Talk:Jibe (sailing)

Renamed Gybe -> Jibe

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Google and wiktionary have jibe as the primary spelling, and since the old Jibe page was deleted (rightly so, it was no more than a definition) there was no good place to tell someone coming to the subject using Jibe that there were other meanings of the word. Accordingly, I moved Gybe to Jibe, fixed links pointing at Gybe (leaving along the source article's primary spelling of the word), and provided the redirect explanation on the Gybe as well as the sentence on this one pointing users to Wiktionary for other definitions. I also cleaned up one or two items of the article text. Demi 19:58, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

I've created a disambiguation page for Gybe since it references two different subjects, and have removed the redirect to Jibe. -Harmonica 06:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I believe that gybe is the correct nautical spelling for this term. I'm not certain that Wiktionary and Google can be considered authoritative sources for sailing terms? I would like to investigate this further. Anyone object then better talk to me. - --Julianp 12:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Correct spelling" is a very tenuous concept for a term this old. For example, what's the correct spelling of Shakespeare? Even he couldn't decide. Stable spellings weren't really common in English until Samual Johnson's 1755 A Dictionary of the English Language for British spellings, and Webster's Dictionary for American spellings. Since there is no authoritative source (unless we can find the originals of those dictionaries, maybe at Project Gutenburg?), and since both versions are in the dictionary, the only way to decide is to pick the more common. While a Google search may not be an academically rigorous analysis of word frequencies, it is a pretty fair indicator. Searching on (jibe mainsail) and (gybe mainsail)--adding "mainsail" to ensure sailing related hits--jibe shows a small edge, 1820 to 1740 hits. Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can come up with a way to differentiate British from American sources (maybe search for "color" vs "colour" or the like? would there be enough hits to be statistically significant?) so I'm not prepared to say the terms are more strongly associated with a given dialect of English. scot 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard US spelling is jibe; standard British spelling is gybe. Don't know about Australia, NZ etc. But both spellings are in both American and British dictionaries. Seems to me it's not very important which is the "primary" spelling in Wikipedia, as long as both lead to the same article. (Though I too would prefer to see it spelt gybe!) Snalwibma 12:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling in both NZ and Australia is gybe. Jibe is confusing spelling as the normal meaning is a barbed comment in British English which is far more common than American English. Most English speaking nations use British English-England, Scotland, Wales, Jamaica,South Africa, Zimbabwe,Australia, New Zealand, Canada,Fiji, Hongkong, Pakistan ,India. In Europe, where English is now commonly spoken as a second language, they use British English in both spelling and pronunciation.

Do you have a source that states the preferred spelling in British vs. American usage? If so, then we should include that in the article. scot 14:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source? yes - pick any standard dictionary - e.g. Websters for US spelling, Collins for GB spelling. But do these really need citing? There is a worrying trend towards over-referencing in Wikipedia at present. We do NOT need to cite a source for something that is instantly verifiable in the obvious reference work! Gnusmas 14:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have a British dictionary handy, so I'll take your word for it. I just cleaned up some bad links to running and went ahead and added a short section on spelling. scot 16:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found plenty of references to 'gybe' in nautical and sailing texts. Also a quick investigation shows that the etymological derivation of the word implies that gybe is the more appropriate spelling (the word comes from the Dutch word gijben). Furthermore 'gybe' is the spelling commonly used in Australia and I believe New Zealand. This is English language encyclopaedia and these things do matter --Julianp 11:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[enough of these in-in-in-indents!] The standard American dictionary (Webster) gives jibe as the primary spelling and gybe as a variant, while the British dictionaries (Collins, Oxford, Chambers) do the reverse. I wouldn't be surprised to be told, however, that within sailing circles (or do I mean "when sailing in circles"?) gybe is the commoner spelling on both sides of the Atlantic (I notice that Dennis Conner uses gybe in one of his books, for example). Personally, I much prefer gybe. So, unless anyone objects, I would propose the following:

move Gybe to Gybe (disambiguation).
move Jibe to Gybe.
add tag "Otherusesof|Gybe" at the top of Gybe.
edit Gybe so that gybe is the primary spelling, with jibe mentioned as a (chiefly U.S.) variant.
amend the "sailing manoeuvres" box and check for other pages which link to jibe.

