Talk:Wetsuit

message: I see no mention of front or back zipper suits.
It seems that front zippered full body suits are more difficult to find.
I wonder if there is a specific reason for this.
Astorg, 15 Jun 2013, 1703h EST  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.152.198 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wetsuit Types 

message: First off, there is no book or academic paper in existence that documents suit design history. There's really nothing official that can be used for an official citable reference, and no wetsuit manufacturer has ever written much of anything about their history.
The only real citing that is possible is to photograph old/vintage wetsuits and include the photos in this article, but here we run into a different problem: neoprene and other rubber materials are perishable. They eventually start to rot, dry out, and fall apart. Most of the vintage wetsuits that could be used as cites would probably fall apart of someone tried to actually wear them now.
So, what is good enough as a cite for this article? Do we need to set up a photo archive on Wikimedia of old-style wetsuits?
DMahalko 22:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites for this page are very hard to produce 

message: The link provided as a reference for mermaid suits seems to be to a small company that is trying to popularize them. There is no mention of men on this site (except to say there is no reason why they should not wear them) and this is contrary to the article which says that they are "equally used" by men and women. I don't know enough about wetsuits to know, but this looks like blatant advertising of a "new type" of suit that is actually a novelty product. Could someone either clarify here or remove/improve the information? -- cmhTC 21:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody removed it anyway. --Qsaw (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mermaid suits 

message: Until 25 August 2008, The article had the following as an HTML comment in a section called "External Links":
Please do not add external links to this section without ensuring that they conform to WP:LINKS and WP:COI. It's also useful to read WP:NOT to learn that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. If an external link has information that's valuable, work it into the article rather than just posting a link. Links will be deleted mercilessly if they're just pointing to external sites and are not referenced in the article.
That's very useful advice, but as it is obviously somewhat difficult to make sure it stays on the page, I thought it would be preferable to put this on the Talk Page and point editors to it in edit summaries when we remove their external links that do nothing to improve the article. --RexxS (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: An editor has just inserted the assertion that 3 brothers founded O'Neill, which led me to check it as far as I could. So far I can't find any reference, let alone a WP:RS. Also, the Surfline website gives Jack's wife's name as "Marge" while the O'Neill website indicates that indicates that Bridget is the name of one of Jack's daughters.
In summary, I'm not at all convinced that much of what is in this paragraph is true - and it certainly doesn't seem to meet WP:V. I suggest it be deleted unless someone can come up with some sources. --RexxS (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rewritten the paragraph leaving in the facts that I could verify and added the sources they used. They are not great sources, but hopefully better than no sources at all. --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: The second source is just a copy of an older version of the Wikipedia article, so no use for verifying the claim. The first one really doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, in my humble opinion - see WP:RS. However, I'll add the source to your edit and see what others think. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  O'Neill 

message: 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.
:I think it's more a question of usage than UK/US. When two words are used together in English to convey one idea, it is not unusual for them eventually to become written as one word (sometimes passing through a phase of being hyphenated). This generally takes time and is driven by common usage. It would be nice to think we could dictate uniformity, but we should use the spelling that is found in the majority of sources - and if that is inconsistent between related words, then that's what we use. I suspect that 'dry suit' will eventually become 'drysuit' over time, but we're not there yet. As an aside, the hat note (or is that hatnote?) on this article directs to Diving suit for scuba-specialized clothing. I expect 'divingsuit' may take much longer. --RexxS (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: A claim that Georges Beuchat invented the first "isothermic wetsuit" has been made here, at Recreational diving and Timeline of diving technology. I have been unable to find such reliable sources to verify that claim, and I'm not clear how other wetsuits are not "isothermic". This is probably a translation of combinaison isotherme constituée de mousse de caoutchouc (isothermal combo made from foam rubber). There are traces of sources from a google of "Georges Beuchat"+wetsuit, but http://cac.plongee.free.fr/Histoire/Histoire.htm is a dead link and what's left is forums and the French wikipedia. I've marked this claim with a  tag, but think it better to wait before removing it, in case sources can be found. --RexxS (talk) 12:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Better link for you here. Does not help me think this is notable though. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beuchat 

