Talk:Double bowline

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Knots, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of knots 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.KnotsWikipedia:WikiProject KnotsTemplate:WikiProject KnotsKnots articles

Climbing Low‑importance

	Climbing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climbing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climbing 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.ClimbingWikipedia:WikiProject ClimbingTemplate:WikiProject ClimbingClimbing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

double sheet bend[edit]

The double sheet bend should also be listed as a related knot.

Done. --Dfred (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages are arguable[edit]

It is written that "The disadvantages of the double bowline are that it is less secure than a figure eight knot, takes longer to tie, and is not as easy to check." The first point may be demonstrably correct, the last is completely subjective, and the middle ("longer to tie") contradicts consensus. One of the major disadvantages of the retraced figure 8 (against many other loop knots) is that is takes much time to re-trace and even longer to dress. Alexgenaud (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not a double bowline[edit]

This is just a bowline with two loops. People call this a double bowline due to misunderstanding. Check Mountaineering: Freedom of the Hills for a more reliable definition. It is worth noting in the article that many people refer to this particular knot as a double bowline instead of the one listed in Freedom of the Hills. Also, evidence should be cited that this knot is more secure than a bowline. It may just be a dangerous rumor. 69.243.81.178 (talk) 06:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to address these issues (and a few others :). I do not have access to M:FotH, so please review my changes and let me know if this helped. If it contains specific info about limitations/caveats for the "round turn bowline", please feel free to add them to the article w/refs. Also, take a look at WP:KNOTS for some guidelines/ideas on knot naming/article titles, etc. My thought on this article is that double bowline is a common enough name for this knot that it doesn't need to be moved as long as the ambiguity you brought up is addressed. ...but I'd be open to hearing thoughts to the contrary. --Dfred (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[replying to self] Looks like the knot referred to in M:FotH as the "double bowline" is neither the double bowline (ABOK #1013) nor the bowline on a bight (#1080). The most comparable knot I found in ABOK seems to be #1074, which is also a bowline made with a bight, but in that knot the initial loop (i.e. the "rabbit hole") is made with a single strand rather than a double. My feeling is that the editors of M:FotH have chosen too generic a name for this obviously distinct knot, but I'll add something to the naming section to address their use of this name. --Dfred (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and also remeber that these knots can also help you some day its good to know them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.179.113 (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley is as definitive as it gets, and he says it's a "double bowline". "1013. The DOUBLE or ROUND TURN BOWLINE is put into stiff or slippery rope and is the same knot formation as the DOUBLE BECKET HITCH. It holds the BOWLINE together in such a way as to lessen the danger of its capsizing, which is liable to occur when a SINGLE BOWLINE is carelessly drawn up." Alexgenaud (talk) 16:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]