanned paragliders using single tethered wings could cause huge panic in a city if those paragliders were dropping bio-toxins while gliding across the city skies. A disambiguation page is needed for "paraglider".Joefaust (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are toys. IMHO there should not be a section about toys on such a page. I would find it amusing to see an image of childs toy on the 747-400 page. 88xxxx (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then such should perhaps move you to support the disambiguation for "Paraglider" as the world should not be denied of important matter about toy paragliders. And small unmanned scientific non-toy paragliders which are a realm in itself that helped bring on the sport systems you use in your sport life. Then perhaps you will support Paraglider (scientific scale models) for handling the huge literature involved in such field. Special care for Reynolds numbers, fixture in wind tunnels, analysis, papers, news, significance, results, decisions, investment ...all noteworthy aspects of scientific scale model paragliders. Joefaust (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toy and hobby and r/c and powered avocation paragliders play a huge role in society; such prepares scientists, future sportsmen, future aeronautical engineers, gives rest to engineers and others, and provide a foundation for testing designs for manner versions. The toy of Rogallo spawned much of what you experience in your manned sport paragliding by significant influence over the years. A disambiguation page for Paraglider would permit the world to be served with articles that hold these important dimensions of paraglider. Your corner of sport manned paragliding is not the full picture; WP aims to give knowledge. Absenting the toy sphere of paraglider would be sad. Paraglider (toy)Joefaust (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The following are proposed articles that are yet in red link status:

[edit]

Now that this is a disambiguation page, please don't forget to fix the incoming links so they point to the appropriate article. This tool makes the job easier. Thanks, Certes (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will study; as yet, I do not know what it means to "fix" "incoming links" "so they point" "to the appropriate article". I will come back tomorrow or so to see if I can figure out how to participate in the housekeeping. Thanks, Certes. Joefaust (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Joefaust, thank you for your interest and sorry for not replying faster. Ideally each link in another article which points to paraglider would point directly to one of the articles listed on this page, e.g. hang gliding. I see that this is difficult here, so maybe a disambiguation page isn't the best format for paraglider, and this page should instead be an article about the broad concept instead. There's a standard template for that: {{dabconcept}}. Perhaps we should put that into the article and see what other people think. Certes (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this can't be a disambiguation page. An AfD closed with this as a speedy redirect. That means that there must be consensus first that a dab is better than the redirect. Bold editing can't overrule the result of the AfD discussion. Especially since it appears that a number of users are arguing that many of the things on the list don't even meet standard definitions of a paraglider. While you normally don't need sources for dab pages, because there is a clear debate here, we're going to need to see reliable sources that explicitly state that each of those linked pages is a paraglider (please put those sources here, on talk). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toward having "Paraglider" be a disambiguation page

[edit]

I have opened this section for talk toward having "Paraglider" be a disambiguation page in order to serve WP readers best. Here are some talking points of why a WP reader searching "paraglider" should not be automatically redirected to just one of the many sectors of the "paraglider" universe, that is not just sport,recreation "Paragliding":

  • The NASA paragliders are not recreation and not sport paragliders. Paresev

I have many more line items to offer in this discussion, but am now shy of being called down for saying too much. More will be given if the one line item seems insufficient to a posting contributor of this discussion. Joefaust (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

