This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The citations need to be reworked and the whole thing should be tagged for bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.53.49.216 ( talk) 06:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a dispute over the claims made by some organizations that PWCs pollute? Please discuss. - Willmcw 16:57, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
go away hippy
The references that were in this article are misleading, dated, and false.
Also, the majority of watercraft sold are either clean burning direct-injected 2-stroke engines that emit less emissions than cars and use biodegradable oil or are 4-stroke powered just like the cars we drive.
This is a place to define PWC right? Take your naturalist bs somewhere else please... someone looking up "Pollution from Personal watercraft" looks for your info... not someone who wants to know what they are.
Deleting sourced information without comment is vandalism. The anon who is doing so needs to stop. Thanks, - Willmcw 00:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Manufacturers have come out with biodegradable oil a number of years ago for personal water crafts; I don't know anyone who still uses the conventional stuff, most of us care about the environment and enjoy being out exploring on the water:
http://www.pennzoil.com/products/marine/100pcSynth2cycle.html
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine.cfm?story=320
http://www.autochic.com/redline/specialty.html
This company lists a whole bunch of them:
http://www.nmma.org/certification/programs/oils/
Sure you might get some idiots that use car oil in their PWCs (2 stroke) but most stopped. 4-stroke PWCs are as clean as a car since they use catalytic converters.
I think there is a good middle ground here.
From a quick read up on the topic, these seem to be some salient points about PWC pollution. Let's see if we can get reasonable agreement on these?:
Anything else we can add to that?
This does of course ignore the complaints of noise pollution and of other, non-pollution environmental impact, which we should also address. —Morven 00:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
I dont care if you have sources that they pollute, the reason this page was made was to say what a PWC is, not that they pollute or dont pollute... Go away Hitler !~
It seems as though you'd like to concentrate on all the negatives associated with pwc, but there hasn't been any mention of the countless lives they save via rescue crews, lifeguards, and regular civilians.-- 12.220.216.50 01:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Do we have a source that confirms that four-stroke models predominate in all areas? The current phrasing, outdated studies on 20 year old watercraft, most of which are rarely seen on waterways today. seems like original research. We need to have a source that indicates the current majority of PWC in use are less polluting in order to support that assertion. Also, there is no information about the degree to which the new EPA standards will actually lower emissions. Let's further remember that this is an international encyclopedia. I think the emissions information that I previously supplied is still accurate in countries where the EPA does not have authority. Thanks - Willmcw 04:12, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
I have written a new 'Emissions' section - how about working from there to try and get a NPOV view of the whole issue?
As regards to this issue drowning out everything else about PWCs, how about writing some other sections about that? It's definitely short of info. Rather than removing the emissiosn controversy, add other things! —Morven 02:05, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
We need a source for this:
I looked around the PWIA site and couldn't find anything like this. Also, are there other industry groups? I thought that it was the only one. Cheers, - Willmcw 22:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Is the "water craft" in "personal water craft" really two words? The wikipedia definition for watercraft is one word. If that is correct, this page should be moved to the proper title.-- Daveswagon 06:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed link 5 - it is clearly just there to get a link to a company site and does not point to the information it claims to or any relevant information
Andy Dingley put it back as presumably he is being paid to ensure the link remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.200.148 ( talk) 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
In the article it states that PWC can travel up to 70mph or 96Kph. This conversion is wrong.