I'd say leave it sit for a few days to see if anyone objects, and then (assuming no one does) do it. Gnusmas 12:54, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't see that there's a compelling reason to move it, since it is primarily a regional spelling issue and the article isn't particular to one region, I do see one tiny thing you left out that might argue for a move. Jibe is a homonym, and therefore has two completely different meanings depending on context. Gybe, while it is a homophone, is not a homonym, and therefore is less ambiguous, at least in writing. So as long as you're willing to do all the grunt work (that's a lot of editing), I'll agree to the proposal. scot 14:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support moving it. Snalwibma 17:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Once this is all finished, there's some work to do on Preventer too. Since this edit in 2006 when some anonymous editor changed every mention of Gybe to Jibe there too. --Nigelj (talk) 08:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jibe/Gybe vs. Wear

The article's distinction for square-riggers strikes me as ludicrous and I wonder if anyone has any justification for it. Every maneuver involving squaresails depends on "the braces carefully controlling the sails" but, more importantly, the suggestion that there is a difference between the procedure for square-riggers and all other vessels is fatuous. When a ship, schooner, cutter, or any other sailing vessel wears, staysails and unbraced sails may jibe. That modern sailors have adopted the word "jibe" as a replacement for "wear" is a thing some may like or dislike, and it may be taken as a sign of ignorance or evolution, but the suggestion that these are disparate concepts is not to be countenanced.Czrisher (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The lead ('lede') is meant to summarise the article, and this has somehow got added prominently just to the lede. What kind of small discussion should we put into the body of the article, that we can then summarise more reasonably in the lede? Do you have any books, or know of any on-line resources, that we can cite for a short description of wearing a square rigger, possibly including gybing stays'ls and spanker? Do you have anything that says that modern sailors are adopting the word "gybe" as a replacement for "wear"? I've never personally heard anybody use "wear" with regard to a fore-and-aft boat, is it or was it once a valid term for the manoever even without square sails? Citable references are very good in matters like this. --Nigelj (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus at this time Skomorokh, barbarian 10:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jibe → Jibing — Relisted to generate consensus (there are two proposals now). DMacks (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is mostly focused on the sailing technique of jibing —Preceding unsigned comment added by KVDP (talk • contribs) 12:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "jibe" is a noun, as it appears to be used in this article, there is no strong need to move it. If the only meaning of "jibe" was as a verb, I would agree since we use the noun form; however, I think this case is comparable to Cartwheel (gymnastics) and Punch (combat), both of which are valid nouns (as well as verbs). However, if the noun "jibing" is more common than the noun "jibe", "jibing" would be slightly preferable. I'm at a loss as to how to find that out, though. -kotra (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - to me "jibe" means "sneering joke". I believe US readers will write this meaning as "gibe", but here in UK it is "jibe". Jubilee♫clipman 20:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retraction with new proposal: I think the title should read Jibe (sailing) since most people in UK may actually be looking for the word in the sense of sneer. Jubilee♫clipman 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Jibe" beats "Jibing" for standard naming (per Kotra). And there is no other "Jibe" WP article present such that we need to disambiguate in the title (per Jubilee♫)--DAB isn't done pre-emptively. If there are other meanings, a hatnote pointing to Sneer is sufficient to get those readers where they want to be. DMacks (talk) 02:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The picture is wrong

The boat in the picture is actually gybing from port on to starboard, and the sail is depicted on the wrong side both before and after the gybe.

Absolutely right! That diagram is confusing rubbish. Shall we remove it, or does somebody here have the software and the patience to fix it? --Nigelj (talk) 15:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix it if someone tells me exactly what needs to be changed (I know nothing about sailing). -kotra (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. The sail shown in images 1, 2, 4 and 5 is the right size and curvature for all five new images. In images 1, 4 and 5, the sail is at the correct angle relative to the boat, but on the wrong side of the boat. The rudder is correctly placed so it is not a matter of flipping those images, the sail needs to be swapped from l to r or vice versa in those three cases, always with its belly out to right, as per the wind from the left. Image 2 should have a sail like image 1, but pulled in so that instead of hanging over the right-hand side of the boat it starts at the mast and ends pointing at a point on the transom just inside the rear right corner of the boat. A reference book I have here (RYA Day Skipper Practical Course Notes) shows the sail at their equivalent of image 3 identical to how it will be in our image 4, except with three dashed 'motion lines' from just the other side of the boat's centre line showing that it just got there, quickly, from the position it was in in image 2. The motion lines are dashed parts of three circles within the back half of the sail, the circles each centred on the mast. They start where the sail used to be but get thinner and stop a bit short of where it is now.

