Talk:Kite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Deadly kite articles
2 Origins
3 Rope or twine?
4 Practical & cultural uses
5 Rename from Kite Flying
6 Images and Copyright Violations
7 External Links
8 Flying children

[edit] Deadly kite articles

Here are some articles about kite related deaths:

Someone may be able to fit it into the article --Sketchee 07:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

There was a thread on rec.kites in Sept 1995 entitled "A Death in the UK" about a child who was killed in a kiting accident. Pleriche 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

what about the festivals?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,12172137%5E1702,00.html
Didn't the Aztecs or Incas fly large kites with a slave onboard? If the kite crashed and killed the slave, it was a bad omen or something. - Omegatron 18:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

at least for the slave :-) Clappingsimon talk 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origins

First Chinese kite: http://www.chinakite.com/maindoc/en/htm/jiaosi/qi.htm
Indonesian/NZ kite: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.kites/browse_thread/thread/cb2b92896ea22f1f

[edit] Rope or twine?

I have checked both references and I wonder whether rope is better than twine?

misterb 1 Oct 2005

[edit] Practical & cultural uses

While I find the references Northern India kite festivals to be interesting, I don't necessarily think these should be listed foremost in the "Practical & Cultural use" section. It seems that the broader references should come first and have more prominence. Are there any objections to moving some of these things around and doing some editing? Alki 16:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Made the changes. Alki 19:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Bought some kites recently. It's 18:58 on Mon April 24, 2006 in Quezon City,Metro Manila,Philipines. My site is at http://www.michaelmanalolazo.go.cc Just Surfing. Thanks.

[edit] Rename from Kite Flying

I suggest moving this article so its name represents the object kite instead of the activity kite flying. Any thoughts? --Bensin 01:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Why? Clappingsimon 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree with Bensin. The article should be 'kite'. There is no need to attach the word flying with kite. You name an article as 'apple' not 'apple consumption' .. car not 'car driving'. I searched for kite and the page found was 'kite flying'. Change it immediately. I will change it soon, if nobody objects here. Saurabh Mangal 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kite is a disambiguation page, and for good reasons, so a move is not possible. Clappingsimon talk 09:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A move is possible if it is specified which kite the article refers to. I suggest "Kite (toy)". Does anyone have a better suggestion? --Bensin 16:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(Toy) is too specific, the entry has one sentence on toy and introduces much wider uses including Sport, Science and Cultural festival and I thiink actually does focus on Kite Flying. All of WP is indexed and searchable, and using the Go button takes you straight to the 'Kite' disambig page, so what is the improvement to WP? or rather - as I asked before - Why? Cheers Clappingsimon talk 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons Saurabh Mangal specified above. And also because there is no article in Wikipedia (that I've found) that deals with the object kites in general. I agree with Clappingsimon that "toy" might be too narrow, it was the only thing that sprung to mind. A move is, however, desireable. --Bensin 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (Corrected by Bensin 10:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC))

How about Kites and kite flying cheers Clappingsimon talk 08:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Singular nouns are preferable according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Even though the name of the article should only reflect the noun "kite" I see no reason why the article itself should not also deal with the art of flying them. Any suggestions for something besides "toy" that sets this kind kind of kites aside from any other noun "kite"? --Bensin 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you've renamed it, but you should have waited until we've reached consensus. I know I can change it back anytime, so I'll leave it for now. You objected to the page not being named 'kite' which is reasonable, but when I pointed out that 'Kite' was unavailable you leapt to 'Toy' which I don't see as reasonable at all. You have not chosen a name that addressed Saurabh's reasons for a change or really answered my objections to (toy). I offered 'Kites and kite flying', apart from the second noun in what way does it not describe the page contents? You are saying the article describes 'Kite (toy)' rather than 'Kites and kite flying'? Are you okay with me moving out all the non-toy content to other pages (ie Sport kites;Kite (culture);Kite (science)). Cheers! Clappingsimon talk 22:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I tought a consensus was reached since there was no answer posted to my last comment. I admit I might have rushed it a bit though. "Kites and kite flying" is unnessecarily long since an article dealing with kites inherently also deals with flying them. Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions says "Prefer singular nouns". "Kite" is not unavailable, it's a disambiguation page. I chose a name that addressed Saurabh Mangal's reasons perfectly; namely the argument that the article should be a count noun because it can be. "Kite" can be used as long as it is specified which kite the article refers to. Since no other suggestion than "toy" came up, I went with it. If anyone comes up with a better way to specify it, then we'll simply use that instead. --Bensin 14:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I missed your 20th July reply - another page I'm watching is in edit war and mediation simultaneously :-). The aim of the title is to succinctly describe the content. There is no absolute requirement for single nouns. Naming it Kite (toy) doesn't solve the problem that you can't find 'object kite' in WP. Just look at 'what links here' - all of those links come from it's naming as 'Kite Flying', which the authors would have chosen off the disamb page. Anyway I still think 'Kites and Kite Flying' addresses both our concerns, please explain how Kite (toy) is a better solution.

