This template was considered for deletion on 2015 September 30. The result of the discussion was "keep".

Sailing NA‑class

Sailing dinghies and skiffs is within the scope of the WikiProject Sailing, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Sailing. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.SailingWikipedia:WikiProject SailingTemplate:WikiProject SailingSailing articles NA This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Looking back over this template's history, it seems odd to me that some edits have been to remove redlinks. If it is to be a complete list, a daunting task indeed, surely redlinks should be perfectly acceptable, since a redlink is often a spur for a knowledgeable editor to create the article that is required.

For example, I have just added a few boats where there are no articles. That is not a bad thing nor a good thing. It is just a fact. Since the naming convention is sensible, then the template will point to the new articles when they are created. And the editor is likely to deploy this template after checking "What links here" and being amazed how many articles point to the new article. That part is the "good thing".

I'd like to see the Jollyboat come back to the template, for example. A glorious 18' wooden planing boat, almost never seen today, but sadly deleted many months ago because there was, presumably, no article. The same with the Graduate - a boat I learnt to sail on. These boats are part of our history. And the redlink will spur an aficionado to write the article, will jog a memory. It may not be today, it may not be tomorrow, but it will come.

Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dinghy Database may be useful Fiddle Faddle 22:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been gathering some info on Zephyr (Des Townson and Mistral (Des Townson) to prepare articles, but notice the redlinks to them have been removed in the past couple of days... any reason why? Alan Baskin 00:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you both put them back and publish your articles. Assuming the boat is in the right template. Reasons, per se, don;t tend to appear much on wikipedia, so be bold yourself and edit the template. Fiddle Faddle 06:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll certainly "be bold" and do it myself, just thought it was worth asking the question. Cheers. Alan Baskin 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added this because it passes the duck test though it is a canoe Fiddle Faddle 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may tidy this up a little to put all the Laser (Performance Sailboats Surope/Vanguard of North America), LDC Racing Sailboats and Topper Sailboats classes into Subsections. At the moment, the Lasers and RSs are fairly tidy, but the Topper brand classes are spread through the list (perhaps hampered by most of them not being a "Topper X")- things like the Sport 14 and 16 (also don't notice the Buzz, Iso, Spice and the Topaz classes there yet. Will sort this)

http://ussailing.org/odcc/classresults.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkjazzer (talk • contribs) 07:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I notice that several pages that use this template are in desperate need of an infobox. This page, for instance, has the "Specifications Under Current Rules" box on the upper right, but it is created by a bunch of manually-placed code. This should be standardized into a template so that all the other pages can be easily constructed. (Several other articles have this manually-placed code as well — not editor-friendly!)

I'd like to get the infobox started right away. I'm not knowledgeable enough on the dinghies and skiffs subject, however, to have all the answers. For starters, can someone tell me what the infobox should be called? I don't think that "Infobox specifications under current rules" makes much sense. Could it be, "infobox dinghies"? And what are specifications under current rules? Does that need to be in the header?

I'm going to start building the template '''[[Template:Sailing dinghies and skiffs/infobox|here]].''' Let me know how I can help. Thanks. Timneu22 (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevermind, I found an existing template. However, there is still a great need to switch all these articles to that infobox! Timneu22 (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://www.littletraversesailors.org/history.html http://www.sailpixel.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.220.61 (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the idea of splitting the template, at least to an extent. Would ((Navbox with collapsible groups)) meet the need for differentiation better though and look a tad neater? The work that has been done is not wasted, because a simple copy and paste operation woudl do the job easily. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Splitting might help. :) However, criteria to split it with is trickier - I've separated the boats based on LOA, as I figure it was getting pretty unmanageable, but LOA isn't my first choice. However, it is the only criteria which I think we're guaranteed to have for all boats. I'm not so big on collapsible sections, though, unless it gets a bit bigger, as they tend to hide information a bit more than I'd generally like. But that may just be me. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Thinking about it some more, I figured we could at least make a distinction between dinghies and scows, and possibly pull out the Sharpies and skiffs. Thus I've pulled out the scows to start with. - Bilby (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amf_puffer/?v=1&t=search&ch=web&pub=groups&sec=group&slk=3

pretty popular boat. deserves a wikipedia article.