Here's a cite if you want to cite my book when you upload the image {{cite book |title=Day Skipper: Practical Course Notes |editor1-first=James |editor1-last=Stevens |date=1990 |publisher=Royal Yachting Association |location=Eastleigh, Hampshire |isbn=0 901501 36 0 |page=33}}

I hope that's enough info (and not ridiculously too much!!). Please feel free to ask again if what I said isn't clear or you have a better idea how to show it. If you get it 90% correct and we have something to look at, it will be easier to discuss small improvements if needed. --Nigelj (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably will get it wrong on the first try, but I'll give it my best shot. A few clarifications: (a) Do any of the figures stay the same? (b) Should the sails be always curved so that the convex side is pointing away from the wind (the left)? (c) Where exactly are the dashed motion lines in relation to the boat (port, starboard, bow, stern)? (d) And which figure are these motion lines for, 3 or 4? -kotra (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be fun :-) I have taken the liberty of changing your question numbers to letters, keeping numbers for the figures. (a) No, no image stays exactly the same. The smallest changes are in 1, 4 and 5 where just the sail is mirrored to the other side of the boat. (b) Yes, all sails are curved away from the wind. The existing sail shape and size in 1, 2, 4 and 5 are fine, it just needs rotating and/or mirror-flipping as described. (c) Motion lines only appear in one image, image 3. The boat, sail and rudder in image 3 is identical to those things in image 4, but image 3 also has motion lines. They are in the rear part of the boat image, in the rear half of the sail, and show that the sail has just swept across the boat from where the sail was in image 2 (pulled in to near the centre-line but on the starboard side) to where it is in image 4 (let out on the port side). (d) Motion lines only appear in image 3. Good luck! --Nigelj (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay in response, I should be able to get to this later today I think. Your explanations are good, thanks! Despite them, let's see how egregiously I manage to get it wrong... -kotra (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the debate, but I wonder if the problem isn't simply the confusion of port and starboard by the original describer of the image. In Images 1 and 2, the boat is on a starboard tack, and Image 2 shows the helm put to port which would, as the image does, turn the boat to starboard. That the sail would swing through the full ninety degrees is clear, so whether it points at the port quarter in one image or the starboard quarter in another seems rather more detailed than such an image deserves. N'est-ce pas?Czrisher (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for this question to be answered before I make the changes. -kotra (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem in the detail, the existing drawing is fundamentally wrong: in all the images 1, 2, 4 and 5 the boat is shown sailing 'by the lee'. That is, the wind is coming in over the port quarter, and the sail is out to port (1 and 2), or vice versa (4 and 5). If the wind is coming in over the port side, that sail should be out to starboard. Sailing as shown may be possible, but is highly dangerous for those on board in any blow: The wind could get behind that sail and flip it across at any time, causing serious injury or death to those in its (or its boom's) path on a big boat, or capsize in a dinghy. In image 3, the sail is shown gently flapping (as it does in the middle of a tack), whereas at that point in a gybe, the sail flips across fast and instantly fills from the other side. --Nigelj (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigelj has the right of it. I regret bringing confusion to the discussion.Czrisher (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for your comments; they've clarified in my mind what this is about. I'll probably be making the changes later today. -kotra (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Sorry for the delay, here it is! Now, Nigelj... which won out, your excellent description or my awful comprehension? Let me know what all needs to be changed, no matter how small. Also, is it ok if we credit you as co-creator of this version? If so, is CC-BY-SA 3.0 an acceptable license for you? -kotra (talk) 08:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done, Kotra! That is excellent! I have already put it into use on the article. Now that it's SVG, people can fiddle with tiny angles for evermore. I don't think it needs changing at all, but if I had to suggest something, maybe longer dashes in the motion lines so it looks faster - about twice as long as at present, with the same size gaps? I like that the boat in 2 is on the same course as 1, but in 4 it hasn't quite finished turning, or there'd be no need for 5. The rudder angles are unrealistic - too much angle for such a big rudder - but if it was too subtle people wouldn't notice. Maybe reduce the rudder angle in image 4, to almost straight? I'm quite happy to be credited, but don't need to be. I'm quite happy with the licence. Well done again, Kotra. A triumph of online collaboration! Very happy. --Nigelj (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wearing ship

This article, to which Wear (sailing) redirects, does not describe the comparable process of wearing a square-rigged ship. This maneuver is essential to understanding Battle of Lissa (1811), the article featured on the Main Page today.--Wetman (talk) 02:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]