Talk:Punt (boat)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was externally reviewed on February 12, 2006 by The Independent. "I am impressed by the amount of information on punting"

Contents 1 Images wanted 2 Revision more or less complete 3 Endian debate 4 Help for the Bridge of Sighs (Cambridge) article 5 The Independent comments on this article 6 Makoros 7 Image widths 8 reversion war

[edit] Images wanted

The images in this article have been chosen carefully to complement the text, but there are still a few missing. It would be very helpful to have

• pictures of punt racing
• pictures of Dongola racing in punts (ie teams with paddles)
• pictures of people punting from the oxford end
• pictures of people punting tandem or in the orthodox Thames position
• any pics that illustrate punting technique
• any pics that illuminate the statements in the article

In my opinion we don't need any more "arty" pictures of collections of punts. (Especially if they are low quality and lack proper metadata). Thruston 09:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revision more or less complete

Having acquired a copy of both of R.T. Rivington's books on Punting last year, I have been slowly revising this article to include material from the book.

I met Rivington in Oxford in 1984 just after the publication of his book, and he was kind enough to take us out on the river at Port Meadow in his 2ft single seater punt. He also had a canadian canoe, which he could punt beautifully, we tried it but fell in many times. He died in 2001. Thruston 11:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) (updated Thruston 00:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Endian debate

I have tidied up and shortened the discussion about which end to punt from, and tried to keep it entirely neutral. I have also removed the link to the picture of the Henley regatta in 1893 at the thamesrc site because, unless I am going blind it does not show anyone punting from the till (as they never did on the Thames according to Rivington.

This is what I took out:

Students at Oxford and Cambridge frequently argue over the correctness of their respective styles. A painting of the Henley Regatta from 1893 shows that both styles in fact have a long heritage, and can coexist quite harmoniously.

I hope the current revision is an improvement.

Thruston 21:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help for the Bridge of Sighs (Cambridge) article

I bet someone who frequents this page could help. In the Bridge of Sighs (Cambridge) article, there is this report:

 "It is said that one morning in 1957 an Austin Mini was found suspended
  by rope from its arch, having been punted down the river and hoisted up
  by Cambridge University students."

I know that this cannot possibly be literally true because the Mini was not manufactured until 1959 (and even in 1959, nobody would do this to a brand new car) - so if this is true, it was either a different car or it must have been in the 1960's sometime.

I'm also sceptical that even a car as small as a Mini (weight 1400lbs) could be supported on a punt - or even a couple of punts lashed together.

However, the story appears in numerous guide books and many, many web pages and whilst they vary a little on details, they all say "Mini", "punt" and "1957".

Do any of you good punting folk either know the true story or perhaps you can dispel this as a definite urban legend?

SteveBaker 02:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No mention of it in RT Rivington's book on punting that I can see.

As to the weight, I have punted six large rugby players (including me) in a single Thames punt. Our combined weight must have exceeded 1000lbs. I think 1400lbs would be quite reasonable for two punts, and there are some very big punts on the Cam, eg the tourist bus type punts that are about 5ft wide.

Given a standard Thames punt of 8m long and 1m wide (roughly) drawing say 20cm, allowing for the swim at each end, you could be displacing 6 x 1 x 0.2 = 1.2 cubic metres of water which would weigh 1200kg. More than enough to float a Mini. I would be concerned about damaging the side panels (of the punt) however...

Thruston 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Good information - thanks! So it looks like it's possible that this happened - although definitely not in 1957. Presuming that the type of car is correct - but that the year is wrong, this probably happened in the mid 1960's. So the people who would have been involved would be in their 60's right now. It's likely that the perpetrators are still alive. This kind of a prank would be well remembered - I wonder how we'd go about tracking down someone who would have been a Cambridge (or better, St.Johns) student in the early to mid-1960's?

SteveBaker 14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

At the University of Oxford they have an alumni magazine called "Oxford Today". I bet the other place has a similar publication. You might try to get the editors interested enough to print a small paragraph asking for any relevant memories.

