Talk:Indian coracles

Size of the coracles

The article says that the average is 7.3 feet, but that the two sizes are 8 ft and 11 ft-why is the average size less than the two common sizes? Loggie (talk) 19:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That is what the reference said. It may be because the tourist boats are much higher in number than the fishing boats. Don't quote me on that though. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But the average is less than the size of both the tourist and the smaller fishing ones, which makes no sense. Mathematically the average should be between the size of the fishing and the tourist ones. Unless the average size of all coracles (Indian and other) is 7.3. Is there perhaps another ref with the size of these? Loggie (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right. :D I honestly don't know why they use that to explain the measures. The reference for the sizes of Indian coracles is here. Thanks for pointing out the anomaly. I will try look for an answer. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I figured it out, based on the reference. The feet that they are reporting are the length of the maker's feet, which are apparently smaller than an actual foot. They also give the diameter in meters, so we can work backwards to figure out the diameter in a standard foot, since I don't know the size of a typical coracle maker's foot, oddly enough. Loggie (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh.. am such a daft nut! Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

'sokay-easy enough to miss since they call them feet all the same. By the way, the refs should have page numbers, to make it easier to find the info. Loggie (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name

Would "Indian coracles" perhaps be a better name than "Coracles of India"? Loggie (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right. I don't have any preference anyways. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved it to Indian coracles-per the Manual of style only proper nouns are supposed to be capitalized in the article title. Loggie (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Iraq, Wales, and, um, Iraq"

I removed this from the article:

The Indian coracle differs markedly from those of Iraq, Wales and Iraq.

First of all, there is the listing of Iraq twice. Secondly, the first ref points to a PDF file which does not mention either Iraq or Wales, and the second link goes to an "access denied" page; thus, the statement is both confusing and unverifiable. 70.20.211.100 (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)