Talk:Inflatable armbands

No sources

You use the term "waterwings" without giving a source. All you have to do is show the term "waterwings" is a word in common use per WP:V and WP:RS by providing some footnote citations to that effect. Regards, Mattisse 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just about everything here is without a source, including all the other names for the things. Perhaps some research needed by an aquatic enthusiast? While they're at it, maybe they can start an article on those inflatable rings babies use. Skittle (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The summary of advantages is unsourced and very subjective. Are inflatable armbands "inexpensive, easy to find, and durable"? Do they "help children to build confidence and learn to swim earlier"? And I doubt that "children may do better in difficult lessons and be easier to supervise if they wear armbands".119.224.91.84 (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Who and when?

Who invented water wings and when?

First the article claims its Bernard Markwitz somewhere between 1956 and 1964, and then it goes on to talk about water wing designs from 1931 and 1907, so clearly he couldn't have invented them. --It88 (talk) 13:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Who calls arm bands "water wings"?

Despite spending many childhood hours in swimming pools, I've never heard the term "water wings". Who uses that term?

In my experience, they were always "arm bands". --Gronky (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember where I first learned the English name, but I thought it was the most common one. At least there are many Google hits for "waterwings" or "water wings" about these things here. JIP | Talk 06:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about your experience, but in mine they were never "arm bands," which more properly refers to Nazi and funeral paraphernalia. They were always only waterwings. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Throughout my entire life I've heard them routinely referred to as water wings, never "arm bands." Though occasionally floaties.71.221.45.45 (talk) 06:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Move

If anything, this article should be moved to a new heading under water wings, since for general usage, at the time of this post, "'water wings'" brings 221k results from google.com, "waterwings" 78.6k, "'inflatable arm bands'" a mere 7.5k, and "'inflatable armbands'" 3k. Google.uk or .au might vary, since every result for those "inflatable armbands" that's not based on this wiki article seem to have .au or .co.uk domains, but water wings is by far the preferred English term for these things here. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was curious, so I tested it out.

Google.co.uk brings up 12.3k for "'water wings'" if you search only the UK (otherwise it's still in the six figures,) 6.5k for "waterwings," 868 for "'inflatable arm bands'," and 1.3k for "'inflatable armbands'." Google.com.au brings up 2k, 691, 592, and 98. So the disparity isn't as great, but "water wings" is still the preferred English term for these things.

Given how tetchy some posters were above, I don't want to move the article on my own recog, but given the overwhelming preference for water wings, it should be moved. What's the procedure for talking about it? or do I just leave the idea here and then move it in a month or two? -LlywelynII (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A quick check reveals that waterwings can also mean other things, it seems. Novels, music, etc. That might be affecting search results.

Of course, it's possible all these things were named after inflatable arm bands, though, so hey. That'd probably be more support in favor of waterwings. Then again, "Inflatable Arm Bands" isn't nearly as catchy a term as "Waterwings" for stuff like that. Roara (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Inflatable armbands → water wings — According to Google, the term "water wings" is used far more often that "inflatable armbands" to refer to these thingies that people wear on their arms to float in water. — JIP | Talk 06:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Strong Oppose. My google counts give the opposite results. Note that the prefix "inflatable" is usually omitted, e.g. according to the OED. Then I get 190,000 hits for "armband swim -wikipedia", and 122,000 for ""water wings" swim -wikipedia". I wonder if there is also some national variance, i.e. WP:ENGVAR reasons. 87.112.27.50 (talk) 07:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: "Water wings" were a different kind of buoyancy aid in the 1950s-1960s, used before inflatable armbands became common (as far as I can remember they were two separate raindrop-shaped inflatable chambers, which strapped on somehow) - at least in my version of British English! PamD (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

See here for what I'm talking about. Living in the UK I've never heard armbands called "water wings". PamD (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "Water-wings" doesn't help, as "Inflatable floats which may be fixed to the upper arms of persons learning to swim, in order to give increased buoyancy" (first quoted use in 1907), but their illustration from P G Wodehouse, 1922, does: "A little undersized shrimp of a fellow with a green face and ears like water-wings". Definitely not armbands! PamD (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

But take a look at this for an early American use of "water wings" - 1931! Looks as if "Water wings" at least deserves a mention in the lead as an alternative name for amrbands, though I still contend that in British English it means a different shape of inflatable buoyancy. PamD (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

do not prevent drowning?

this cannot possibly be true: Inflatable armbands do not prevent drowning, nor are they a life-saving device. Mistaking them for one can create a dangerous false sense of security It is not at all hard to imagine scenarios in which inflatable armbands would be valuable life saving and anti drowning devices. Titanic sinks, you are on the deck, do you take a pair, or not? Go. 68.173.49.156 (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

In the criticism section there is one wrong part,

Here's what the wrong part said, Inflatable armbands do not prevent drowning, nor are they a life-saving device.. This part isn't right because the floater inflatable arm bands prevents drowning because it keeps the person floating from the air in those floaters, it can tho still get the person drowned, not saying it helps them drown, but it just possible can fail to keep them floating without swimming, if it slips off from flapping around or blows up lol or runs out of air, must find ways too counter act those things like, adding air into it with s pump or your mouth. But must be changed too it still can fail to keep the person floating if something happens to it like, pops, blows up, slips out of there hands and the list can go on. So is it okay if I change it? Now I may yet not have a source to back up my statement, but that statement is wrong, and I gotta now see if there is a source in it, but we must remember we can't always trust sources can may be wrong. Or semi wrong if its right for certain things. Cause many people can just create a source account and say there right when they can maybe be wrong lol. But Wikipedia can be a source information to back my statement up. It's common sense logic,. Even certified experts can make some mistakes In there field of interest them. Plasma laser (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Plasma laserPlasma laser (talk)

Is it ok to change it? Of course, go for it! Gronky (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)