Having said that I think there are many urban legends about Minis being put in amusing places. At my school it was always said that the 1st VIII had carried a Mini belonging to a member of staff into the (pedestrian) subway that connected the two halves of school under the A4 road. So I suspect that it is a myth, just like the polystyrene stone ball on the bridge by Kings Coll. Thruston 14:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how many of them are urban legends - but two at LEAST are definitely true. I actually saw first-hand the Mini that was winched up the side of the residence building at Loughbourough in the mid 1970's and ended up parked on the roof - and I personally participated in the (failed) effort to get the Mini belonging to the head of the student union at Kent into the cafeteria of Elliot college in '76. (The car got jammed on its side in a corridor near the laundry when the effort turned out to be more than expected and the 30 or so people who started out helping gradually dwindled to the point that the remainder of us could no longer carry it!) SteveBaker 00:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, for those who care for the truth: I got a very definitive answer from Johnathan Harrison (who I surmise is a Librarian at St.Johns). He included no less than four newspaper clippings from the day each incident happened all of which had photographs. Firstly, it happened not once - but twice. Once in 1963 and again in 1968. In the first incident a 1928 Austin Seven (not a Mini) - one photo shows the car dangling under the bridge - the other shows workmen standing on what looks (to the uninitiated) like a large punt with an Austin Seven sitting right there in the boat. The second clipping says that it is believed that student brought the car under the bridge on four punts lashed together.

The second incident (1968) was using a car called "The Bond Bug" - a hideous 3-wheeled contraption. This time the newspapers had evidently interviewed the students. The car had once again been punted under the bridge using an unspecified number of punts lashed together and with 13 foot planks laid across them to support the car. There is a photo in one of the clippings showing the fire brigade removing the car and a picture of the car supported very precariously on two standard-sized punts - both of which appear to be on the virge of sinking under the weight!

I'm going to try to find someplace to post the four press clippings - but the copyright issues may be a problem.

SteveBaker 14:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Independent comments on this article

The Independent article mentioned at the top of this page had a couple of nitpicks about this article. I know nothing about punting, but perhaps one of the regular contributers to the article could have a look at the comments and do something about them? It is currently here: Wikipedia under the microscope over accuracy --Telsa ((t)(c)) 11:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have responded by adding a new section on punt racing, based on the chapter in Rivington's longer book (the chapter being written by the then president of the Thames Punting Club Nevill Miroy) and made one or two other small changes to respond to the external reviewers nit picks. Comments welcome. Thruston 00:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. Are we getting near featured article status yet?

It looks good to me - I think it would be nice to clear up some of the red links, there are an awful lot of them! SteveBaker 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Additions look nice. Featured articles tend to have more references, but perhaps there just aren't any to quote? And the Manual of Style prefers lowercase to titlecase (WP:MOSHEAD#Capitalisation). I am off now from this article now, having nothing useful to add to it; but see you on WP:PR and WP:FAC :) --Telsa ((t)(c)) 10:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Makoros

Now that you're doing punting around the world, is there any point at adding a line on makoros in the Okavango Delta, Botswana? (These are dugouts punted from the rear - have pics, but a) quality mightn't be great, and b) mightn't find them in time for your bid for FA.) JackyR 21:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

yes please. Can you draft something here? Rivington has a section on punting round the world that will be useful but is clearly out of date -- for example he says that there used to be punts at Christchurch NZ but no-one there knew about them in 1982. Thruston

Can't find those pics - but they'll turn up one day. Meanwhile:

The Okavango Delta in Botswana, using makoros. These dug-out canoes, punted from the rear, are used for getting around the shallow waters of the swamp. A makoro's shape is determined by the tree from which it was made, and the punter, or poler, simply stands in the bottom. Bucket-seats are sometimes added for passengers' comfort.

JackyR 17:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there is an export market available here! --Surgeonsmate 22:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Which direction?! :-) JackyR 23:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Where in the bottom do the punters stand? Towards the stern or in the middle? Do you have a reference about them? (because of the No Original Research rule). Thruston 14:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Stern ("punted from the rear'): you can just see that the stern has no reeds laid in (to absorb shipped water, I guess). There's a ref at makoro. However, be careful of systemic bias when looking for references. I mean, would we demand a ref before saying that Oxbridge punts are punted from the rear (I know you probably have one, but if you didn't)? No, because it's "common knowledge". By which we mean, lots of folk from Oxbridge have computers, are Wiki contributors, and anyway write for newspapers etc. Well it's common knowledge to thousands of people who live in or have visited that part of Africa that makoros are poled from the rear. Kinda the same problem as Livingstone "discovering" Vic Falls (his guides had taken him there explicitly)...

Egs of "common knowledge" from the article which could count as "original research": all pics, unless previously published; availability of types of punt poles for hire; overcrowding on the Backs; almost all of "Punting in Oxford"... You get the picture. Yet the article would be poorer without these comments, and they are not controversial. I can't face trawling through the citation-battle pages again, but I've certainly read "If it ain't controversial, don't get too worried." Alternatively, wait till the FAC people bring it up. JackyR 16:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OK OK! Thruston 14:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Pic, but it's helluva big file (haven't worked file mgmt out yet). JackyR 21:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just opening it with the GIMP and saving it again may reduce the file size. Thruston

Ta. I'm on a Mac and don't have the Gimp, but will try to fix it at weekend w PC.