message: "Typically, cold water wetsuits have 12 to 15 mm of material around the torso and 6 to 8 mm for the extremities."
I've removed this statement because it is completely incorrect. Wetsuits are available in thicknesses up to 7mm. I've never seen one thicker than that. If a wetsuit was 12-15mm (1.2-1.5cm), it would be too thick to allow any kind of movement.Fuzzform (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is correct because wetsuits are available as two-piece suits (e.g. "Farmer John" + jacket) - take a look at http://www.ndiver.com/site/test/ndiver_clearance/products/wetsuit_twopiece.html for an example. While I would agree that "typically" is too strong, it is not an uncommon arrangement. My first wetsuit was a Beaver Icelandic two-piece and despite having 2 x 7 mm = 14 mm around my chest, I was able to dive perfectly well in it. Would you be kind enough to revert your error, please? --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thickness error 

message: Here my photo from the Berlin Museum of technik. 
  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoKiLeCh (talk • contribs) 20:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Taucheranzug 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Beavertail wetsuit with fasteners.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: I know nothing about wetsuits and I know nothing about fashion; I just want to say that up front.  However, while idly watching '80s videos, I noticed wetsuits cropping up occasionally: from 3:05 to about 3:20 of this one ("Show Me" by The Cover Girls), and on the young lady on the right throughout this one ("Point of No Return" by Exposé on TV).  So, my very-uninformed question is: were wetsuits ever a "fashion" item in the late '80s, either in clubs or for performers?  A2Kafir (and...?) 05:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  As fashion? 

message: Single backed neoprene is beneficial for activities that are on water as opposed to in it. This is because it sheds water more readily from its outer surface and is therefore less affected by evaporative windchill.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.25.61 (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide a reference for this we might be able to use the information. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Advertising copy is not considered a reliable reference for anything that is not immediately obvious, like availability, appearance and existence. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware that the statement is true, That does not remove the necessity to be able to provide a reliable reference. Wikipedia articles are expressly disqualified as reference for other Wikipedia articles to avoid circular arguments. Also the statement you refer to is not referenced, so we can't borrow the reference. If you feel strongly enough that the information should be included, all you need do is find an external secondary source and cite it. That is what we all have to do, and finding and citing suitable sources may be the hardest work in compiling this encyclopedia. Wikipedia is made reliable by referring to reliable sources. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single Backed 

message: 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  is optional. Several sections still unreferenced. 
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for , although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.Looks OK. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
Close but needs quite a few more references. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-Class review 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Wetsuit. 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/20100524061149/http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/01/exercise-in-cold-part-ii.html to http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/01/exercise-in-cold-part-ii.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517234328/http://www.gul.com/about/history to http://www.gul.com/about/history
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517234328/http://www.gul.com/about/history to http://www.gul.com/about/history
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Wetsuit is a complicated topic because it can be a surfing suit, one used for boating, or a diving suit. Each of these slightly different concepts have multiple pages on sister Wikipedias, not always in a one-to-one correspondence. However, Wikidata only allows one sitelink per language for each of  and . The result is that the best interlanguage links for wetsuit are sometimes not the ones that Wikidata provides. That is why we have manual links – so that we can override poor automated choices with better ones.  is now edit-warring to remove the carefully considered manual links and replace them with automated ones. Here is a comparison of the manual links with the Wikidata sitelinks:
 Comparison of manual and automated links
Language	Manual link                                  	Wikidata link
German  	de:Tauchanzug                                	de:Surfanzug
French  	fr:Combinaison de plongée #Combinaison humide	no link
Korean  	ko:잠수복                                       	no link
Hebrew  	ציוד_צלילה#חליפת_הצלילה                      	no link
Japanese	ja:ウェットスーツ                                   	no link
Romanian	ro:Costum_de_scafandru_cu_cască              	no link
With the possible exception of Romanian (which is actually Standard diving dress), each of those manual links is better than the ones provided by Wikidata. I'll restore the manual links. Again. --RexxS (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interlanguage links