Hi everyone. I just recently discovered the Susan Ford case which highlights the gory risk of orifice injuries from the powerful jet coming out of a PWC. On the one hand, this is a freak accident but on the other hand it indicates the extreme danger of PWCs. The opinion is: Ford v. Polaris Industries, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 755 (2006). Do you guys think it's worth mentioning in the article? -- Coolcaesar 08:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Also, to make clear how important the Ford case is, the Court of Appeal upheld the $3.75 million in damages awarded by the jury. That's all economic and noneconomic damages. No punitives were awarded. -- Coolcaesar 08:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it be practical to put a lightly-armored partial encloser and a turreted .50 cal on a jetski? Does anyone know whether something like that has been done? 69.12.155.64 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I know this was tried at least once. In the late-60s/early-70s the U.S. Marine Corps. expirimented with a militarized version of the AquaDart. I don't know if it was armored, but it was mounted with a Browning MG (I believe) and automatic granade launcher. I don't know how many were built in this configuration, or if they were factory-produced or merely custom modified, but it wasn't adopted. The AquaDart was not a ride-on, but rather a "drag-behind" if you will, with the driver's legs steering and dangling as shark bait. Roz666 04:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the idea behind the variable plume of water that is usally seen from the tail of one of these craft when the engine is running? Is it to increase the visibility of the craft or is it some other reason? This info would be good to include. EdX20 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Extremely, horribly, badly, written article, needs rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepcomanche1 ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The claim on this page that, "The first PWC to hit the market was designed by Bombardier in the late 1960s," seems very much at odds with this October 1956 newspaper report, which was also covered in the Illustrated London News of 15 September the same year. The latter notes that Harris and Denton were, "show girls at the Windmill Theatre." There's also this magazine article from the same year showing a different design. I am therefore amending the page to delete the spurious Bombardier claims. Nick Cooper ( talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Personal watercraft warning sticker.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
Kirk Glover, stepson of Usher, has died after an accident involving a personal watercraft http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/ushers-stepson-dies-2-weeks-after-lake-accident-20120722-22hst.html - Is this worth including in article? Too controversal? Not relevant? Perhaps there were other factors involved?(23rd July 2012) Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 09:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I cut the following out of what had been the "References" section and am pasting them here exactly as they were. Some may be suitable as RSs, some not. It is unlcear whether any should be "Further reading", but they didn't belong where they were. I'm pasting them here in case they can be of use to editors as they inprove this article.
Gasoline Boats and Personal Watercraft. Retrieved on May 4, 2005.
Novaseminary ( talk) 02:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
"A personal water craft (PWC), also called water scooter, is a recreational watercraft that the rider rides or stands on, rather than inside of, as in a boat." That "the rider rides" is totally vacuous. Who wrote this? Did they mean "the rider sits on or stands on" ? Suggest it be changed to "that the rider stands or sits on"; but see the other problem (the problem with "on"). The two pictures to the right of this poorly worded sentence shows both PWC with gunwhales rising mid-calf on one and possibly up to or above the seat in the other. The USCG has a definition, I don't know if there is a universal one possible. There are a variety of boats that are < 13', where the driver is below gunwhales in a cockpit. The distinction between riding "on" rather than "in" either needs clarification, or more likely needs to be removed and the definition of such craft changed. Can we use the riders center of gravity being (generally) above the gunwhales? 72.172.1.109 ( talk) 21:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
There's not a word about the need of eyewear for protection from water spray, wind and other particles that can damage the eyes. Is it a non-issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.50.153 ( talk) 09:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Aren't these toys generally known as jet skis or water scooters? Isn't "personal water craft" something of an over-the-top title - rather like calling a car a "mechanical vehicular device"? I suggest changing the title to the more generally used "Jet ski". Royalcourtier ( talk) 09:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The final sentence in the first paragraph seems unsubstantiated. This seems like a bold thing to say or an advertisement. Citation? I'm new to editing after a long hiatus, I hope I am doing this constructively and respectfully!! RoToR~enwiki ( talk) 20:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)RoToR
In the sports section it may be worth noting some other circuits that are also well known within the watercraft racing community. (I work in industry at RIVA Racing - We sponsor racers worldwide):
Hydrodrags - an event style where racers modify their watercraft in order to compete in a drag race style format, sometimes hitting top speeds of 112-114mph. [2]
Pro Watercross - Rival circuit to P1 AquaX with events around the USA [3]
All racing circuits are also governed by a worldwide sanctioned association, the IJSBA. The IJSBA provides a standardized rule book for all racing events, and sanctions certain races throughout the year as events used to get into the IJSBA World Finals of watercraft racing, usually hosted as a week-long event for Stand Ups, Freestyle, and sit-down watercrafts in the first week of October in Lake Havasu, AZ. [4] [5] [6]
First time working on editing in Wikipedia, so let me know what I can do to improve my formatting for discussion. Thank you for your consideration!
-- Rheigel ( talk) 17:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Personal water craft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://archive.wmlnj.org/var/www/TheWestfieldLeader/1956/1956-10-04/pg_0018.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Personal water craft → Personal watercraft – Per WP:CONSISTENCY with the main article located at Watercraft. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The citations need to be reworked and the whole thing should be tagged for bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.53.49.216 ( talk) 06:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a dispute over the claims made by some organizations that PWCs pollute? Please discuss. - Willmcw 16:57, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
go away hippy
The references that were in this article are misleading, dated, and false.