PS. I don't like the idea of fragmenting out the skiffs and scows. You should put the scows back in the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.131.87 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It took nine years, but  Done: Puffer (dinghy). - Ahunt (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a quiet discussion happening on user talk pages between me and Ahunt about splitting Catamarans out into a separate group (not template, group within template). Over the next few days the edits will take place, probably saving work in progress periocially as the effort progresses. It is viewed as uncontroversial. You may, of coursem have a different view, in whcih case please say so. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The catamaran addition and migration into a group is, broadly, complete. I have left a couple of redlinks to seek to encourage articles, but am not wedded to them. I have attempted a better title. If you can improve it please improve it.

I notice that just over ten years ago I started to amend this template. I am not sure, today, whether splitting Scows (etc) out was wise Fiddle Faddle 07:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks pretty good now. I actually took out a bunch of non-linked boat names and redlinks a while back, but we could just create articles for the existing redlinks. - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahunt, Probably alwasy worth havng a couple of redlinks as a reminder?

What about putting scows back in? There are only about ten... Fiddle Faddle 15:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are there only ten in total or does it have the potential to get much bigger? On the other hand scows are not really a totally different kind of boat, so they probably do belong. I am just concerned about the nav box getting huge! I have articles on at least another 90 boats lined up to be written this year! - Ahunt (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as the redlinks in the box go: WP:EXISTING says, "Red links and redirects should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." In general I prefer leaving them out, unless they are going to be written soon. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahunt, I am content either way Fiddle Faddle 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahunt, I am not sure size is a true problem since it is collapsed by default. 90! Wow. That makes the two or three I've done over time seem rather tiny. Put the Shearwater III one together as a stub today though Fiddle Faddle 17:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

LOL, when I am not sailing I am working my way though Richard Sherwood's A Field Guide to Sailboats of North America, Second Edition and doing each of them in turn, supported by sailboatdata.com. Yesterday wasn't a great sailing day (crazy windy and hot) so I sat at home in the air conditioning and did three new articles (list). Beats watching TV! I just reviewed each linked article in the template and split out the catamarans and even found some trimarans tucked in there! I am going to see about merging Template:Sailing Scows into it. I'll drop a note here when that is done and you can see if that works okay or not. - Ahunt (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahunt, Merging scows ought to be just creating group6 and list6 and pasting the list firm the scows template in

Impressive list!

Do we need a Trimarans section? Fiddle Faddle 17:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I thought if we are treating catamarans as a separate class then we shouldn't discriminate against the poor trimarans, but I could be convinced otherwise, if it is judged more messy than useful! PS I stole that "personal attacks" box off your talk page, I liked the philosophy! - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ahunt, I think just do that multihull thing. The actual title might get unwieldy. Needs thought

The personal attacks note I created after someone was very nasty to me. They failed to understand that I wear them with pride! But other decent editors do remove them sometimes. I find the notice now makes the attacker think! Or not! Fiddle Faddle 17:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done - Please do have a look and make any changes you see fit. I must admit that I was tempted to move the Y Flyer and Fireball (dinghy) to the scow list, but left them for now. What do you think? - Ahunt (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay I have grouped the multihulls together. I am wondering if the displayed nav box title should just be simplified to Sailing dinghies, as that captures all the divisions neatly and makes for a less intimidating header? I have done that for now, but see what you think of it and feel free to fix if you think it is too simple.

I have always left well-meaning personal attacks on my talk page, although, like you, sometimes some well-intentioned talk page stalkers have removed them. My reasons are similar to yours, really. First I figure it is a badge of honour of sorts, in that if you aren't annoying the occasional vandal or POV/COI warrior now and then, then you really aren't being a sufficiently tenacious Wikipedia editor. The other reason is that I know a couple of admins watch my talk page and the personal attacks often result in admin action without even a request made, so essentially it is "evidence". I normally don't respond to the attacks, but may put a "note to file" after they have been blocked or "debriefed" indicating the status of their interjection. Usually I just leave it as it was written, though. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I found the M32 article at M32 (catamaran) and fixed that link, we were down to one redlink on this template, so I started the article at Nacra 20 today. I have also moved the Y Flyer and Fireball (dinghy) to the scow list. - Ahunt (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]