then paraglider becomes the article on the aircraft and the sporting activities are covered in a section called "use". Should the sport section start to overwhelm the article it gets a subarticle. No need for disambiguation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Joe, the more the merrier. The Paresev is not a paraglider. As you must surely know, having obviously studied their history more than most, NASA renamed the entire design concept "parawing" after a short period of time. It was only during their infancy that these designs had the word paraglider in their name. No problem, my wife's car has "Golf" written on the back, but it is by no means anything to do with a sport involving a stick, a ball and a long walk. A name is not a definition. Even the description by both NASA and the paresev wikipage, which you probably were involved in editing, describe it as fundamentally different from a modern paraglider. In fact NASA describe it as "Developed to study ways of returning Gemini and Apollo spacecraft to Earth using a hang-glider-type wing" (Ref: http://www1.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/ps/88654main_H-2216.ps ). But here's the killer Joe... they made one(1.0), back in 1961. Yes, one! If a group of engineers design a concept aircraft, build one and call it a Jumbo Paragliding Jetski Donot Wing, it does not guarantee its suitability for either the Paraglider, Jumbo Jet, Jetski or Donut wikipages. A paraglider is a glider as described on the paragliding page and by Rogallo ( http://www.australian-hang-gliding-history.com/pass-word-only/reports/TN%20D-443.pdf ). 88xxxx (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold, I think you should start a discussion on the hangglider page for disambiguation, now that is clear that the designer (NASA) describe the paresev as a "hang-glider-type-wing". Let's face it, they even have a photo of the Paresev on the page! Let us know how you get on. 88xxxx (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The parawing is the wing. The parafoil is the wing. The wing itself does not a glider make. A glider needs payload and in these cases tethers to the hung payload. The glide wing of Barish is the wing. The wings sit unable to be gliders; to be gliders those wings: parawing, parafoil, glide wing, need payload either integrated in the wing or hung below either rigidly or by tethers. The wing is not the issue. The issue is the glider and in particular the paraglider. The engineer knew that the wing itself was not the glider of intent, so they integrate the wing concept into a glider and ended with paraglider. Some sloppy language was used by reporters and defaulted sometimes to the term for just the wing when they were commenting of the glider. The glider was sometimes enhance with a power unit; when the power unit was off, then the glider remained operating. The Rogallo wing does not fly; the Rogallo wing with a payload tethered lets the Rogallo wing be involved with the stream for the inflation needed; the payload and tether set is essential for "glider" to be effected. Rogallo himself taught such in his patent. The Paresev program had kite and had glider and had paraglider; and the literature is robust on this matter; the world was blasted strongly with paraglider; and the same flow remains strong in patent literature just because the NASA paraglider was so strongly having paraglider in its many forms; the people skilled in the arts and a large part of public literature exposed the difference between the base airfoil and the structures and devices that used the airfoil. WP readers deserve to see the full reliable structure of terms that distinguish airfoil from a craft that integrates the airfoil. The Paresev is a program or project with flying machines in the program; the gliders of that program were robustly called paragliders. All of this does not prevent you from knowing that the product you might buy from sport supplier for your sport use is referred to as a paraglider; but give room to the historically robust other matter. Joefaust (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I follow about 20% of your rambling there. Can you back any of this with citations or references or is this just your opinion? 88xxxx (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FURTHER then for disambiguation: * Atair Insect A person on this article clicking paraglider is lowly served by redirecting them to sport and recreation; rather a choice of paraglider items would be great, especially toward the machine itself which is yet poorly served in WP. There will be other military paraglider systems having pages in WP. LEAPP uses the paraglider; when engine is off for soaring or quiet or lack of need, then simple paraglider remains. Joefaust (talk)

I studied Shakespeare some 20 years ago, honest! Clearly did I not pay as attention much as did you, sir! I am at a loss as to what you are talking about here. 88xxxx (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Atair Insect is a Powered paraglider. A motorised paraglider! One minute you say "The wing itself does not a glider make" and the next you say exactly the opposite. One minute your argument is that we must include the payload as part of the paraglider to help with your tethering story, as a paraglider is not defined by the wing itself, but the entire package. The next you are saying that we must not include the payload if it has a motor? I am at a loss here. Maybe edit the Powered paraglider page? You do seem to be trying desperately to fit random facts around your own preconceptions of what you want to be true. 88xxxx (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further for disambiguation: In draft: Paragliding (police work) Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Paragliding (police work). The flying machine paraglider is used in police work; people reading in that article on a wikified "paraglider" ought not be pushed necessarily into sport and recreation paragliding. Joefaust (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To 88:xxxx The paraglider of the flying machine sort is a hang glider, is a glider, is a kite, is an aircraft. The name, as you say, is not the definition. In these regards, the mechanical principles involved define the mechanical machine involved. But there are some kites that are not paragliders. There some gliders that are not paragliders. There are some aircraft that are not paragliders. But every sport paraglider intended in the sport close to you is a kite and is a hang glider. The disambiguation page for Paraglider should give WP readers the Kite types as paragliders are an important kite type. And similar for seeing Glider. Joefaust (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Police use of paragliders should go under Police aircraft along with helicopters etc first rather than as a separate article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A paraglider is not a kite, it is a glider (Rogallo, 1960, http://www.australian-hang-gliding-history.com/pass-word-only/reports/TN%20D-443.pdf ). The rest is either irrelevant or something logically derived from your initial invalid assumption. 88xxxx (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Miss. Paraglider is a kite, the sort of kite that is gliding. Paraglider Kiting With Preset Hands by Jeff Greenbaum

