Talk:Swampscott dory

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fisheries, aquaculture and fishing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fisheries and FishingWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingTemplate:WikiProject Fisheries and FishingFishing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

hey, what's wrong with listing a builder of a boat...? They have more information at their site.

It is also advertising. I don't think their model is particularly true to the Swampscott type either. Of course with so few contemporary illustrations and so many different builders it is hard to argue the point. Having lived a good part of my life in the Swampscott neighborhood I can say I have never seen a dory like their's locally. --Bcooke99 (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments.

The final sentence in the first paragraph, "However there are still some other manufacturers of dories of this design, just not in the old locations." Irrelevent. Calling small boatshops "manufacturers" is a bit of a stretch too. These boats are hardly mass produced these days.

The swampscott dory is definitely NOT a derivation of the banks dory. The article quotes John Gardner so I will too. "It has frequently been supposed that the round-sided Swampscott dory ... constitutes a refinement of the fishermans's straight-sided Bank dory, erroneously taken to have been the prior and original dory type. This is definitely not the fact. The knuckle-sided Swampscott dory is too close in resemblance and historical connection to the round-sided colonial wherry, whatever the Swampscott type may have borrowed of the rationalized construction of the mass-produced Bank fishing dories. [John Gardner, "The Dory Book", pg 33, 1987]

Minor edit - the Swampscott dories were not built with "more" rounded sides as the article suggests. The sides of Bank dories are flat. Swampscott dories were built with rounded sides period. Again, Swampscott dories were a development of local wherries not Bank dories which in turn got their shape from French influenced river boats.

"The bottoms are flat but narrow, an almost round bottom". Is the fact that the Swampscott dory's bottom is flat worth mentioning? If the bottom isn't flat then it isn't a dory. A flat bottom is a defining characteristic of a dory along with bottom planks secured lengthwise and the sides generally defined by the natural shape (untwisted, unbent) of a plank.

Is the final paragraph really necessary? The fact that some recreational fishermen who prefer to row rather than motor and some boaters looking for a small but seaworthy craft chose to own Swampscott dories is superfluos.

Also the fact that Swampscott dories have been judged "the aristocrats of dory boats" by John Gardner is hardly note-worthy since he is the only person to have ever said this to my knowledge. It is certainly not a commonly held idea. Bcooke99 (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious or incompetent (admin?) editing.

Some one has claimed that This article was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 18 October 2016 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Banks dory. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page.

A brief look at the articles history will show that it was -not- labeled as nominated for deletion, and, unsurprisingly, that was not discussed. A slightly longer look at the article, the Banks dory article, and the Dory article will suggest why this proposed merger is incorrect. Anmccaff (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually follow the template's instructions: read the AfD discussion, and discuss the merger on the target's talk page. Consensus was that the three variants of the boat type would be better covered under the single broader article especially since all three are sourced only to the same single reference. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Consensus implies previous discussion of the topic; you closed shortly after offering your suggestion, and have since conceded that it would have been better discussed before closing. Anmccaff (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletion Review on this has unanimously supported Salv's close, so consensus is against you here... Sergecross73 msg me 19:00, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. A two-day consensus to merge this article. Anmccaff (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not...exactly what you're driving at, but my point is that so far, you are the only person, out of like 10 people consulted so far, who has objected to Salv's decision. You can keep complaining all you want, but there's a firm consensus that he was in the right in his decision and action. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside the implication of canvassing posed by "consulted", what this seems to say is that there are 10 wikitors willing to vote on merger without bothering to read the sources, or whose bureaucratic mindset pinholes their vision to narrow questions of form. I don't think that is exactly news. Anmccaff (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Consulted" doesn't implicitly mean "canvassed". No one was canvassed, nor is there any evidence to suggest otherwise. Now please, stop assuming bad faith, and once the DRV is closed, you need to adhere to the consensus, or you'll be blocked for editing against consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 23:26, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anmccaff, I'm inclined to agree the Swampscott dory could remain as its own article. But I stopped participating some time ago because the combative way you demean the rest of us makes trying to collaborate too odious. I would rather do something else. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chapelle and Gardner both disagree, IMS

As already discussed above the round-siders preceded the straight-sides dories, and by many years. Anmccaff (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with listing other sites with information about building and outfitting a Swampscott dory?

These are non commercial sites that provide more photos than Wikipedia will allow on this site in fear of copyright violations. The Build sites offer information on how to build a wooden version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoryGuy (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTHOWTO, for example. --Cornellier (talk) 04:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photo showing dory being launched from the beach.

A photo is a primary source of the design that the Swampscott Dories are designed to be launched from the beach, because it's showing an actual dory being launched from the beach.

Take a look at WP:PRIMARY which says "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so".--Cornellier (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is not interpreted, it's an actual photograph of people launching the boat off the beach. Gardner mentions it in his Dory book as well, so I added that reference as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoryGuy (talk • contribs) 19:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]