Also, the majority of watercraft sold are either clean burning direct-injected 2-stroke engines that emit less emissions than cars and use biodegradable oil or are 4-stroke powered just like the cars we drive.
This is a place to define PWC right? Take your naturalist bs somewhere else please... someone looking up "Pollution from Personal watercraft" looks for your info... not someone who wants to know what they are.
Deleting sourced information without comment is vandalism. The anon who is doing so needs to stop. Thanks, - Willmcw 00:09, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Manufacturers have come out with biodegradable oil a number of years ago for personal water crafts; I don't know anyone who still uses the conventional stuff, most of us care about the environment and enjoy being out exploring on the water:
http://www.pennzoil.com/products/marine/100pcSynth2cycle.html
http://www.sharetrails.org/magazine.cfm?story=320
http://www.autochic.com/redline/specialty.html
This company lists a whole bunch of them:
http://www.nmma.org/certification/programs/oils/
Sure you might get some idiots that use car oil in their PWCs (2 stroke) but most stopped. 4-stroke PWCs are as clean as a car since they use catalytic converters.
I think there is a good middle ground here.
From a quick read up on the topic, these seem to be some salient points about PWC pollution. Let's see if we can get reasonable agreement on these?:
Anything else we can add to that?
This does of course ignore the complaints of noise pollution and of other, non-pollution environmental impact, which we should also address. —Morven 00:04, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
I dont care if you have sources that they pollute, the reason this page was made was to say what a PWC is, not that they pollute or dont pollute... Go away Hitler !~
It seems as though you'd like to concentrate on all the negatives associated with pwc, but there hasn't been any mention of the countless lives they save via rescue crews, lifeguards, and regular civilians.-- 12.220.216.50 01:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Do we have a source that confirms that four-stroke models predominate in all areas? The current phrasing, outdated studies on 20 year old watercraft, most of which are rarely seen on waterways today. seems like original research. We need to have a source that indicates the current majority of PWC in use are less polluting in order to support that assertion. Also, there is no information about the degree to which the new EPA standards will actually lower emissions. Let's further remember that this is an international encyclopedia. I think the emissions information that I previously supplied is still accurate in countries where the EPA does not have authority. Thanks - Willmcw 04:12, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
I have written a new 'Emissions' section - how about working from there to try and get a NPOV view of the whole issue?
As regards to this issue drowning out everything else about PWCs, how about writing some other sections about that? It's definitely short of info. Rather than removing the emissiosn controversy, add other things! —Morven 02:05, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
We need a source for this:
I looked around the PWIA site and couldn't find anything like this. Also, are there other industry groups? I thought that it was the only one. Cheers, - Willmcw 22:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Is the "water craft" in "personal water craft" really two words? The wikipedia definition for watercraft is one word. If that is correct, this page should be moved to the proper title.-- Daveswagon 06:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed external links to discussion forums as they are a violation of WP:EL. -- MakeChooChooGoNow 09:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed link 5 - it is clearly just there to get a link to a company site and does not point to the information it claims to or any relevant information
Andy Dingley put it back as presumably he is being paid to ensure the link remains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.200.148 ( talk) 21:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
In the article it states that PWC can travel up to 70mph or 96Kph. This conversion is wrong.
