Talk:Dry suit

Drysuits for other uses than scuba diving?

• The intro mentions that drysuits are worn by "scuba divers, small boat users and others who work or play in or near to cold water", but the rest of the article is exclusively about the scuba-diving kind. It would be great to get some input from kayakers, for example, who often wear a different kind of drysuit. FreplySpang 18:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• I made the text more generic, and added entries for watersports. My experience is with wind and kite surfing, so it would still be good to get kayaking info.

--Dhaluza 03:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

• I'm against the merge. A drysuit is not a type of wetsuit. They are both environmental and thermal protection suits for use in or near water. Both were at one time described in a single article (diving suit); do we really want to go endlessly round in circles? Mark.murphy 17:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• No thanks, they are completly different things...

Chris 21:21 & 21:22, 5 October 2006 User:86.132.5.1

A redirect needed

• Not an editor or contributor to this page, but I just wanted to let you know that "Dry Suit" redirects to "Diving suit" instead of here. I assume this is an artifact that someone would want to fix. 74.93.230.113 19:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
•  Done by me at 21:23, 10 July 2007. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

List of makers and sellers of drysuits?

• I BOUGHT A DRYSUIT last year. After getting some basic information on this website, I gathered information about drysuits for use at water's surface. Eventually bought a suit for sculling that had been designed for kayakers. I think it w3ould be helpful for readers to have access to a list of manufacturers and sales outlets. Drysuit user (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Could be, but we're an encyclopedia-- we explicitly are not a directory. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

• Why is wetsuit one word, whereas dry suit is two words. Shouldn't related content be created in a consistent method? Merriam-Webster.com says that both entries are 2 words, with alternate spelling as one word. Wikipedia needs to standardize spelling, so we don't have British spelling mixed together with American in articles. 15:01, 23 December 2008 User:76.117.112.223

Replied at Talk:Wetsuit#Spelling --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• * It's a valid point. At least one mainstream source (the PADI Open Water Diver manual) uses "wet suit" and "dry suit" consistently throughout. At the very least, the article should use a consistent form throughout, so I have edited the Dry Suit article to be internally consistent with itself, using the two word form used in the canonical title. --Ukslim (talk) 09:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• No argument about 'dry suit'. Nevertheless, the wikipedia article is Wetsuit and a check through the sources cited there shows a clear majority using 'wetsuit' as the spelling. I've always believed 'usage in sources' is preferred to 'consistency with similar words'. The variant of a word as an article title is governed by the policy WP:Naming conventions which states "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject." So we have 'wetsuit' as the article title and within that article - it would clearly be inconsistent to use 'wet suit' there. This leads us to the position where we now have 'wetsuit' within the article Wetsuit and 'wet suit' within the article Dry suit. Could I respectfully suggest you reconsider your changes from 'wetsuit' to 'wet suit' here? --RexxS (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Kayaking

This is a scuba article, but dry suits aren't only used for scuba. I use one about 1/3 of the year while kayaking. It would be nice to see a more balanced article, so as not to steer people in the wrong direction. For example, there are no valves or BCD on a kayaking dry suit. Yet these ARE available (ie they really do exist), and somebody doing preliminary research into a new hobby is likely to think otherwise if they being their research here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.201.209 (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. As you may have realised, Wikipedia is a work-in-progress and relies on volunteer contributors (such as yourself) to improve each article. Why not add the information you have to the article? If you have any sources (books, magazines, websites, etc.) that support what you say, make a note of them, and be prepared to add them as references - or ask here on the talk page for someone to add them for you if you are unsure. --RexxS (talk) 21:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. The article lists "boating" (in which I'd include kayaking) as one of the many uses. Valves etc. are in an "Optional" subheading. The section on valves explicitly states that valves aren't required on the surface. Was the commenter looking at a historical version? --Ukslim (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Is it worth mentioning the pop culture trope about superspies like James Bond wearing tuxedos under scuba gear. Especially since Mythbusters proved that it was plausible?Mr. ATOZ (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, You could wear anything under the suit that fits, but your Saville row suit would look more like Skid row after a dive. The tux would look like you have slept in it for a week. Is this something the world really needs to know? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Photos wanted

