Talk:Standard diving dress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Both this article and the three-bolt article indicate that the Diver's knife is a necessary piece of equipment. Could someone elaborate on why (preferably by modifying the article)? --RealGrouchy (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be to cut seaweed in case the hose or the diver's limbs become entangled. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the commonest use is in case of entanglement, although monofilament fishing line is a more likely hazard than seaweed. If some reliable sources can be found, we could add the info to the article. --RexxS (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Three-bolts equipment.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Three-bolts equipment.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove tag of September 2009[edit]

This tag, {{Refimprove|date=September 2009}}, had been removed three times by an editor, but I don't see that the article has been improved substantially in terms of references. What are the thoughts of other editors (including the editor mentioned)? Thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is Wikipedia policy. There is no need for it to be re-explained on every article page, particularly when doing so has not produced the desired effect after more than a year. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you address the issue here. I don't believe "every article page" has such a tag, nor that age of the tag is a factor in its removal.I don't believe there is a community consensus for the removal of such tags (if there is, as a start, the UWT for such removal should be deprecated), but I'd be pleased to see you point to such a discussion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be a community consensus for the removal of such tags, because there isn't a community consensus for the inclusion of such tags, or a community consensus against my removal of this tag. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly this tag should stay - the article has only got one reference. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'll check back in 6 months. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
If there are enough sources in 6 months I'm more than happy for you to remove the tag. Maybe you should add some more :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As the editor who placed the tag in the first place, I suppose I'm to blame. In my own defence, I have a great interest in diving-related articles, but very little expertise in this particular topic, and would not know where to start in garnering references for it. My intention was to attract other, more knowledgeable editors who would be able to contribute references, but I admit that that has yielded little result in the interim. Looking through the revision history shows that a lot of the content was added by editors who are no longer with us, but of those remaining, Anthony Appleyard and Mark.murphy may possibly be able to help. --RexxS (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have always been of the opinion that all articles need expanding and references so those tags seem redundant to me. ;) Either way, I took the chance to expand it with references. Thanks for paying attention to it. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 02:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
And if I'd known you were around, Gene, I'd have come to you in the first place! Many thanks for those 12 (!) extra references. I've removed the now-clearly-redundant refimprove tag, and I hope that we have a result satisfactory to everyone. A small token of appreciation is on its way. --RexxS (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


I've heard that if the air was stopped or pumped backwards, the diver could be (rather gruesomely) sucked into the air hose. Is there any veracity to this claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

helmet squeeze was a real hazard. The diver could be injured, killed or mutilated by external pressure attempting to force him into the helmet if the air supply was opened to the surface or a much shallower depth than the diver. This was prevented by use of a non-return valve at the supply connection to the helmet. Helmet squeeze is still possible on more modern helmet designs which are also sealed to the suit, but the non-return valve function test is a standard procedure daily before using the helmet. A helmet that relies on a latex or neoprene neck dam seal will not squeeze the diver as water will leak in through the dam and flood the helmet - a far more survivable situation, but they are also fitted with non-return valves. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


"The first design for a diving dress to be printed in a book was by Vegetius in 1511."

Since the linked Vegetius had been dead for more than a thousand years by then, is this 1. something going back to the Vegetius, in which case the estimated date of writing is more relevant than the date of printing, 2. something from another Vegetius, or 3. something which an early modern author or printer had appended to Vegetius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

John Brown rig references[edit]

I can't find any on the net which I would consider reliable - they all seem to be copies of this article. A verifiable reference would be greatly appreciated if anyone can find one. The term seems to be in use, but I can find no references to a company of that name which actually manufactured diving helmets. The previously linked shipbuilding company may have built them, but this is not cited. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont[edit]

Seemingly Jerónimo de Ayanz y Beaumont's immersion in the Pisuerga river in 1606 for about one hour before king Felipe III is the first documented one. -- (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The statement on Spanish Wikipedia is not referenced, and my Spanish is not good enough to research this. If you can provide a reliable source, it can be mentioned in the article. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
According to the Portuguese Wikipedia, there was an attempt at 1590 by a (forced) prisoner, Anthony Knivet. I indeed found a mention of that in this book's index of illustrations (The Admirable Adventures and Strange Fortunes of Master Antonie Knivet), but I don't own a copy to read the mentioned page. There is another footnote on the portuguese article for the diving suit here, too. (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Not much use if we can't read what it says. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

B-Class review[edit]

B-Class article B 
  1. 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.
    Referencing fairly good, but there are still a few dubious clams with outstanding challenges. These must be referenced or deleted. N
  2. 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. YesY
  3. 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. YesY
  4. 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. YesY
  5. 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.
    Fairly well illustrated. YesY
  6. 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. YesY

Sort out references and challenges, otherwise good. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)