I finally went and looked at conventions: so you want the page named 'Kite' (singular noun form) without an 's'. That's a convention - not a policy. The example they give: Prefer singular nouns Convention: In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers). That would be fine if we could name the page 'Kite', but we can't. Note that there is a 'Kites' redirect to 'Kite'. Did a google search on 'Kite toy' and 'Kites and kite flying'. I think the second one describes what the page is on about, but I'd be pleased if you did the same 2 searches and gave your opinion. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "We can't name the page 'Kite'". That's the name the article has when I'm writing this message. It just has the appendix "(toy)", an appendix which I agree with you could be changed to a more appropriate one. Nevertheless, the article can, is and should be 'Kite'. We simply seem to have different opinions on how the article should be named. Perhaps we should call it to attention to other editors and get fresh perspectives on the matter. I can't state my view more clearly than I already have. --Bensin 01:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that some fresh perspectives would be the right way to resolve this. How do we ask for those? Clappingsimon talk 03:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I posted a question on the Help desk and asked that they respond to us here. See Wikipedia:Help desk#Where to get help resolving disagreement over naming an article. --Bensin 11:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Having seen your question on the help desk: The usual approach if you want some neutral, outside comment is wp:rfc. That is Requests for Comment. Personally, I think you need the title to be Kites(some specific type), but I can't think what to put in those brackets since toy is too narrow. Skittle 11:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If not for Kite (bird), I think moving Kite to Kite (disambiguation) and moving this article to Kite would be a reasonable solution. Perhaps Kite (man-made)? -- Rick Block (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths,_science,_and_technology#Miscellaneous 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Kite (bird) effects that solution. Having Kite (bird), Kite (disambiguation) and Kite (this page) seems ideal to me. This seems like exactly the type of case Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic is refering to. --jwanders^Talk 20:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

jwanders suggestion sounds good to me. --Bensin 21:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Though I am in favour of Kites and kite flying (and utterly opposed to '(toy)'), jwanders' suggestion also sounds acceptable to me, though if used, it should then have a Template:otheruses. - Jc37 04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved Kite to Kite (disambiguation), but the remainder will need to be done by an admin as Kite is now a redirect page. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 04:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please delete the redirect page 'Kite' and move 'Kite (toy)' to 'Kite' Thanks!Clappingsimon talk 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please only use {{helpme}} on your user talk page. And things like these need to be done at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Ryūlóng 19:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the move, the consensus seemed ok. Of course if there are stirrings about moving the page again, requested moves is probably the way to go.--Commander Keane 19:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Just went and did an entry for 'requested move' - I'll remove it. BTW thanks to User:Ryulong, I never knew there was a 'requested moves' page. Clappingsimon talk 19:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images and Copyright Violations

Firstly, most of the images in this article are very small and do not serve to illustrate kites well. Moreover, I strongly suspect that the top image is a copyright violation. It was taken by Philbert Ono and on his website he claims most of his images are available for sale or rent, and the only reference I can find googling: Philbert Ono GFDL is on WikiMedia sites or mirrors thereof. I would like to hear other opinions on both of these matters. --Douglas Whitaker 04:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Philbert Ono was the one who uploaded it. He's no longer active on WP according to his user page, where he clearly states photojpn.org is his own website and on that website that "My primary Web sites are PhotoGuide Japan and PHOTOGUIDE.JP". He uploaded under GNU free license along with a lot of other images, see his uploads. If you're really concerned this is his contact webpage. If an email satisfies you, you'll need to sort out the copyvio inserted on the image page. This research took me 10 clicks and 3 minutes, sheesh, hope you tip as well as Google Answers :-) Cheers Clappingsimon talk 12:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to upload better images - I probably have an old transparency of giant kites from Yokaichi, Shirone or Nagasaki if the image gets deleted, just don't want to have to go through thousands of slides to find them. Cheers Clappingsimon talk 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh, oops. Well... heh. I really don't know why I didn't see that. I'll probably chock it up to lack of sleep, but I honestly didn't see that he was the actual user who uploaded it. Oh, you know what I did? I ended up looking at the file on WikiCommons where he wasn't the user to upload it. Brainfart I guess in not checking here. Thanks for the information. Wow, I feel like a complete idiot and rightfullly so. And I'll go through my images and see if I can find a high-res image of a kite, or upload one from Commons. Heh, please be patient with me... --Douglas Whitaker 13:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Great Clappingsimon talk 23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 08:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this link twice as a violation of WP:EL and it's back.

My arguments for removing.

This is a forum.
This site promotes the sale of products and/or services.
The quality of the forum cannot be assessed without joining the group
The forum is not a unique resource to the topic.
Is being promoted by a member or moderator of the forum in violation of WP:SPAM. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 05:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. Having had a look at it, it's a shop and a forum. Neither belong here. Wikipedia is not a link farm. I shall remove the links too, if I see them again. Skittle 13:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed a few of the lower quality links which seemed to be mainly promoting personal blogs and forums. Put some of the more informational and authoritative links at the top. Pleriche 21:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flying children

Under Safety issues, it is stated there have been instances of children being skirted away by strong winds and highly effective kites; while this is certainly plausible, I think it deserves some sort of attention regarding its validity (to lift, say, a 30kg child would require immmense drag and very strong line).

For now it’s just tagged with a ‘citation needed’. Ben Webber 04:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../k/i/t/Talk%7EKite_5d59.html"