Anyone who has a good enough photo to illustrate one of the following is invited to upload to commons under a suitable licence and either provide a link here, put it directly into the article, or on this page. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:50, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Seatec QD connector (done)
• Boots: Heavy duty, rock boots.
• Inflator valve details (done)
• Auto-dump valve details (got one, could be better)
• Silicone neck seal ring attachment (done)
• Poseidon unisuit zipper arrangement
• Loose hood
• dry gloves  Done
• Argon suit inflation cylinder
• P-valve system
• ankle weights
• Gaiters
• Zip damage (got one, could be better)
• torn latex seal (done)
• early drysuits (more needed)
• hybrid suit
• Dry suited divers cooling off in water before boat trip to the site
• Thinsulate and Polartec undergarments
• Woolly bear
• Hot pack and electrical suit heaters.
• Suspenders
• Trilaminate seams (done)
• Convenience zip

Assessment for B-class

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. Not yet. Some challenged items outstanding. Outstanding citation requests are for uncontroversial or trivial points. It would be ideal to get references, but not essential. 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. Not comprehensive, but fairly well covered. Y History section can be expanded to include the introduction of watertight zippers and the variable volume dry suit. 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. Complies. 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. Complies. 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 to me. Y

Needs some citations, otherwise good. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Now OK, Promoting to B-class • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dry suit. 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/20111018035915/http://divernet.com/other_diving_topics/160398/dont_go_upsidedown_ballistic.html to http://www.divernet.com/other_diving_topics/160398/dont_go_upsidedown_ballistic.html

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) 06:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Major deletion of content without discussion