http://www.paragliding-tales-and-reviews.com/paraglider-kiting.html Learn "paraglider kiting" Common language supported by activity in the sport and recreation of paragliding. Rogallo's kite patent held the gliding claims. Barish kited and stayed kiting all the way down that first hill. Woglom observe that in downdrafts that his parakites glided about with no net tension on the ground space, but he remarked about the weight of the tether bringing on the gliding. There are kites that are not in gliding mode and there are kites that are in gliding mode. The wing itself does not know if it gliding or not; the wing just keeps doing its thing because of the tension in the tether set; take away the tension of the tether set and get a wing that is a glider that is not a kite. Day 1 of aerodynamics. Joefaust (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!! I see your error now. Your reference: "Paraglider Kiting With Preset Hands" (on a website call "paraglider tales" !!!) is referring to the verb "to kite" which is an activity that paraglider pilots undertake when on the ground, an integral part of training. You are trying to use this as a justification for describing the wing as a kite (a noun). For example: I have a "car" and I can "drive" it. The "car" is not a "drive". A "drive" is a place to park a car in front of ones house. 88xxxx (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A link to the article will be placed by some contributor soon. Paragliding in police work has proven to be a stark noteworthy topic all its own with its own special needs. An exchange wiki will be placed too.
Paraglider is not paragliding. And paragliding is not paraglider. The disambiguation page would point to choices of articles that use paragliders; one of the articles that uses paragliders is the sport and recreation article (it would help if a new article was created Paragliding (sport and recreation), as the concept "paragliding" is a general concept meaning using paragliders. And using goes beyond sport and recreation. Joefaust (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All of you are starting to get on my nerves. Stop arguing about what is and is not a paraglider based on your own personal definitions. Get reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been providing reliable papers with my comments as links. 88xxxx (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section topic: toward having Paraglider page as disambiguation, I continue in good faith at my best respect for all I can read from WP and admin Qwyrxian: * Paraglider (the pilot) The pilot of manned paraglider is frequently called "paraglider" (easy sources in news). The pilots who paraglide are sometimes noteworthy according to WP standards. Who are the noteworthy paragliders (pilots)? When a paraglider is arrested and becomes a news note, then that paraglider is noteworthy. Superdell is a noteworthy paraglider. World champions are noteworthy. A disambiguation page would point to articles in WP about people who are paragliders.