OK. GIMP runs on win32, mac osx, or linux by the way. (and it's free).

Hallelujah! Right. So I've referenced the use of makoros. The large file for the pic is apparently fine (well within Commons guidelines). And you get a choice of pics at Commons – Makoros. So does this bit go in?

Btw, you might also want to check out a cat I created at Commons: Poled boats. Hope this works for you... JackyR | Talk 17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image widths

In my browser (Firefox) and (default) skin, the images show up as unacceptably small. Sure, they can be expanded via thumbclicks, but in the article they show as small enough that the reader must click on them to see any details at all. 240px is a good default size for images, used widely throughout WP as an optimum size for viewing. I'd like a more complete explanation as to why the image widths were removed, please. As readers apparently outnumber editors by a factor of ten to one, it follows that very few readers are going to be registered and have preferences set. We should aim for optimum viewing by someone using the defaults, rather than cater for experienced users who have tweaked their viewing experience. --Surgeonsmate 22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your point about unregistered read-only users, but *all* users of WP are encouraged to register, and I don't think userrs have to be "experienced" to follow the "my preferences" link at the top of the page and set their preferred width for thumbnails.

I have no factual evidence, but I would guess that many readers still use screens with a horizontal resolution of 800 pixels and for them 240px thumbnails would be much too big.

Perhaps WP should automatically adjust the default thumbnail width according to the resolution reported by the browser, but at present allowing users to set a preferred width is the only facility available. We are just creating work for the future by hard coding an arbitrary width on thumbnails.

If you think the default should be 240px then lobby the programming team that set such things. Surely this is a better approach that setting an arbitrary width on every image on all 1,000,5000+ pages?

Thruston 14:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have every faith in the programming team to get things right. Although all users are encouraged to register, the fact remains that unregistered users outnumber registered by a factor of ten to one and growing. Of course, I distinguish between "users" and their subset "editors". Most users are readers.

Maybe many users still have screens of 800px horizontal resolution, but my own guess would be that they are still running Windows 95, or have access to higher resolutions, given the market nowadays. While I can appreciate the need to cater for technominorities, this can be set in preferences, leaving the majority of users free to use all the screen real estate they want. Do we force everyone to use wheelchair ramps and oversize toilets? No - we provide it as an option. Having a carpark full of disabled spaces defeats the intention. --Surgeonsmate 18:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and a right bleedin' pain it is too, trying to work out where the wheeled entrances are, when the main entrance has steps and there's no clear signage. So while I'm sagging in my chair, trying to work out where next, fit people to whom a ramp or another 10 yds would make no difference anyway are whizzing past me up the steps. Now I think about it, the similarities are remarkably similar to trying to use technology designed for broadband and whizzy new machines when one is dialling up over dodgy telecoms or in an e-cafe in Bulawayo. The default should be access; preferences can make things lovely for those fortunate enough to have all that screen, and bandwidth, and a machine of their very own... JackyR 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that this Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Size says we are all correct. Yes 200-250px is acceptable as a default thumbnail size, and yes 800x600 should be the target resolution for most users. However I think that the default size for thumbs *is* about 200-250px if you are not registered, so I'm very anti hard coding it on every image. Thruston 14:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reversion war

Is there any way in which this ping-pong battle over 'bim-bam' can be sorted? Can anyone help? - Ballista 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the 'bim-bam' comment is a bit uncyclopaedic, so I would be happiest if it is left out. But I don't think the person adding it was being a vandal. --VinceBowdren 13:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't disagree there, on any of the points you make. - Ballista 15:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I should hate to be starting a war. I reverted the bim-bam sentence twice and left a helpful explanation on the user's (anonymous) page, explaining about enclyclopedic tone etc. My apologies for describing the third insertion of the same sentence as vandalism; I used the word inappropriately. Nevertheless I don't think that "bim bam" is a helpful addition to the article. If you can be bothered to search back through the edit history you will see that it used to be rather a joke article and was criticized as such. I bought a copy of the books mentioned (the only books on punting for the last 50 years) and have spent some time trying to improve the article and make it useful and encyclopedic. If anyone really wants to help improve this page some more (appropriate) pictures would be nice. Thruston 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)