Drmies, I see that you have made some major deletions of sourced and unsourced content without prior discussion or tagging content which you consider inadequately sourced. Please discuss before continuing as I dispute your reasons for some of the deletions, and would like clarification for some others, Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• I did--I trust I don't need to explain the deletion of unsourced content, and the "sourced" content I removed was, in many cases, sourced to unacceptable sources, like company brochures/websites and primary sources. And still the article is very excessively detailed and poorly sourced--only three of the first ten references right now are acceptable secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Drmies, The removal of challenged or controversial unsourced content is adequately explained by stating one of those conditions. The removal of uncontroversial unsourced content without explanation is not necessary, but is permissible, as a form of challenge, and indicates that the person removing it does not consider it uncontroversial, or has some other reason for wanting to see it gone. The removal of sourced content on the premise that the source is unsatisfactory requires an explanation of why the source is unsatisfactory.
  • The use of primary sources to indicate the existence of items which one would not usually consider controversial, or the dates on which they were available, is not forbidden. The use of an official US Navy training film about official US Navy equipment seems a reasonable use of an available source, and from a source I would consider acceptably reliable, even if uploaded to YouTube at the time it was referenced.
  • I agree that the article could use some summarisation and copyediting, preferably without removing too much content. I disagree with the way you seem to be going about it. Possibly because your intentions regarding the end result are unclear as there was no previous discussion.
  • What criteria do you apply to determine whether content is excessively detailed?
  • Did you actually consult the sources before deciding that they were unsuitable to support the content you removed? Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Peter Southwood, if material is sourced only to primary sources, then the question arises whether that content is noteworthy enough to be included. That applies, for instance, to the second paragraph of the "Boots" section. I submit that Biardo.com can not be used to verify general statements like "Socks are normally made from latex rubber or from a breathable material similar to the rest of the suit." The section "Inflation hose" is sourced only to a company (spam) link, [1], which could not support "There are two types of low-pressure hose commonly used for suit inflation". "Inflation valves" is not sourced at all, and "Exhaust valves" is sourced to a dead link, the bibliographical information in the citation is wholly insufficient, and on AAUS.org there are no hits for "exhaust valve". If an overwhelming number of primary sources are used in an article, and if so much of the information is technical data sourced, or claimed to be sourced, to company sites and manuals, one can legitimately question much of what is in the article. I'm glad you agree that the article needs trimming. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Drmies, the presence of one source does not imply that other sources are not available, only that the person who added the content probably used that source. If someone tags a source as unsuitable, it may well be possible to find a better source, which is one reason why it is better to tag first than immediately delete. This is particularly true for cases where the content is basically common knowledge in the field and there is no obvious reason to confirm something that many divers will know from personal experience. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Peter Southwood, that divers know it is hardly a good argument for leaving it unsourced. Presumably, divers won't be reading the article before de- or inflating their suit. And seriously, some of these sources are just completely unacceptable--like this one. This is even worse. As bad as this. This goes nowhere but the URL suggests it's not acceptable either. [www.hydroglove.net/media/729422104a3ac4baffff81bdffffe907.pdf This] is a link my browser is warning me not to download, and it's from a hobbyist's site. No, this is not good. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Drmies, It seems I have not made my point clear. What I am saying is that when editing an article, and one sees a statement that one knows is correct, and it comes under the category of ordinary common knowledge about the subject, and there is an inline reference, one does not necessarily check that reference, because one knows that the content is verifiable. If not by that reference, by some other reference, which may take some time and effort to find, and time and effort are both limited resources.
            One also expects that if another editor checks a reference and finds it is not a good reference for that content, for whatever reason, that unless they have reason to believe that the content is incorrect or misleading, they will tag the reference as unreliable or unverifiable, or even possibly go to the effort of researching the statement to find a better reference themselves. Particularly in the case of websites where the page used as the source may not be the same as the page checked later for verification (for which the access date may be checked). My experience on Wikipedia is that most editors will tag before deleting uncontroversial material, giving an interested party the opportunity to find a better reference.
            So my next question is, what made you think that content was controversial, or not verifiable via some other source? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Drmies, Since you have not responded, I assume that either the ping failed or you do not wish to continue this discussion. My intention is to reinstate the deleted content, copyedit where the need is obvious, and attempt to improve the referencing. This will not happen overnight as I may have other things to do, and some references may take longer to find than others. As you know, you remain free to comment, tag dubious content and dispute the validity of references. I request that you discuss first, delete later, and it would facilitate the process if you continue to ping me for response. If you are uncertain whether content is appropriate or relevant, or if you think that the tone is how to do something, rather than how and why a thing is done, I am always willing to discuss, modify, and where necessary, to explain. Most of all, feedback on whether the content is easily comprehensible to the layperson is always valued. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
            • • Peter Southwood, I did not see your ping. The problem here is not "controversial" content: it's excessive content based on primary or otherwise unacceptable sources. The references contain maybe 12 acceptable secondary sources--I am obviously leaving out reports and things like that, besides of course YouTube videos, manuals, commercial websites, brochures, etc. And at least one of those possibly acceptable ones is this, which I believe I signaled earlier as highly problematic--the bibligraphical information is incorrect/incomplete, the link is dead. "Lang, Michael A.; Egstrom, Glen H., eds. (1990). "Proceedings of the AAUS Biomechanics of Safe Ascents Workshop". American Academy of Underwater Sciences Workshop." is unacceptable because a reference in the case of proceedings should point at a specific article/presentation and its author(s), not at a general "proceedings". If you are going to copy edit, it would probably be wise to start by cleaning up all such references--this is not the only one.

                Then, as if to confirm the hobbyist character of this article, there's the many many images, which in addition sandwich the text. This article simply has all the hallmarks of being all-inclusive without regard for reliability of sourcing, completeness of references, and the interest of the non-specialist reader. (I am no specialist, but I know a bit on the topic.) Drmies (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

                • Much, perhaps most, of the disputed content has now been attributed to more authoritative sources. In most cases it was not difficult, just time-consuming. I suggest that if there are any other disputed statements, they be individually tagged for easier identification and improvement. Some content which could reasonably be described as excessive detail has been removed, hopefully without detracting from ease of understanding. Some content could be split out at a later stage when there is enough to support an independent article. Watertight zipper comes to mind, but currently I do not have enough secondary sources to do it. I am not aware of a constraint on material that is of interest mainly to specialists. Wikipedia seems to be full of it. It is not clear what "hobbyist character" is intended to mean other than it appearing to be derogatory in intent. Wikipedia articles are work in progress, and there is no requirement to maintain a balance between all aspects at all times. Work is done as and when someone gets round to it. Images can be useful to illustrate what might otherwise be difficult to grasp even when many words are used. They are added when available, from what is available, which is not always the best possible image for the application, and can be replaced when better images become available. When there is a space and layout problem, it can usually be fixed. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)