Hi everyone. I just recently discovered the Susan Ford case which highlights the gory risk of orifice injuries from the powerful jet coming out of a PWC. On the one hand, this is a freak accident but on the other hand it indicates the extreme danger of PWCs. The opinion is: Ford v. Polaris Industries, Inc., 139 Cal. App. 4th 755 (2006). Do you guys think it's worth mentioning in the article? -- Coolcaesar 08:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Also, to make clear how important the Ford case is, the Court of Appeal upheld the $3.75 million in damages awarded by the jury. That's all economic and noneconomic damages. No punitives were awarded. -- Coolcaesar 08:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it be practical to put a lightly-armored partial encloser and a turreted .50 cal on a jetski? Does anyone know whether something like that has been done? 69.12.155.64 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I know this was tried at least once. In the late-60s/early-70s the U.S. Marine Corps. expirimented with a militarized version of the AquaDart. I don't know if it was armored, but it was mounted with a Browning MG (I believe) and automatic granade launcher. I don't know how many were built in this configuration, or if they were factory-produced or merely custom modified, but it wasn't adopted. The AquaDart was not a ride-on, but rather a "drag-behind" if you will, with the driver's legs steering and dangling as shark bait. Roz666 04:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
What is the idea behind the variable plume of water that is usally seen from the tail of one of these craft when the engine is running? Is it to increase the visibility of the craft or is it some other reason? This info would be good to include. EdX20 02:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Extremely, horribly, badly, written article, needs rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeepcomanche1 ( talk • contribs) 06:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The claim on this page that, "The first PWC to hit the market was designed by Bombardier in the late 1960s," seems very much at odds with this October 1956 newspaper report, which was also covered in the Illustrated London News of 15 September the same year. The latter notes that Harris and Denton were, "show girls at the Windmill Theatre." There's also this magazine article from the same year showing a different design. I am therefore amending the page to delete the spurious Bombardier claims. Nick Cooper ( talk) 14:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Personal watercraft warning sticker.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 20:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
Kirk Glover, stepson of Usher, has died after an accident involving a personal watercraft http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/ushers-stepson-dies-2-weeks-after-lake-accident-20120722-22hst.html - Is this worth including in article? Too controversal? Not relevant? Perhaps there were other factors involved?(23rd July 2012) Ern Malleyscrub ( talk) 09:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I cut the following out of what had been the "References" section and am pasting them here exactly as they were. Some may be suitable as RSs, some not. It is unlcear whether any should be "Further reading", but they didn't belong where they were. I'm pasting them here in case they can be of use to editors as they inprove this article.
Gasoline Boats and Personal Watercraft. Retrieved on May 4, 2005.
Novaseminary ( talk) 02:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
"A personal water craft (PWC), also called water scooter, is a recreational watercraft that the rider rides or stands on, rather than inside of, as in a boat." That "the rider rides" is totally vacuous. Who wrote this? Did they mean "the rider sits on or stands on" ? Suggest it be changed to "that the rider stands or sits on"; but see the other problem (the problem with "on"). The two pictures to the right of this poorly worded sentence shows both PWC with gunwhales rising mid-calf on one and possibly up to or above the seat in the other. The USCG has a definition, I don't know if there is a universal one possible. There are a variety of boats that are < 13', where the driver is below gunwhales in a cockpit. The distinction between riding "on" rather than "in" either needs clarification, or more likely needs to be removed and the definition of such craft changed. Can we use the riders center of gravity being (generally) above the gunwhales? 72.172.1.109 ( talk) 21:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
There's not a word about the need of eyewear for protection from water spray, wind and other particles that can damage the eyes. Is it a non-issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.50.153 ( talk) 09:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Aren't these toys generally known as jet skis or water scooters? Isn't "personal water craft" something of an over-the-top title - rather like calling a car a "mechanical vehicular device"? I suggest changing the title to the more generally used "Jet ski". Royalcourtier ( talk) 09:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The final sentence in the first paragraph seems unsubstantiated. This seems like a bold thing to say or an advertisement. Citation? I'm new to editing after a long hiatus, I hope I am doing this constructively and respectfully!! RoToR~enwiki ( talk) 20:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)RoToR
In the sports section it may be worth noting some other circuits that are also well known within the watercraft racing community. (I work in industry at RIVA Racing - We sponsor racers worldwide):
Hydrodrags - an event style where racers modify their watercraft in order to compete in a drag race style format, sometimes hitting top speeds of 112-114mph. [2]
Pro Watercross - Rival circuit to P1 AquaX with events around the USA [3]
All racing circuits are also governed by a worldwide sanctioned association, the IJSBA. The IJSBA provides a standardized rule book for all racing events, and sanctions certain races throughout the year as events used to get into the IJSBA World Finals of watercraft racing, usually hosted as a week-long event for Stand Ups, Freestyle, and sit-down watercrafts in the first week of October in Lake Havasu, AZ. [4] [5] [6]
First time working on editing in Wikipedia, so let me know what I can do to improve my formatting for discussion. Thank you for your consideration!
-- Rheigel ( talk) 17:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Personal water craft. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://archive.wmlnj.org/var/www/TheWestfieldLeader/1956/1956-10-04/pg_0018.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 18:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Personal water craft → Personal watercraft – Per WP:CONSISTENCY with the main article located at Watercraft. Rreagan007 ( talk) 18:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)