Fractured Axel

Which tone should dominate articles in the tricky wiki

Don't see why you just can't have "Entertaining, yet informative".

mobius wrote:

Don't see why you just can't have "Entertaining, yet informative".

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.

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.

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

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...

audiorob wrote:

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

You're not kidding pal 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.

Zippy8 wrote:

audiorob wrote:

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

You're not kidding pal 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?

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.

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?

Current TW vs. PP original, mostly.

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

Brevity is key. Elaboration is poison.

Mike.

I just voted for "strictly informative" which I don't consider in any way as being "dull".

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.)

No Question –

If you want to be taken seriously, you can’t go acting the fool.

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.