Talk:Anchor

Adding more information from the West Marine test

I participated in the West Marine 2006 test, as well as many other anchor tests, and have all of the raw data and graphs. If it is deemed appropriate, I can supply data regarding each individual anchor, the anchors compared, a Google Earth plot of where the test took place, or the strain graphs for each pull. I know this is too much for Wiki, but it could add to the factual information about each anchor style. I also have some information about holding power Vs. scope, but it is not conclusive.

Incidentally, I think that modern yachtsman's anchors should be divided as follows:

Danforth-type (or Lightweight Type); mention conventional steel, high strength steel, and aluminum Bruce-type (Bruce, Claw, Manta) Hinged Plow type (CQR) Non-hinged Plow type; further differentiate those with a plow style (Delta) and a scoop style (Rocna) Others (Bulwagga, XYZ, Box, etc.)

I think it would be interesting to describe how anchor designs are stabilized through ballasting (CQR), inherent design (Bruce, Bulwagga), "flatness" (Danforth), and roll-bar (Rocna, Manson, Wasi).

Cheers,

Chuck Hawley Chuckhawley (talk · contribs) 23:15, November 12 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Effectiveness of anchor weights by 124.197.8.168

Once again, we are asking for proof that this very old anchoring aid is ineffective in heavier conditions as you continue to add to the article. We understand articles on Wikepedia are to be neutral and unbiased. You removed the citation from the last two sentences in the section about anchor weights and continue to alter the article with a negative personal opinion. Rather than get into an editing war, we will ask a disputes editor how to handle this sutuation.--Rewih (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

edit war on Using an Anchor Weight, kellet or sentinel

You need to actually open a case, simply putting the template here does not do anything. Russeasby (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - not sure where the saved page went to. Will re-do.--Rewih (talk) 02:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation can be slow to return results and it helps to have other things done first. Personally I would seek a third party opinion before going to mediation, see WP:3PO. Third party opinions ussually get someone popping in pretty quickly to offer their view. Even if that does not resolve things, by the time mediation comes around you will have a history of attempted resolutions that will give the mediators more food for thought. Both you and Badmonkey are COI editors (see WP:COI) so I am considering placing something on the COI noticeboard if this edit war is going to bring in other people anyways. Russeasby (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It was not spam

I redid a couple of paragraphs and posted at 14:13, 9 August 2008. I had found a "citation needed" request regarding the fact that the waves put more strain on the anchor than wind or current so I googled and found a cite which I posted as reference. It has been deleted saying it is "spam from a commercial site". It is not. The page may be on a commercial site but it is a page dedicated to explaining anchors and how they work, not a page dedicated to selling anchors. Also, as I quoted the relevant phrase in my ref/footnote, there was no need to even visit the site as the phrase was already quoted in the ref/footnote. I think this should be perfectly acceptable but I have no interest in getting into wars or arguments. GS3 (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That sort of commercial site is not generally a reliable source for neutral, objective information about its products since it has a vested interest in it's ability to sell them. So I agree with its removal. This article has been the subject of a significant amount of controversy in the past over the promotion of some commercial interests so some editors are particularly sensitive to the possibility of spam. I'm sorry you were unintentionally caught up in that. -- SiobhanHansa 01:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you did not intend to spam, my apologies for suggesting so. It is just an unfortunate coincidence that you posted a ref from a manfucaturer of anchor kellets when there very recently has been a lot of COI editing by a manufacturer of kellets. I see you did not intended to spam, the ref is inappropriate reguardless, but I see you added it in good faith. Russeasby (talk) 14:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

other anchor types

one other anchor type is not mentioned: a anchor with retractible hooks. In dutch its called a "parapluanker" or translated "umbrella anchor" (yet this is not the english term i guess). See this site andthis site for examples. Please look into the right term and add in article.

Benefits of the anchor: easy to store as sides retract. Appropriate for small open boats (eg lifeboats, ...). Can be put overboard in unrectracted stance to lessen boat's speed. Not qualified for yachts and large boats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.129.42 (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

another anchor is the "klipanker" again dont no english term see this site and the poolanker (pole anchor ?) see this site which is a modified klipanker. Not very good anchors dough as they need to be very heavy to be any good.

"Navy" or "Stockless" Anchors

The article emphasizes yachting anchors and does not currently describe the "Navy" or "Stockless" anchors that are used on ships and form the bulk of the article History of the Anchor. 58.147.52.66 (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Picture captions

Is there any reason for some of the anchors to be labelled as 'genuine'? Are there a large number of fakes in circulation? --Hydraton31 (talk) _{{Contributions}} 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also, is it meant as "authentic" versus "look-alike" or to signify brand naming versus immitations?Galf (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer: yes, there are a large number of copies and fakes, generally inferior in most qualities as may be expected. The names of types labeled 'genuine' in the article at the time of writing are the brands associated with the respective original design. Even with modern designs with still valid patents, blatant patent infringement abounds in an industry where legal action is hardly worthwhile. The distinction between the original CQR and a "CQR type" anchor (for example) is worth maintaining, particularly with regard to photos of a specific anchor, as the latter refers to a generacized knock-off which would otherwise be easily confused. 202.180.89.114 (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Gads I hope Badmonkey (Craig Smith of Rocna) isnt back. Genuine in the captions is absurd and I always thought so, was glad to see someone stepup and be bold and remove it. Wikipedia is not for marketing, its an encylopedia, if a photo is labeled as a CQR, one expects it is a CQR without silly "genuine" labels. Russeasby (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)