Jump to content

Talk:Whitewater

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Wild water)

Untitled

[edit]

I made a substantial change to this page because it had the usual east coast bias towards rivers in the west. Having been a guide on both coasts (CA and WA in the west, W.Va. in the east), I've run most of the rivers mentioned in the original article and just want to say that the rivers on both coasts are fun and require the same skill, until you get to the big water rivers, which require a diffrent set of skills. To say one coast requires more technical expertise than the other is based on a lack of knowledge of what is available on both coasts.

Plus, this was only about the US,the rest of the world has some amazing rivers to run. It would be nice to get some descriptions of those in here.srlasky 23:15, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

The U.S. section need work. It does not provide a balanced overview - still neglecting the West Coast, no mention of Alaska, Midwest, etc. Not written from NPOV and too personal a style. Rmhermen 23:24, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
I think this article still needs a serious overhaul. In particular, the "guidebook-like" sections are getting long, and they're of spotty quality. In the US, New York, Washington state, and Maine (which together comprise over 700 whitewater runs!) have no mention at all; nor do I see Nepal or Corsica, both famous worldwide as paddling destinations.
If all those "omissions" were corrected, the article would blow up to...well, to encyclopedic size. I'd recommend separating out the "guidebook-like" sections to individual articles focused on whitewater in the referenced regions. I don't expect to get to that, myself, anytime soon.--RattBoy 10:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I'm going to add some stuff about the different types of features found on whitewater rivers as well as break the classification of rivers (the numbering system) into seperate catagories for each of the levels 1-6.I havn't done this very often so if I screwup any of the formating sorry about that, but looking at the comments section I don't think that I will have too much competition fixing this thing up oh how should disclaimers be done or what should we do about the whole liability thing? anyone know? --Stranger 20:44, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

well I decided to add a section on the the science behind white water. hopefully I'll be able to add some kind of scientif reasoning to whitewater. oh I'm also going to add a section for related articles --Stranger 09:35, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)


Biobio river, Chile

[edit]

I recently added a section mentioning loss of Whitewater rafting venue for this river, with the result that " Neutrality of Article is questioned". I am not a whitewater rafting person but still felt it was a sad situation that such a venue was lost. I would welcome any input as whether or not my words were POV, Biobio river..(refer also discussion for this article) with view to modifying, if necessary. If anyone has knowledge of that trip it would also be useful. Conce 00:08, 2005 August 19 (UTC)

Maybe what would be appropriate would be a section at the bottom of white water rivers section that discussed the lose of white water rivers and covers the whole Damn opperators VS Kayakers thing as well as some of the other issues that white water kayakers face when trying to get access to rivers. See American Whitewater -Stranger

Propose merge with Rapid

[edit]

Same content. Detailed description of classification will be moved to the matching section. Redirect Rapid to Whitewater. P199 15:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulics?

[edit]

I believe the correct (or most commonly used) term is a hole. I am a whitewater kayaking instructor and have paddled in many countries and have never heard this term used. In kayaking; Hydraulics is a brand of kayaking equipment, namely Buoyancy aids. Bennyboyz3000 11:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hydraulic" is considered a more formal term for what is commonly referred to as a "hole." If you search on "whitewater hydraulics," which I just did, you'll find 186,000 hits. There's a potential for confusion with the term, "hole." Anglers, in the US at least, use that term to refer to flat areas with little current and no whitewater features, where fish are likely to congregate (i.e., "fishing holes")—pretty much exactly the opposite of the way that whitewater paddlers use the word! Other than the brand name (which I've never heard of; is it sold in the US?), "Hydraulic" has the advantage of being unambiguous.
I note that the Hole (River) article which you link to mentions "souse holes." I've never heard that term used, except in old whitewater books. Searches on that term (or the related "souse hole") turn up relatively few hits. I believe it's an archaic term.
Your use of the word "correct" in your edit summary is a bit dogmatic. And considering the broad use of the term, "Hydraulic," in whitewater sports, I think your obliteration of the word from the article was ill-advised.--HughGRex 14:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, "stopper" is almost universal in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

[edit]

I propose to split off the list of whitewater rivers and make it into a separate article (List of whitewater rivers). It is already getting quite long, and a separate article no longer needs to be limited to just the notable or famous whitewater rivers. It could become a comprehensive resource for people who are only interested in whitewater locations. -- P199 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've got to be careful NOT to become a river guide book though... there are books and sites for that (and Wiki's too). Descriptions of the rivers, and main/prominent features, popularity, culture references, ect should be fine... just not guides. DevAnubis 09:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split done! -- P199 14:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classification of whitewater

[edit]

Hello, I believe that the description under Classification of whitewater does not correspond to International Scale of River Difficulty. For example, class 2 - "Skill Level: Basic Paddling Skill" surely is not true speaking about anything else than big inflatable rafts which are really hard to sink (so you do not have to control it at all). Between class 2 and 3, there is the limit for solid (laminate, plastic) open canoes, you really have to know how to "read" the water, how the boat will interact with it, and how to get the boat on the correct path and under correct angle. I mean, this is really much more than simply to be able to move ship forward and turn left/right, which I would describe as "basic skills". In addition, I guess an opposition to whitewater should be mentioned - I do not know how to say it in English (that is why I visited Wikipedia ...), but in Europe, it is commonly reffered as "ZW" from German "Zahnwasser". --62.40.79.66 12:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That's misunderstanding. Things you talk about - ZW and hard limit for open canoes between WW II and WW III - are part of Inernational Canoe Federation classification (aka "Alpen system"), not American Whitewater Association scale. Also note the difference in naming "Class 1" vs "WW I" etc. This article uses AWA's scale. Be aware that "International" in its name means that Americans use it for describing rivers all over the world, not that other nations would use this system (to my best knowledge, all of Europe plus Russian parts of Asia, and also Australia use the ICF classification). --kavol, 213.175.37.10 (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting rapids

[edit]

The article Scouting rapids should be merged and redirected to Whitewater. It is just a copy of material already here and if we delete the redundancy and irrelevant material, there is nothing left. It could never become a decent article because it would describe how to scout and that would violate WP:NOTGUIDE. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Whitewater. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive is of 403 to a 404. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
 Fixed All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • I am reverting the external link added to the Colorado whitewater network. I'll assume good faith but can't see a reason why this should be listed in the external links section. If I am wrong please discuss. Ryanx7 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whitewater&oldid=1198613701"