Talk:Ice diving

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Ice diving#Regulator freezing was copied or moved into Mechanism of diving regulators#Regulator freezing with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Ice diving#Cold water function testing was copied or moved into Breathing performance of regulators#Cold water function testing with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Introduction

For third paragraph there is a special harness mentioned. It is not widely used nor necessary for safe procedures. Actually additional harness means unnecessary slings. Widely used configuration is to tie the rope around the waist under other equipment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.192.123.214 (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A harness is better then tying a rope around your waist under the gear since a rope can slide or come undone. If you with a harness you can clip and unclip yourself if needed if entangled. the best system is a wing and backplate or a bcd with metal d-rings that you could clip onto. also the style of clip used should be ones that require 2 motions to open and one to close like the ones used in fall arrest equipment and should be attached to the tether rope using a double figure 8 knot or other climbing knot that will not loosen when wet or under no tension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.11.150 (talk) 05:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the comment above refer to recreational ice diving, scientific ice diving, or public safety ice diving, and do you have any reference to cite? Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source for regulator setup

I'd like to see a source for the following quote from this article:

Good practice—two unfreezing regulators arranged as follows: first stage number 1 with primary second stage, BCD inflation hose and Submersible Pressure Gauges, first stage number 2 with secondary second stage (octopus), dry suit inflation hose and Submersible Pressure Gauges.

As placing the BCD inflation hose on the same first stage as the primary second stage seems contrary to common sense. 78.245.228.100 (talk) 16:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can help you with a source for part of that:

Jablonski, Jarrod (2006). Doing it Right: The Fundamentals of Better Diving. Global Underwater Explorers. p. 92. ISBN 0971326703. To provide additional redundancy when using two first stages, the inflator hose should always be run from the right post. This requirement is illustrated in the case of a diver's left post rolling off or breaking. If the inflator is run from the left post, the diver will simultaneously lose not only the use of the backup regulator around the neck but also the ability to inflate the BC. These two problems together could be inordinately compounded by an out-of-air situation in which a diver would not only be without the means of controlling his/her buoyancy but would also be deprived of the use of a third regulator

The primary first stage is always on the right post of twin cylinders, and the concern is that contact with the roof while travelling forward in any overhead environment will tend to turn off the cylinder valve mounted on the left post, but cannot turn off the cylinder valve mounted on the right post. So, although some may think it only a small point, there does seem to be logic in recommending that the power inflation hose should connect to the right hand regulator first stage. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's certainly a credible source. However, since alternative configurations are widely used (I don't have a source, outside of DIR circles it seems that people really don't recomment specific configurations) it might be better to rephrase the text along the lines of Although many configurations are possible, Jarrod and Jablonksi recommend ... instead of the rather blunt "this is good practice". 78.245.228.100 (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that other configurations are used, but - like you - I don't know of a source that says "this other config is good practice" in the same way that JJ does for the DIR setup. We have a convention on Wikipedia that we assert simple facts, that is, where a reliable source is not contradicted by an equivalent reliable source, we assert it, not attribute it. "Undisputed findings of reliable sources can be asserted without in-text attribution. In-text attribution is recommended where sources disagree, not where editors disagree." The attribution is of course still there in the reference for the reader to follow if they wish, but it remains probably better not to attribute in-text without a source which differs from the one we have (then we could say something like "JJ recommends ... as good practice, while XYZ recommends ... as good practice" to retain a neutral POV). --RexxS (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a simple fact that DIR/GUE recommend one particular configuration, but given the level of controversy surrounding DIR and/or GUE practices (and I'm sure there would be no difficulty finding sources for that) I'm still not convinced that presenting that particular configuration as unqualified best practice isn't some sort of undue weight. Not a biggy, though. 78.245.228.100 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, it is quite hard to find sources that contradict DIR/GUE that aren't forum posts or self-published sources (and those really don't rise to the level of WP:Reliable sources). A source was found showing BSAC argued against a long primary hose, but that's about it. You can see some of the problems by visiting Talk:Doing It Right where all sorts of sources have been considered. If you know of any that would meet WP:RS and which directly advocate gear configurations opposed to the DIR rigging, please let us know as they would be helpful in trying to demonstrate a balance of opinion in several articles. --RexxS (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems that there is a source which says "The DIR way of ice diving is...", but not a source which says "Ice divers dive the DIR way".

I know that PADI offers ice diving courses and although I don't have access to it I wouldn't be at all surprised if their course material recommended a specific configuration. 78.245.228.100 (talk) 07:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be in agreement them that presenting techniques attributed to one particular authority as common or preferred practice is either misleading or a case of undue weight unless there are reliable sources which indicate that techniques are actually applied within the domain.

Unless I hear otherwise, I shall be updating the artice accordingly.78.245.228.100 (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have noticed, but it has already been changed and no longer claims it to be "the" good practice, just "a" good practice, which is consistent with a single source. However, if you have a better way of putting it, go ahead. If you have a source for a different system, even better. If you want to delete it as incorrect, you will need a very good source, like an AAUS paper or similar. Cheers Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We presently have a statement that a particular configuration is good practice; a reliable source that verifies it; and a quote from that source which expands on the statement. If you have a reliable source that says it's not good practice, then let's see it. If you have a reliable source that says another configuration is also good practice, then we should include that as well. There's little value in taking guesses at what PADI might or might not say, and even less in assuming that common practice equals good practice. Of course, if you can use the source we have to present a better form of words, that would be appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's worded at the moment seems fine. Note however that what we really have here is a primary source on what Jarrod considers good practice. 78.245.228.100 (talk) 09:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too true, but still better than nothing at all, and some time someone will add another reference and so it grows. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shape of hole

Is the triangular hole due to ease of sawing or is there another reason? One hole shown is round. Also the article has a technical style - I'd love to find a description to put the reader in the scene, saying something about the image of an ice diver with all the gear and the style of hole as well, without trawling through all the lists & stages to get there. Thanks, Manytexts (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Triangular corner is probably easier for the diver to get out of the water. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triangular is easiest shape to cut using straight lines that provides good shape for climbing out · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B-class review

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. Still some uncited and challenged material outstanding, but not much. Good enough for B-class, I think. N 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. 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. Structure looks OK. 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. Looks OK. 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. Quite nicely 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

Not yet. Needs more references and a bit of clarification.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed what I can, the rest will have to wait. Good enough for B-class I think, so promoting. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ice diving. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Ice diving

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ice diving's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "CMAS":

From British Underwater Sports Association: "Federations, British Underwater Sports Association". CMAS. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
From Sub-Aqua Association: "Federations, Sub-Aqua Association". CMAS. Retrieved 16 June 2019.
From Underwater hockey: CMAS (September 2005). "International Rules for Underwater Hockey: Rules of Play". Confédération Mondiale des Activités Subaquatiques. Retrieved 2012-08-30.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split out most of content on regulator freezing

I plan to split out the technical detail on regulator freezing and either merge it into Mechanism of diving regulators#Malfunctions, or if it overcrowds that article, to a new article, leaving a summary section on mainly the aspects relating to safety. Comments and suggestions invited. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has commented or objected, I will do this when I get around to it. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 09:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, though some more summarising might be good. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part was split to Mechanism of diving regulators#Malfunctions and failure modes and part to Breathing performance of regulators#Cold water function testing. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 17:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]