Sport, Trick and Freestyle Kite Flying Forum

Moderators: Craig, Kamikaze

Which tone should dominate TW articles

"dull" and strictly informative
18 (78%)
"entertaining" and opinionated
5 (22%)
 
Total votes: 23
 
User avatar
audiorob
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
Contact:

Article tone

Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:43 pm

Which tone should dominate articles in the tricky wiki
Anyway this cake is great.
It's so delicious and moist
 
User avatar
mobius
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 1733
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:36 pm
Location: Ouistreham, Normandy, France
Contact:

Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:53 pm

Don't see why you just can't have "Entertaining, yet informative". :lol:
Dave Morley
 
User avatar
audiorob
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
Contact:

Tue Aug 29, 2006 11:24 pm

mobius wrote:
Don't see why you just can't have "Entertaining, yet informative". :lol:


I pondered making that an option but I realized after some thought that it takes a very talented writer to do both at the same time.

Since a wiki is a community project, I think it's safe to say many of us are not talented writers but good intentioned kite fliers who wish to contibute to the project. With that being true it should probably be determined which direction to 'lean' to keep the wiki uniform and easy to read from one article to the next.

I personally rather have it as strict information and leave the entertainment to the kiting forums... Mostly because it's easier to settle a "you cant do the trick that way" debate compared to a "I dont like your humour" debate.
Anyway this cake is great.

It's so delicious and moist
 
Andy S
King of FA
Posts: 9275
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:53 am
Location: In my house
Contact:

Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:36 am

I agree. The tone, certainly of the Trick section (which is what we're working on now) should be simple and accurate. Humorous and interesting writing isn't easy and to set that as a bar is going to put off a lot of potential contributors. Also some people's ideas of humorous and interesting could be well wide of the mark, resulting in disagreements and arguments.

Personally I think we should also steer clear of over-elaborate alternative executions. When I look at PP's site I am usually looking for basic ideas of how to achieve a trick. I can come up with alternatives myself once I know how to do the basic manoeuvers. Nor do I think we need specific 'tweaks' listed for one or two specific kites. Drowning a nice basic instructive entry in personal opinion and unecessary detail is not the way to go IMO.
 
Steve Porter
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:31 pm
Location: N.Ireland
Contact:

Wed Aug 30, 2006 7:52 am

For some of us anything but the simplest of manoeuvres is still a little esoteric. I suggest a Keep it Simple approach.
Image

Just Because A Cat Has Her Kittens in the Oven Doesn't Make them Biscuits
 
User avatar
audiorob
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
Contact:

Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:59 am

Andy S wrote:
Personally I think we should also steer clear of over-elaborate alternative executions. When I look at PP's site I am usually looking for basic ideas of how to achieve a trick. I can come up with alternatives myself once I know how to do the basic manoeuvers. Nor do I think we need specific 'tweaks' listed for one or two specific kites. Drowning a nice basic instructive entry in personal opinion and unecessary detail is not the way to go IMO.


That's one thing about the PP definitions I've been 'working on' so to say. A lot of what it gives as primary executions are not so anymore, either due to changes in the style of kites popular now, introduction of tricks party or just a general flying style change.

It would be a very thin, if not invisible line where to start and stop alternate executions. A yo-yo has at least a dozen that are fairly common, and could take up quite a bit of room and anyone of them could be the primary execution depending on who you talk to. Then there are tricks like the tipstab which have almost no 'primary' execution as even the basic form of the trick can be done with multiple movements, and variations of the trick, let alone the multiple iterations of ways to get the tip into the ground aggressively.

Where would the line be drawn? How would an editor decide if what he, and his buddies, primarily do to execute the trick is acceptable. I know for a specific instance 90% of the time I do rather odd cascades (3 inputs per half-axel).. and i know a few skilled, competition winning fliers in the US who do the same method (much better than I might i add). Would that be considered a valid alternate or not? I could see the crazy crazy copter alternates being overboard but there are a number of vaalid instances where it could become quite the problem...
Anyway this cake is great.

It's so delicious and moist
 
User avatar
Zippy8
Posts: 5954
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Vihtavuori, Finland
Contact:

Wed Aug 30, 2006 9:13 am

audiorob wrote:
I do rather odd cascades (3 inputs per half-axel).

You're not kidding pal :wow: Why ? Anyhoooooo..........

If you wish to make this actually informative then let's have ONE clear description up front and ONE clear explanation of AN execution.

Fell free to elaborate afterwards but wading through paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of waffle, tangential musings and "I once did it this way but I've never managed it again" makes it useless.

It's not having information that's the problem, it's presentation and ease of access. No-one wishes to have to datamine just to find out how to flick a kite about.

And you need to get clear animations of the tricks too. Words can be misunderstood, misinterpreted and plain wrong. A pretty moving picture is a far better way to describe a moving object. And a computer generated idealisation is better than the best real life video.

