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
The shape made in the first step of this bend would more accurately be called a loop or crossing loop, as shown in Knot#Terminology, instead of a Half-hitch. The line doesn't form an Overhand_knot around anything just yet. --NormalAsylum 02:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with NormalAsylum. The description of the first phase of tying this knot is misleading. What you really have is a "d over" and a "p under", not two half-hitches. This should be fixed.
I don't think it's fair to call the Zeppelin bend "easily the most effective bend."
It is a great knot, but often the more easily tied sheet bend is better. Rracecarr21:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, this knot is very tough and so easy to untie even after it has been under tension but the sheet bend is so fast and easy. There are plusses and minuses for all types and it isn't really good form to claim any knot as ideal.--Lead holder (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sheet bend is notoriously insecure, especially in modern synthetics,
and the double sheet bend is not much better better than the sheet bend, per testing;
see, for example: Knot Break Strength vs Rope Break Strength
web.archive.org/web/20110703121041/http://www.caves.org/section/vertical/nh/50/knotrope.html
which discusses the fact that they had to tie stopper knots & backup knots
in both sheet bends and double sheet bends to test strength,
because both single and ddouble sheet bends usually fail by coming loose before breaking.
[1]
I disagree with the tagging of this article as giving instructions or how-to advice. It's not possible to fully describe this knot without the instructions for tying it. A picture of the knot doesn't fully explain it. Look at the articles on sheet bend and bowline. Those articles detail tying methods. I'm of the opinion that knots should be a special exception to that rule. Rodfreier (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment. In the past I have invoked WP:SENSE and WP:IAR to justify an exception for descriptions of knot tying methods. A few years ago I also outlined some guidelines on this topic at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Knots#Writing_about_methods_and_usage. I think that to make this claim of exemption in good faith, editors of knot articles have a duty to keep the tone as descriptive as possible. Including an excessive number of methods (perhaps even more than one) would probably start to lessen the ability to reasonably claim a common sense exemption to WP:NOT#IINFO. Overall I've been pleased with other editors' acceptance of this justification in the past, but I definitely think it's something that must be maintained at justifiable levels.
I have just made some improvements to the article and removed the multiple issues template. I did not change the tying section, but as noted above it could use some work for clarity and better terminology. --Dfred (talk) 17:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This bend may be formed, it seems, by proceeding as for Granny knot: Left over Right, tuck under,Left over Right , but then instead of tuck under, here you tuck the final working-end down between the lower cross-over. SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding deleted content, why are these photos and content "unclear"? Perhaps some could be removed, but others seem to be helpful. Any suggestions on improving the content and layout is requested. Jim1138 (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