  • Not yet sure of "sources" 1, 2, 3. Here is from very large paragliding center: "inflate it over your head like a kite" ...they have a keen eye, so like that the object is actually a kite. The disambiguation page on "paraglider" would point to kite types. Joefaust (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further for disambiguation: * Paraglider is a foundation for the attachment of a paramotor. Attaching a paramotor has options way beyond recreation and sport paragliding. WP readers should not be controlled to go to just a narrow view of where one might attach a paramotor. Joefaust (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since hang gliders has a long history of having paragliders as a sort of hang gliders, there is some inclusion in powered hang gliding Powered hang glider that is appropriate. Hang glider paragliders sometimes get powered. Disambiguation page would give WP readers option to explore this matter. This would follow WP guide of giving DUE. Joefaust (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paraglider is a word in itself. It has a history and impact on human discourse. And beyond sport and recreation "paragliding" which is a separate matter. WP is not a dictionary, but Wikionary would short readers if it pointed just one of many targets. As Newbie I do not know yet whether Disamb pages can show a link to WikiBooks, Wikitionary or not. ??? Joefaust (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are non-aircraft paragliders. Art. Digital program objects. Sculpture. Such objects and collections and pieces are featured in and out of the sport of paragliding. A disambiguation page could point to noteworthy pieces. The video game industry has significant concern on code. Flight simulators have objects called paraglider, which code represents what is understood as a cartoon or various mimic of life-like scenes for play, amusement, serious flight training of paragliders (pilots) to fly manned paragliders (the gliding kite flight machine). Joefaust (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article Cloud suck has reference to paraglider, and such certainly is not restricted to sport and recreation paragliding; leave the matter open for military and commercial and scientific paragliders. Cloud suck has been recognized as a resource in kite energy where paragliders are employed. Let WP readers reach the choices. Joefaust (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Powered paragliding page use of "paraglider" should lead to an option to get at the mechanical gliding kite MACHINE, not a redirect to "Paragliding". Options would show on a disambiguation page; perhaps the reader on powered paragliding would want to know about the paraglider devices developed at Ryan Aeronautical powered paraglider. Ryan XV-8 (Flex-wing prototype) used the NASA paraglider in the Fleep. Such matter is a permanent part of aviation. Joefaust (talk) 03:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang gliding organizations throughout the world knew and still know "paraglider" as simply one sort of hang glider. FAI has paraglider as a device that is a form of hang glider, Class 3. Self-Soar Association in its Low & Slow pioneering having sport and recreation paragliders as a form of hang gliding. An option on a disambiguation page would do justice to 50 years of that flow for paraglider for a choice pointing to hang glider and hang gliding. Blotting out history by a clique of 20 years effort to form new language in a narrow POV to recreation and sport paragliding of 2011 is not purpose of WP, as I understand it. Give readers the full historical options on a disambiguation page. Joefaust (talk) 03:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too long, did not read. 88xxxx (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the guidance at WP:DISAMBIGUATION- where a term "type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing the broad concept, and not a disambiguation page" covers the issue. Paragliders are "aircraft" that use parafoils. I would image coverage of parafoil history and physics to be chiefly covered at parafoil/parawing, however any article on the application of the parafoil would need a brief coverage of the important points and reference to the article. The (sport of) paragliding might be based on the commonest form of paraglider and so paraglider could redirect to it per WP:COMMONNAME but a hatnote of the template:Other uses form could direct to a paraglider (disambiguation) page where other things known as "paraglider"s could be named. However the disambiguation page would not be a catchall for every article with paraglider/paragliding in its title - eg "history of paragliders" would be a link from paraglider or the #See also section of related articles.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joefaust, I don't know what to tell you. You're not doing what I asked, and simply confusing the issue more. I will try one more time a different way: if someone were to type "paraglider" into our search box, is there any reasonable chance that their desired goal is anything other than the equipment used in the article we currently call Paragliding? And can you produce any citations to support that? You're talking about doing justice to history and other stuff which, frankly, has nothing to do with Wikipedia.
Stop giving us a novel every time you post. Instead, pick one and only one article besides paragliding, and tell us why someone typing "paraglider" might have actually intended to go to that article rather than "paragliding". Provide a source to show that the term "paraglider" is used in that one. One target, one source. If the rest of us think we need more to understand what you're saying, then we'll ask.
I'm sorry to sound harsh, but I have found that the only way to deal with editors who provide massive walls of texts is simply to refuse to meet them on their terms. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Couple of clarifying questions: 1. Are you going to allow development of non-sport and non-recreation forms of paragliding in the article "Paragliding"? I was under the impression that you are going to keep pressing to allow only development of recreation and sport paragliding to the understanding of 88:xxxx and Jontyla. Clarifying that seems important. 2. I for one very many times put in "paraglider" and am misguided to a narrow POV of an activity; I have wanted many things, but sticking politely to your guide just posted, I will mention just one: I wanted to know if WP knew about the paraglider itself as a machine as published world around that featured the four positively inflated beams, two for leading edge, one for cross bracing, and one for keel. Joefaust (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One point at a time, that's a good idea. Joe, have another go at 2) please. I don't know what you're talking about, and quite how you expect someone outside our small niche to understand you is beyond me. Based on most of your previous input, I'm assuming this is some flying machine from your historical studies and that you believe this justifies disambiguation or something? 88xxxx (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself posted recently a photograph on the matter: http://www.ninfinger.org/models/vault2006/Gemini%20paraglider%20photos/paraglider%2006.jpg Joefaust (talk) 23:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I did post a link to that photograph, but to demonstrate the difference to anyone outside paragliding looking in, that what you are referring to as a paraglider is clearly not. I think it works pretty well as an example. 88xxxx (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • At motivation from Paragliders, I bring the similar disambiguation notes here:

Paragliders may refer to:

Hence, disambiguation of Paraglider and Paragliders is appropriate. And not send all reader interests just to sport and recreation manned paragliding when there is a larger world than that. FORM DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. Joefaust (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm losing the will to live here, and I simply cannot be bothered to cut/paste my responses to these same incorrect definitions again on this page too. I'll simply quote User:Qwyrxian above: "All of you are starting to get on my nerves. Stop arguing about what is and is not a paraglider based on your own personal definitions. Get reliable sources." 88xxxx (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are focused on whether "Paraglider" should or should not be disambiguation page.Joefaust (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And that is my point, you have no reliable references for items in your list above to show that these are paragliders, you only provide links to the WP pages that you have heavily edited to call them paragliders. Self-reference is not citation. 88xxxx (talk) 08:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Associated with "Paragliders" are designers, namely for one: Bruce Goldsmith. His result could be used beyond sport/recreation. His designing certainly is not "paragliding". Give the readers a chance to know about real people that design paragliders, an activity that is not "paragliding." Joefaust (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought from a casual passer-by with no specialised knowledge of paragliding, just like your typical Wikipedia reader. Disambiguation pages are for homonyms, like crown (headgear) vs crown (British coin) vs crown (dentistry). At a stretch they're for polysemes, like mole (animal) vs mole (espionage). Paraglider isn't either of those; all possible interpretations are minor variants of the core meaning of "glider with a payload tied below a big wing". In other words, as GraemeLeggett says above, it's a broad concept article per WP:DABCONCEPT (well, broad enough to cover all paragliders). Whether it's called Paraglider, Paragliding or split between two articles with those names is a decision I'll leave to the subject experts. Certes (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. "Paraglider" goes beyond the sport flying machine. Also, disam pages go to "associated" level, as said in the guide. Joefaust (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, paragliders have important non-sporting applications. But that's not a reason for a dab page. If you'll forgive the WP:OTHERSTUFF, we don't disambiguate Automobile (commuting), Automobile (shopping), Automobile (just cruisin'), ... Certes (talk) 12:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looking at that list above, Joefaust, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a disambiguation page is. A disambiguation will never point "up-category". Okay, I need an example...how about Toyota (disambiguation). If you take a look at that page, you'll see a number of topics--people named Toyota, sports teams with that name, the various companies, etc. However, what you will not see is a link from to automobile or car manufacturer. So, in this case, you say above that a "paraglider" is a type of "hang glider". Now, first of all, you have to substantiate that with references. But even if you did, the theoretical page Paraglider (disambiguation) would contain links to Hang glider, because, if you are correct, "hang glider" is a super-category for "paraglider".
Additionally, dab pages don't have links to things that are "legitimately associated" or to specific subtypes. For example, look at Car (disambiguation). Cars are, of course, legitimately connected to internal combustion engine, air pollution, traffic, but no links to those exist on that page. Instead, those concepts appear as normal links or see also links inside of appropriate pages. Additionally, there are thousands of specific car brands, makes, companies, etc.; those are not linked on the dab either.
In short, everything that would be listed on Paraglider should, at a minimum, contain the word "paraglider" or be regularly called a paraglider in reliable sources. No people, no types of paragliders, no super-categories or sub-categories, etc. If some band recorded an album called "Paraglider", that would appear. If there are two or more major different types of paragliders, and we have articles on each of those, then they could occur, unless one is clearly a sub-category of the other. For instance, since Power paragliding is discussed and linked in Paragliding (I assume), then we probably don't need to dab between the two.