Let me see if I can be arsed to join in with editting this at some point.

Mike.
 
User avatar
audiorob
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
Contact:

Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:01 am

Zippy8 wrote:
audiorob wrote:
I do rather odd cascades (3 inputs per half-axel).

You're not kidding pal :wow: Why ? Anyhoooooo..........


Just the way I learned them *shrug*. Ive seen a few people (being better than I) do cascades the same way so I never really questioned it. I do regular half-axels with 3 inputs too.. rather than leaning back the top wing (or combo), i pull the bottom wing forward, then top wing for flare, then pull back around. I've seen a lot of people do half-axels that way, sometimes the same people goto just 2 for cascades.. I learned it that way because the passive method is not really an option in the winds I generally frequent.

Fell free to elaborate afterwards but wading through paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph after paragraph of waffle, tangential musings and "I once did it this way but I've never managed it again" makes it useless.


So you're saying how we have it now? 1 clear primary execution and an alternate section?
Last edited by audiorob on Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Anyway this cake is great.

It's so delicious and moist
 
User avatar
Zippy8
Posts: 5954
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Vihtavuori, Finland
Contact:

Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:05 am

audiorob wrote:
So you're saying how we have it now? 1 clear primary execution and an alternate section?

Err.... perhaps this is one of those examples of different interpretations of the word "clear" :?

Mike.
 
User avatar
audiorob
Topic Author
Posts: 965
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 5:40 pm
Location: St. Petersburg, Florida
Contact:

Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:07 am

Zippy8 wrote:
audiorob wrote:
So you're saying how we have it now? 1 clear primary execution and an alternate section?

Err.... perhaps this is one of those examples of different interpretations of the word "clear" :?

Mike.


Current example and your proposed idea of clear?
Anyway this cake is great.

It's so delicious and moist
 
User avatar
Zippy8
Posts: 5954
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: Vihtavuori, Finland
Contact:

Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:29 am

Current TW vs. PP original, mostly.

I refer you back to my critique of the Yoyo description.

Brevity is key. Elaboration is poison.

Mike.
 
User avatar
RoyReed
Posts: 1830
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:15 pm
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:46 pm

I just voted for "strictly informative" which I don't consider in any way as being "dull".
Must fly
Roy
REEDDESIGN Web Design
 
User avatar
ObijuanKenobe
Posts: 1799
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Barendrecht, Nederland
Contact:

Wed Aug 30, 2006 5:38 pm

The debate over cascades is interesting to me. A three pop cascade in theory isn't that odd. In practice it is.

Let me clarify. The idea of the first pop on the low wing (entering the first half axel) is to start to disrupt airflow over the kite. The second heavy pop on the top wing completes this task, and combined with slack on both hands (usually from a step forward or a bit of reaching) causes the wind to carry the kite horizontal nose away. You then could say that you "pop" again to return to flying position, but that's much more kite dependent, as the floatier ones just return to flying position naturally and others need to be coaxed. If you expand this description to your version of the cascade, you would continue by lightly pop the bottom wing, then heavy pop the top, then light pop to return to flying position. The trouble is, only some kites need to be "popped" on the bottom wing once the cascade has begun, because airflow never really develops on the wings again, so there is no need to disrupt it. So...only in heavy wind would this technique be applicable, and then only on some kites.

My point being that there should be a short description of the trick describing the movements/positions the kite must reach in order to perform the trick. End quote.

Anything else should be separate so that only upon further exploration would a reader get sucked into this kind of elaborate prose. Maybe text description of inputs should be separate from the description of the kite's movements? (Oh now I've done it. I'll shut up.)
Image
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return." L daVinci
 
User avatar
Stone in Shoe Bob
FA Supporter
FA Supporter
Posts: 692
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:17 pm
Location: Leighton Buzzard

Wed Aug 30, 2006 6:37 pm

No Question –

If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t go acting the fool.
Stone in Shoe Bob
Friend and supporter of Kiteworld
Treat everyone with politeness, even those who are rude to you - not because they are nice, but because you are.
 
User avatar
WattyRev
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:12 pm
Location: Spokane Valley, WA
Contact:

Re: Article tone

Fri May 01, 2009 10:10 pm

audiorob wrote:
Which tone should dominate articles in the tricky wiki


The thing that gets me to vote for the "dull" and informative option, is that I believe it should not be opinionated. A text like this should have as little bias as possible.

As for the animations, I feel that it is a good thing to have along with the actual video. When browsing through the wiki, some of the animations seemed somewhat difficult to follow, because a whit center on a kite blends in with the white back ground, and suddenly I did not know which direction the kite was rolling. To understand something as thoroughly as possible, one must incorporate as many views as possible.
~Spence "Watty" Watson