Talk:Knots

Already added more info. Still looking to implement the laying of the slipped constrictor knot in seperate section "Laying the knots". Hope this is sufficient to remove the cleanup-tag. 81.246.184.59 (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This really needs to incorporate how-to information on the knots, which is not permitted at Wikipedia, but is required here. Please add instructions on how to tie each knot, what they are useful for, what they are not to be used for, and what kinds of rope they are for/not for (if applicable - it doesn't matter for some knots). You may also wish to include history of the knot if it is known and interesting. Currently, this consists of links to Wikipedia and two sections of real content.
 * I would further suggest that the scope be expanded considerably to include as many useful knots as possible - there is no shortage of good knots to include in the book. It may also be worthwhile to take images during the process of tying the knots, upload them to Commons and use them here (or you could even do a video!) to better illustrate the module and teach the reader. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Simplified list of knots
thanks for your willingness to cooperate and your work at wikibooks. However, my article is about a simplified list of knots so I don't think we'll be able to merge it together. We can however link to each other. I however do suggest you change the title to something more generic as Knot tying, as you suggested earlier. The article deserves it as it is already of high quality. I also suggest to link it from the wikipedia Knot-page (as I did aswell).

Let me now when you changed the title, so I (or you) may put the link on our articles. Thanks, KVDP (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I was not proposing a merge, but rather that we could share common material. The AYHAB book has a specific purpose and the material there is presented in a specific order for a specific reason.  However, the knots within are modular.  I'll see about moving them to a generic location sometime next week (unless I forget). --Jomegat (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I was looking for aswell. I added some new books from my website and there is already something we can share. Your adventist clothing page (Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Camping/Clothing) is the only page showing up from a search conducted at wikipedia's "clothing" article. So I added a link to one of my clothing designs (I hope thats OK). KVDP (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've updated my links and designs as they needed to be moved to wikiversity. See wikipedia colloquim for my latest gems ;-)


 * I also found another book: called the Self-Reliance handbook; this book and its category may also be combined with your AYHAB-book. In fact, I think that your AYHAB may be morphed to the main Scouting Handbook (by changing the name) and that the self-reliance handbook may be linked from this. KVDP (talk) 08:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * AYHAB is laid out according to the official requirements specified by the Pathfinder organization. Scouting merit badges have different requirements in a different order, and the badges have different names.  We do have a book on Scouting Merit Badges (I do not recall the name), and they are free to incorporate any of the AYHAB material that they see fit, but these books should absolutely not be merged, nor should AYHAB be renamed.  It was written for a specific purpose and is being widely used in the intended capacity.  That said, the material could be shared by modularizing sections and doing transclusions, but IMO, Scouting would be better off using subst to grab a snapshot of AYHAB material and then it could be edited to meet some other purpose. --Jomegat (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, a small suggestion still; perhaps celestial navigation (on the stars; and not just the pole star but all of the star navigation points such as they did in sailing in the old days) can be still implemented. Also, navigation on the sun (using a stick for exact north-south determination) is useful.
 * Celestial navigation involving more than Polaris is well beyond the scope of a Pathfinder honor. Pathfinders is geared for youth between the ages of 10 and 16.  I am pretty familiar with all of the honors offered by the organization, and to my knowledge, none of them require celestial navigation (other than the use of Polaris).  However, the Wilderness Living honor requires knowledge of two methods to determine direction without a compass.  It already details one method using the sun and a stick, but if you would like to expand that answer, you are certainly welcome to do so.  As I've previously stated, the curriculum is set by a formal body - the Pathfinder organization.  Neither I, nor any other Wikibooks editor has the authority to alter the official requirements.  If we alter the Wikibook to add new requirements or edit the existing ones, the book will fail to be a reliable reflection of the official honor requirements.  The book's purpose it to help instructors teach the official requirements.  Going beyond that exceeds its scope and compromises its mission. --Jomegat (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to note, I've done a bit of work here. What was there previously was really not booklike, so I've expanded the scope, created some structure, and imported some content for the introduction chapter. However, we will still need how-tos for all the knots, so I'll probably come grab some content from "your" book &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen you've already quite expanded the article, thanks for that. However please insert info that a simplified list of knots includes no more than 8. At the modules, the knots are placed under each other and it already looks that way more knots need to be learned (you eg included reef knot, bowline, ...) Aldough the latter knots are indeed useful, they are only required at special circumstances and the average knot-tyer does not "really" need to learn them. Thus please re-insert this info on what the 'main knots" are. KVDP (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey KVDP. I think it would be a good idea to have the first section (or second if you count the introduction) be a list of the basic knots.  The rest could follow.  You should feel free to add it in yourself - there is no need to get someone else to do it. --Jomegat (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep a section for "the most important knots" (I think this is a bad idea) then you can easily transclude those pages onto Knots/Most useful or something. However, the previous structure was really not booklike. While you're not obligated to use the structure I've laid out, I think it is logical, reasonably complete, and will be educational once content is filled in. I encourage you to tweak as you see fit, but I recommend that you do not limit the scope to "a simplified list of knots". Not only is that not really a textbook, but it is also not very useful. Additionally, your choice of knots is rather strange - the bowline for example is among the most useful knots in existence, and deserves inclusion in any text on knots. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 17:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added the list in the article as Jomegat suggested. However Mike, do you still have a review of my previous list of knots page (in the pages history it isnt there anymore). I would like to see whether I included all info from my previous page.KVDP (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