Finally, you keep citing WP:DABCONCEPT. That subsection is actually an argument against a dab page. If "Paraglider" is, in fact, a very broad term, then this should be an article, not a dab page. However, it seems like most people are disagreeing (here and on Talk:Paragliding) with your notion of how broad the concept is.
And, finally, if there are types of paragliding other than sport paragliding, then they should be discussed at Paragliding, even if that's just a short discussion with a link to a "Main" article. That, however, is a point to be discussed on Paragliding, not here. Here, the only question is this: are people who type paraglider into the search box almost certainly searching for the info currently covered at Paragliding? If so, a redirect is correct. If most people who type "paraglider" are looking for "paragliding", but not all, then this should be a redirect and we should create Paraglider (disambiguation). If it is legitimately unclear what a person may be looking for, then we should have a dab page here. So far, all of the evidence seems to point to the first. Other than your own idiosyncratic definitions, some misreadings of sources, and similar problems, you haven't really demonstrated any use of the term "paraglider" to be a broad term with multiple meanings. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. What would be the rationale to prefer sending people to a sport activity that uses paraglider powered only by gravity over an article that uses paraglider powered by gravity and an added engine? A redirect goes to one article. Ask paramotor people and powered paraglider people where "paraglider" ought to be directed. Jontyl and 88:xxxx and I are from the non-engine space. Readers seeing powered paragliders might be served for a dab on "paraglider". 2. How are you handling the NASA paraglider in the dab analysis? 3. In the flying machine area for "paraglider" for model aircraft readers around the world who may never choose to fly their bodies, will WP want to honor their interest by giving dab for UAV paraglider that would deal with the broad world of unmanned paragliders? I feel really odd going for the flying machine paraglider in search and being forced to see a big push for a specific manned sporting activity; where is the attention on the paraglider itself as a flying machine (at any scale that has applications from tiny to huge)? 4. From what you wrote, Paraglider by Yves Deruyter, would not be adequate as it is a music piece but not an album. Joefaust (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Would (external link) Paragliders, the music project be reason for dab on Paraglider and/or Paragliders (and since some typos in that industry had the singular noted, paraglider) with items in the project as "paraglide")? Many published versions and variations of product hit the market and got attention? Joefaust (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. The dab page Glider seems like it could be a guide for our discussion here. It has sections and many items in the sections; and it includes animals too. It even points to paragliders with a narrow POV defining clause, as e.g. there are definitely noteworthy paragliders that are not manned and not foot launched, etc. Joefaust (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Not up category? Well, paraglider, say, as one type: is flying machine (and RS, certainly not necessarily at all manned). Then up category would be the forcing a particular use, say sport activity that uses only a certain kind of paraglider, the kind being fit for foot launch of one or two persons. That is a up direction, it seems. Differently is lateral direction of dab where then one would look at the machine itself, the machine small, the machine big, the aerodynamics of the flight of the machine, etc. And lateral to project names. Joefaust (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. There are over 1,000 members of a Yahoo group that focus just on unmanned paragliders and their mechanical variants; they may be WP visitors and might like to see Paraglider (UAV). Name of the group: allrcparaplaneandparagliders
In brief
1) a hatnote like template:otheruses, or the "See also" section or a section describing adaptation of the paraglider for a motor
2) if it doesn't have paraglider in the name, it doesn't go on a dab page for "paraglider" (if one was to exist) - the same way Supermarine Spitfire doesn't appear on fighter (a disambig page)
3) wikipedia does not honour interests - it covers notable topics.
4 & 5 if notable it would be mentioned whether a "single", an album, or a full-blown opera. (
6) I refer you to the explanation of the purpose of dab pages above - sub topics are not linked in a disambig list
7) no idea what you're going on about, could you re-phrase?
8) they might - they might not. Then again they may know more about the subject than the general readership of wikipedia, and are not the target audience.
GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise?

