Talk:Dry suit

message: * 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)
thread_title: Drysuits for other uses than scuba diving?

message: * 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)
thread_title: A redirect needed

message: * 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)
thread_title: List of makers and sellers of drysuits?

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. 15:01, 23 December 2008 User:76.117.112.223
::Replied at Talk:Wetsuit#Spelling --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Kayaking 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  In Popular Culture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photos wanted 

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.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. 
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.  Not comprehensive, but fairly well covered.  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. 
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. 
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. 
Needs some citations, otherwise good. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment for B-class 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , 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)
thread_title:  Major deletion of content without discussion