Talk:Indian coracles

A fact from Indian coracles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 June 2008, and was viewed approximately 5,700 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Indian coracles, which probably existed since the prehistoric times, have recently been used for giving tourists rides on the Kaveri River?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/June.

Wikipedia

India: Karnataka / Tamil Nadu Low‑importance

	India portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as Mid-importance).

Size of the coracles[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

'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)[reply]

Article name[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

"Iraq, Wales, and, um, Iraq"[edit]

I removed this from the article:

The Indian coracle differs markedly from those of Iraq, Wales and Iraq.^[1]^[2]

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)[reply]

^ The Origins and Ethnological Significance
^ Cite error: The named reference man was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[origins-1] The Origins and Ethnological Significance

[man-2] Cite error: The named reference man was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]