[edit]

I have a possible compromise, and I can't believe it didn't occur to me before. It seems like there's a pretty clear consensus that, in general, most people indicate (and have provided evidence to support) the idea that by far the most common use of the term "paraglider" is to refer to the topic currently covered at Paragliding. In that case, until such time as there is a need for an actual article at Paraglider (which might occur in the future is "equipment" is overwhelmed at Paragliding) this would continue to be a redirect to Paragliding. However, we could start a page called Paraglider (disambiguation). We would put a hatnote at the top of Paragliding which says "Paraglider redirects here. For other uses of paraglider, see Paraglider (disambiguation)." This is falls under the instructions at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Then, Paraglider (disambiguation) could provide links to other topics that use the term "paraglider". However, it would be limited only to those things whose articles already discuss them as being paragliders; so, for instance, kite would not be a valid entry into that dab page.

Would others accept this compromise? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Almost on same wavelength, but with some respectful differences. Without seeing your new section here, I started for bringing to attention here: User:Joefaust/List of articles mentioning "paraglider". For DUE, though, in difference, very many kiting matters in sport manned and non-sport manned and unmanned has "paraglider" involved. For DUE and NPOV, the involvement of kite and kiting is very much involved with paraglider from patents, deployment, practice, launching, and indeed in the very core of paraglider. In our page discussion here we are yet a small collection of contributors; there is IMHO a high loading of those not yet distinguishing the machine from the use of the machine, hence the thrust to sport paragliding; such discounts UAV paragliders that has been throughout the pertinent history and growing both in hobby and industry. For you to except kite would obliterate DUE as Woglom onward and strongly in the modern hang gliding world and UAV paraglider-using world that has kite and kiting very much involved with paraglider. Joefaust (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly, sincerely telling me that there is even a single person in the history of using Wikipedia ever who typed "paraglider" into the search box and meant to reach Kite? Honestly? Because that's what dab pages are for--to help people find the actual article they were looking for. Also, I note that Kite mention "paraglider" only lead (and in the infobox, which is a special situation. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he does. He believes it's true !!! 88xxxx (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Qwyrxian, for very many root causes in the visitors' interests.
"Look, they are up in a kite! That's a paraglider. Confused. Go to Wikipedia and look up paraglider or kite."
"At school, studying kiting and instructor notes the kiting of the NASA paraglider. Go to WP look up paraglider or kiting." And find astronauts who were kited. Serve the world with NPOV. Benjamin Franklin was the moving anchor of a kite; such is part of the root of a huge industry; kites with the part mooring that moves: hand moves, running and jumping human and resulting kiting and gliding. No problem. Rich history. SkySails today ... near billion-dollar single business doing the across-pond kiting as Benjamin Franklin exhibited. Let the schoolchildren that visit WP know beyond narrow POVs; they visit with open minds; sending them just to buy cups and tee-shirts from sport paragliding is somewhat like inundating school children with FOOD: candy.
"Reading in World Paragliding Association which is a growth from Self-Soar Association and the K.I.T.S.A., etc. for 50 years of serving the interests of paragliders ...seeing kite as the machine of paraglider, etc., entities that served the rooting text of modern free-flight has kite. Look up paraglider and find kite and be in that DUE world; no problem."
Finding Woglom and parakite with gliding parakites and fugitive kites via kite would serve many paraglider interests. Such serves even the sport paragliding sector which uses a tight sub-sector of paragliders for action. And such activity is advancing as it sees its basis in kite. Should be helpful to see paraglider in kite article in WP. Joefaust (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand where you are coming from Qwyrxian. On the surface it sounds like a good course of action to take, but the problem we will face is that Joefaust will, no doubt, continue to treat the disambiguation page as he has every other page he has edited since I stumbled across his changes a few weeks ago. He will, I'm sure, edit in everything that he considers a paraglider. A huge list that lacks any consensus. You have seen what he has included on the existing pages given a free hand. He will attempt to add all sorts of kite-based applications as paragliders, and we will be forced to start the whole debate process again. Exactly what has happened on the paragliding & this page will happen again, and I for one, do not wish to lose more time on it. He has a vested, private interest in describing a paraglider (among many other things) as a kite, although those in opposition to those views have never held that against him. We just disagree. I don't see the issue as how we put links into other (very) fringe uses of such things, the issue is that there is a single user with a distorted world view of what that includes, and he has no shame about what he will do to get his way forced through. 