Talk:Diving mask

DIY prescription masks

The following was added to the article today.

EYE GLASSES FOR MASKS Divers can attach an old pair of eye glasses to the OUTSIDE of the mask to provide the same corrected vision as they'd see if wearing their glasses out of the water. Affixing the glasses to the outside eliminates fogging of the eye glasses. To construct this configuration the diver must use a pair of glasses which have a plastic frame. The plastic frames have a part that sticks out between the seperate glass pieces which rests on the nose. These must be removed or flattened using a file or grinding wheel. The 'arms' of the glasses (the parts that provide support on your ears) are removed, and any remaining parts of the hinges must also be removed using a grinding wheel or pulled out using pliers. This can be done most easily if you heat the hinge INDIRECTLY using a candle (put the hinge near the side of the flame without allowing the flame to touch the glasses). At that stage, the remaining glasses should be relatively uniform in flatness. Four holes must be drilled or burned in the four 'corners' of the eye glasses. The first two holes should go where the arms were attached, and the other two holes must be CAREFULLY created lower in the frames (about an inch below the other holes). It is better to create the holes closer to the glass instead of closer to the outer edge of the plastic frames. The holes can be created using a fine drill or a paper-clip heated over a flame (use a pair of pliers to hold the paper-clip for safety reasons). Once the four holes are in place on the glasses, place the glasses on top of the dive mask and find four places on the mask to drill/burn similar holes on the outer edge of the mask (not in the 'skirt' that surrounds & touches your face, but the outer frame that holds the glass). Fine safety wire or thin wire used in arts & craft projects is then used to wire the four attachment points. I have made this adjustment on several masks for family & friends, and all have worked perfectly for several years. I take credit for this idea: Dragon734real

Although an interesting anecdote, it is really not encyclopedic, per WP:NOTMANUAL, so I've moved it here. Perhaps an article exists somewhere on the subject, that could be used as a source for a brief summary in the article at a later date. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is wrong: the spectacles would need to be in air (= inside the mask) to work like they work out of water. I have semiprotected page Diving mask. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mask fogging

I disagree to the fact that spit and water reduce fogging. I did a science expierement that shows that solutions in stores really work:Livy32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.210.233 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the store-sold detergents work. What makes you think saliva doesn't? Both of them remove the oily film that builds up on the glass and provides a starting point for condensation (as long as you're not stupid enough to rub the glass with your fingers, of course). --RexxS (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

redirects please

Sorry, can't DIY. More common designations are "Dive mask" and "Scuba mask." Please add so this page will come up in the search results. Thanks. 196.202.26.177 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Good catch and thank you. Both redirects now created. --RexxS (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Wooden diving goggles

this edit added

• wooden diving goggles - writers and drawings describe already from the 14th century the usage of goggles with windows made of the polished layer of tortoise shells. Polynesian skin divers were known to use bamboo or goggles carved of wood. Today these wooden goggles are still being used by indigenous ethnic groups in and around the pacific. These divers hunt and gather sea creatures in up to 20m, but there is also video documented cases of divers going 80m just on wooden goggles.

References

The video clips at the linked website reference appear authentic, but it seems that another editor considers the information inappropriate, possibly due to a perceived conflict of interest. In my opinion the information is suitably encyclopaedic, but would benefit from a more uninvolved reference. I think the BBC video clip is adequately credible and that the edit was made in good faith. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

B-Class review

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. More references needed. There is very little controversial content, but the number of in-line citations is very low.Almost all paragraphs now cited at least once and no outstanding citation requests left. Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Looks OK. Y The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Looks OK. Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Looks OK. Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. adequately illustrated. Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK. Y

Not yet. Needs a lot more in-line citation, otherwise OK.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks OK now. Upgrading to B-class. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diving mask. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928151718/http://www.deepocean.net/deepocean/index.php?science02.php to http://www.deepocean.net/deepocean/index.php?science02.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTMANUAL

In April 2017, a lot of "citation needed" tags were added (by Peter (Southwood)), and they are more than justified.

I would go even further and say that large parts of this article are written like a manual. The sections "Fit" and "Use" in particular are how-to guidebooks that are really not in compliance with WP:WWIN.

Interestingly, these sections are, at the same time, the ones with the worst reference situation. --93.212.232.58 (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I put the tags there to remind me to reference those items when I get round to them, but they are in no way controversial, and are common knowledge to any competent diver. I will have a look at the sections you say are like a manual. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I looked at the sections "Fit" and "Use", and don't see the problem. They describe what is commonly done, but do not instruct the user on how to do it. Do you have any concrete suggestions for improvement? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Let me start with a few very obvious ones:

• "Divers may test whether a mask is a good fit by placing it on their face"
• "There should also be sufficient space between the mask lenses and the face"
• "When entering the water while wearing the mask, the diver may need to place a hand over the mask"

These are some very obvious ones. But pretty much everything else in those sections also sounds like it was only slightly rephrased so as to just barely get around the WP:NOTMANUAL rule. A few examples:

• "The strap can be adjusted to suit the diver's head" = "Adjust the strap to suit your head."
• "Optimum sealing requires that hair strands do not cross under the edge of the seal, as they can provide a path for water to leak into the mask." = "Make sure that no hair strands cross under the edge of the seal, as they can provide a path for water to leak into the mask."
• "Standard maintenance is to rinse inside and out with clean, fresh water after each day's use, and dry out of direct sunlight before storage." = "Rinse inside and out with clean, fresh water after each day's use, and dry out of direct sunlight before storage."
  

--93.212.232.58 (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that the content you refer to is a paraphrasing of some guide or how-to manual. But that's exactly what we're supposed to do. WP:NOTMANUAL is about the style of writing, not the content. This is what it says: "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." Of course, if you can suggest better wording that conveys the same information, then please go ahead and update the article. Otherwise, I'm not sure what action you want to see taken. --RexxS (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo under See Also in the annotated link to Underwater Vision, but I can't figure out how to edit the annotation. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, the typo is " 'Tha' ability to see objects underwater" 'Tha' should obviously be 'the', but I can't find the annotation when I try to edit the 'see also' section. If someone could help fix this please, thanks in advance. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it! All fixed now. 2603:8080:5701:9E54:E0FB:BA41:E1D9:182B (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)