One other point. At Wikibooks we do not have "articles," we have "books." This, I think, is the basis of Mike's objection. A "Simplified list of knots" is more of an article, but what Mike has done is laid out like a book (and since this is Wikibooks that is fitting and proper). --Jomegat (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you are saying, yet I would still like to mention that writing an article about this is also not possible because how-to info is off limits at wikipedia. That's why i put it here. Note the dilemma ... ;)
 * Please note that Wikibooks is for open-source collaboratively-edited textbooks, not Wikipedia's rejected content. If it doesn't fit at Wikipedia, that doesn't automatically mean it fits here - we have an inclusion policy too! &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 09:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Modules to create

 * Double overhand knot
 * The double overhand knot is the knot used as the main stopper knot, when the knot is not required to be opened again afterwards. It is a fast knot (when you don't want to spend allot of time on it to fasten something), and still is a somewhat better than the more regular "half knot" or bloodknot. The knot can also be used to tie two ropes together when you still want the knot to be removed afterwards. This can make the use of the Flemish eight no longer required.


 * Reef knot


 * Double sheet bend
 * The double sheet bend is a knot used to tie 2 ropes together which you still want to seperate afterwards. Also, it can be used to pull up or drag something by means of a rope (if the binding rope is looped around the object and attached to the second rope by this knot). If the second rope cannot be put into a double sheet bend, a regular reef knot can be used instead.


 * Round turn and two half-hitches


 * bowline

The double half hitch is the basic knot to be used as a hitch. Hitches are eg used to bridge a gap and bind a rope eg to a pole from a distance. It can not slip and is thus fairly easy to throw. If the endknot is loosened, it may be used as a slippable knot (eg to bind stuff together by simply pulling the main rope (which can thus be done from a distance; similar to the bowline).
 * Two half-hitches


 * Diagonal lashing


 * Round lashing
 * Diagonal and round lashing is to be used to bind two crossed poles together (eg to make rafts, barricades, fences, platforms, ...). Both diagonal and round lashing need to be learned as there will be situations which require the first or the second.


 * Perhaps a division is to be made when attaching a rope to a fixed object under pressure and not under pressure. In the first case, the Rolling hitch (clove hitch variant) may be used, in the second case the round turn and 2 half hitches could be used.

Orphaned pages

 * Knots/Bend knots/Carrick bend
 * Knots/Bend knots/Hunter's bend
 * Knots/Binding knots/Miller's knot
 * Knots/Binding knots/Packer's knot
 * Knots/Decorative knots/Carrick mat
 * Knots/Decorative knots/Rhona-H mat
 * Knots/Hitch knots/Pipe hitch
 * Knots/Loop knots/Figure-eight loop
 * Knots/Loop knots/Man harness knot
 * Knots/Loop knots/Triple bowline
 * Knots/Loop knots/Triple crown knot
 * Knots/Loop knots/Water bowline
 * Knots/Loop knots/Yosemite bowline
 * Knots/Stopper knots/Stevedore knot

These are not linked to by this book. Please mark them for deletion with, link to them, or merge them into another page and mark them with. – Adrignola talk 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They are all linked to, if only by  on the immediate (one-level) subpages of the book. —Internoob (Disc·Cont·Wikt) 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Book organization
I point out that, in the long run, the current organization of this book cannot stand. The relevant item in the Wikibooks project scope is Wikibooks is not an encycopedia.

Right now, this book can only be an example of a "developing book" as described in the third sentence of that item. A finished wikibook doesn't, for example, use logical categories to organize its contents, nor go about listing its contents by transcluding Special:PrefixIndex.

I believe (optimistically perhaps, but there it is) that this is a difficulty of form rather than substance. It should be fixable without losing anything from the current structure. If there's a plan already in place to gradually de-encyclopedize this book, well and good, and sorry to be a bother. If not, I'll be happy to apply myself to the question and try to suggest strategy and tactics for the purpose &mdash; though it will probably be a few days, at least (i.e., if not more), before I have time to thoroughly study the existing structure and come up with suggestions.

BTW, it's a reflection of book structure that subpages of a Wikibook should be categorized only via. There are two modes of, flat filing (the default) and deep filing (via ). Flat filing just puts everything into the book category. Deep filing puts pages into subcategories that follow the fields of the page name &mdash; which makes sense because a book has an outline, and the page name fields can be expected to follow that outline. For example, Knots/Hitch knots/Icicle hitch would flat file into |Category:Knots, and deep file into Category:Knots/Hitch knots. --Pi zero (talk) 04:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... What would you suggest? I don't see the harm in categories that don't correspond to page names personally; the Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book uses many, many more categories, for instance. I don't know whether this will ever be a finished book, actually. As for the deep filing, I wouldn't mind, but note that it would duplicate the tables of contents in the general subcategories (eg. Knots/Bend knots). —Internoob (Disc·Cont·Wikt) 00:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Add PDF for this book?
How can a pdf for this book with all the subpages be generated? --89.12.57.238 (discuss) 00:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * See if this is what you want (Help:Collections, look at the last step to understand that the process generates a PDF). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:11, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can read German, there is a pdf. If you want an English one, consider to build a printable version first. https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Datei:Knotenkunde.pdf --Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 08:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I just made a PDF version of wikibook and linked to it on the main page of this Wikibook. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 11:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)