88xxxx (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no vested interest; all my action is hobby. It is you 88:xxxx that has a business in paraglider sport materials; I do not. The page here is not about me. DUE will be generated by any contributor in the world according to WP guides. A narrow POV is anti-WP. A neutral POV is what is a target of WP. Joefaust (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC) Joefaust (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do have a vested interest, as I do. On my part, if you are referring to some t-shirt designs that sell on the Cafepress print-on-demand website, then yes that is the extent of my interest, but it is not a business. It is Cafepress's business, I design for them and receive 10%. My vested interest, however, is stopping someone (you) from messing up the WP entries of the sport I love with your own distorted world view and your idea to rename everything associated with it. Honestly Joe, that's why I'm here. I believe you are wrong, and I am willing to spend a few minutes each day to point that out on WP. There is no forum ganging up on you, no-one asked me to come here. I simply believe you are wrong. Regardless, WP doesn't care about either of us, I could be Bill Gates commenting on Windows7 for all they care, they want reliable references and a consensus of opinion for what is said. Period. That's why WP has stood the test of time. 88xxxx (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The page here is not about me": This entire mess is all about you. Mainly, because RM is too smart to do it himself. You might have noticed he backed away from commenting here almost 2 weeks ago when it became obvious the game was up as, no doubt, he prefers not to go down with the ship. Much easier to back off onto his own website and shout through the usual bullhorn. No problem there, I like that. No-one reads it. 88xxxx (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point still stands. I believe User:Joefaust will edit any proposed disambiguation page as he has every other page he has edited. His edits would, I believe, be without consensus and we will end up with the same mess we've had both here, on the paragliding page and elsewhere. 88xxxx (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That point is irrelevant. We don't decide which pages should or should not exist based on what some editors might do with them. If JoeFaust edits in violation of our policies, or consensus, or whatever, there are ways to solve that problem. By that logic, we wouldn't have articles any highly controversial topic like Abortion or Palestine since those will obviously cause bitter, unpleasant fights and attract editors who aren't editing in good faith. Again, it all comes back to whether or not some people might type "paraglider" into the search box and actually want something other than paragliding. Even if that percentage is small (so long as it is not trivially small), then the dab should exist. Note that this is true whether there are 2 things on the dab list, or 15.
And 88xxxx, if you are here to stop someone from "messing up articles on the sport you love", you need to rethink your own involvement. It is very clear that even though Joefaust has some radical ideas on what paragliding is and what is important about it, that the current state of articles on paragliding (especially the main article) is quite bad. While you accuse Joefaust of wanting to turn the articles into dire warning against paragliding, the article right now reads like a cross between a promotional and a how-to piece. I'm actually hoping that I can drop full protection on that article soon so that interested editors can get involved in actually improving it. That will likely involve the removal of a lot of unencyclopedic info and the addition of info about other types of paragliding than sport paragliding (though consensus hasn't yet determined if that belongs in a new article or in the main article). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your logic, fair enough. And I think we all agree the article as it stands is not good and does need links to some of the things Joefaust has brought up. But that is relatively minor compared to some of the editing that he has done. A paraglider is a kite, right? How long do editors usually last when confronted with people who do not have consensus but who continue to edit regardless? I ask, because I will just give up, let's face it, life is too short. And WP will be left with a minority viewpoint and a non-encyclopaedic entry, and both paragliding and WP will be the worse for it, in my opinion. I could mail a couple of pilot friends who could take over trying to keep the page from such editing, I suppose, maybe they can put up with it for a month or so. 88xxxx (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paraglider&oldid=457112512"