Talk:Surf ski

Untitled

I'm inclined to merge this article and Surfski to a title of Surf ski. Google returns twice as many hits for "surf ski" as for "surfski", and the plural title of the present article seems wrong. Any other thoughts? -- Mwanner | Talk 14:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surf Skis are not Surf kayaks!

Kayak surfing is distinct from Surf skis as one is a sit on-top and the other is a closed cockpit kayak. Despite the similarity to the casual onlooker they are very different craft and require different (although similar) skills and designs.

For that matter, surf skis and sit-on-top kayaks are also different. When I have some time, I will add a section about kayaks. Jzerocsk 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These distinctions are not as cut and dried as above comments indicate. There is a great deal of crossover in the ways these different kinds of boats are used. Surfskis are generally considered to be a subset of sit-on-top kayak. Surfskis are also used for surfing. Sit-on-top kayaks are used for surfing. I believe that the distinction that needs to be made is primarily that there is a closed cockpit kayak called a "surf kayak" that is used primarily (almost exclusively?) for surfing. lostwatt 16 September 2020

Spam posting is incorrect

It seems entirely reasonable to list manufacturers of a particular good or service which is also discussed at length in a wikipedia article. IMO, the list on this page does not warrant the spam warning and it should be removed.

Let me put your information in ymy language

{{subst:Aviso referencias|Surf ski}} Yondario (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it would be a pleasure for me to translate your information to my language, which is the spanish. It seems to me that more people is being more curious about this sport and i would love to share it with them.--Yondario (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Title

I believe that the main page title spelling of "Surf ski" is dated now. I suppose this is arguable because the 2 word spelling still seems to be dominant in Australia and New Zealand which are very important areas for this sport. But for most of the rest of the world the more common spelling is now "Surfski". A majority of the top manufacturers (Nelo, Think, Epic, Huki, Carbonology, Allwave, Kai Wa'a, Nordic, Sipre, Mazu) spell it "surfski". Stellar, Vajda, Knysna, and Oceanbuit still use "surf ski". Fenn still uses "surf ski", but their sport leading fellow countrymen in South Africa at Mocke Paddling and Surfski.info spell it "surfski". The ICF that runs ocean racing world championships spells it "surfski". If nothing else, the Wikipedia spelling checker should not flag "surfski" lostwatt 16 September 2020

Additional sources

I removed a recently added reference for two reasons:

From what I could tell, it was supporting the same text as an existing reference. This needlessly expands the list of references without adding any benefit.
The name of the URL suggested that the only or at least primary purpose of adding the link was ... to add that particular link. That's called "linkspam" or "reference spam."

There are large areas in this article that are not referenced. Many of them are things that readers will take for granted or accept as "common knowledge." These do not need citations. Other sections, like the "Characteristics" section, really should have at least one reference that backs up the major elements discussed in that section. If more than one reference is needed that is okay, but if an editor can find a single reliable source, preferably one not associated with this industry, that describes the elements in this section with enough detail that readers aren't left wondering "did someone make this text up out of their imagination, or is this a real thing" that would be very beneficial.

I haven't taken the time to scan the rest of the article today, but there are probably similar sections, paragraphs, or sentences where a reader might wonder "is this really true or is someone messing with Wikipedia?" These are the parts of the article that need to be backed up by a reliable-source reference, preferably one that is independent of the subject it covers. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 16:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David, while I am not an experienced wikipedia editor, my expertise lands under the actual topic that is being discussed here: surfskis. The first reference that you left in the article addressed the specific sentence that it followed regarding Hood River. The second reference (which you removed) addressed the general topic of popular destinations (the whole section in question)- it was not reference spam - although I suppose it could be explained more clearly for someone who is not actually going to click on the link and discover why it might be there. I will replace it with a sentence that makes the reason for the original link clearer. You unfortunately (IMHO) also restored the reference to Thurso East, which in terms of being a "popular" surfski destination is highly questionable. You might notice if you visit the Thurso East link that it is for a surfing destination, nothing mentioned about surfskis at all. That does not rule out the possibility that someone might occasionally paddle a surfski there, but I can assure you that in the world of surfskis Thurso East does not begin to register in terms of popularity compared to many, many other locations.

Are you only looking at reference similarity of source rather than the actual content linked to? I would like to suggest that that prescriptive approach risks overlooking valid, worthwhile differences in specific content referenced from the same source. Lostwatt (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]