Talk:Snorkeling

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Who is NAVEENKUMAR

I have added a link to www.snorkelinfo.net. A certain MrOllie removed it. Not sure why Eriktoussaint (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please avoid adding links to your own sites to Wikipedia. See the conflict of interest guideline for more information. - MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong focus

This article is written as a howto, and misses the important information an encyclopedia should have on the sport and breathing apparatus. E.g., when/how/etc. was it invented, how did the apparatus develop, how popular is the sport (really), etc. Superm401 - Talk 08:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also interested in seeing the history of the snorkel, if anyone can contribute it. I recently heard about snorkels on German U-boats and was wondering if that's how they were invented: http://www.uboataces.com/snorkel.shtml 71.178.49.134 (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the idea of a snorkel, made from a hollow reed, dates back over 2,000 years. The story of Scyllis (as related by Herodotus) is dated by Pliny to 580 BC. There's more information at Timeline of diving technology, but no references. That makes it difficult to add the information here, but hopefully someone can find the necessary sources. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense

"Typically, the diving mask also serves to prevent breathing through the nose, so that one is forced to breathe through the snorkel. " I'm sorry, but this is all gibberish. The mask is for looking through. 92.8.252.180 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many people have difficulty breathing through a snorkel (or demand valve) when no mask is worn, or when goggles are worn leaving the nose open to the water, so the diving mask does serve to prevent inadvertent inhalation of water through the nose. (late response, but better than never as it clears up a point) • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the OP may not have realised that a snorkeler's (or diver's) mask encloses the nose as well as the eyes. Perhaps the point was not made explicitly in the article when they made the comment? (It is now mentioned in Snorkeling #Diving mask) --RexxS (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other problems

Too many words in “quotes”; informal, stilted style; not encyclopedic; confusing and meandering article organization. Safety Cap (talk) 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longer tube

"A longer tube would place the lungs in deeper water..." That is nonsense as you don't need to snorkel deeper just because you have a longer tube, a longer tube could also have some splash protection as the opening would be higher above the surface.83.188.235.85 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct. I've tried to rephrase that paragraph to make it clearer that a longer snorkel would not allow breathing at greater depths. I don't believe, though, that any improvement in splash protection would outweigh the potential problems of increasing the dead space. --RexxS (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia

The 02:51, 30 March 2011 RexxS version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia to expand a stub.--Wing (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snorkel or SCUBA mouth regulator: dry throat condition?

Dry throat appears to be a common problem when using snorkels and mouth-only SCUBA regulators. This is primarily due to the fact that breathing is forced to be through the mouth all the time rather than permitted through the nose. The extreme throat dryness can lead to coughing or a feeling of needing to vomit.

Is there a way to breathe through the nose while using a snorkel? The human nose is intended to be the primary method of respiration, since the nasal concha has a very high internal surface area for humidification of inhaled air, and is also capable of recovering humidity from exhaled air.

The more expensive SCUBA gear and rebreathers can allow inhalation through the nose, with the use of a full-face mask. Apparently nothing similar exists for snorkeling.

The article suggests that full-face masks with attached snorkels are "obsolete" but the physiological evidence does not bear that out.

DMahalko (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old comment that I only just spotted, but it bears answering anyway.
The air that is breathed from scuba cylinders deliberately has no water content, because having damp air under high pressure will promote rusting in a steel cylinder, so the air is dehumidified by filters in the compressor used to fill the cylinders. Dry throat is an unfortunate consequence of that for scuba divers, but it's not really harmful and you do get used to it.
It is perfectly possible to breathe out through the nose while using a snorkel on the surface and I'd encourage anyone to do so regularly as it helps eliminate CO2 build up in the "dead space" of the snorkel tube, as well as equalising the pressure inside the mask. For similar reasons scuba divers will breathe out through their nose every so often (particularly on descent) as it helps prevent "mask squeeze" as well as clearing any water that has trickled into the mask.
Face masks with attached snorkels did once exist. They were probably discontinued as a "bad idea" because snorkellers commonly free dive and the snorkel tube floods. You soon learn to keep the water out of your mouth by balancing the air pressure inside your mouth against the water pressure, so that's not a problem with a snorkel held in the mouth. However, it would be very impractical with a snorkel connected directly to a face mask even with a ping-pong ball in a cage used to seal the top of the snorkel. Snorkels with ping-pong balls were also discontinued as hazardous should the ball jam in place, sealing the tube. --RexxS (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference problem

I've been looking for the reference:

  • R. Stigler, "Die Taucherei" in Fortschritte der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung, IX. Band, Berlin/Wien 1913

and failing to find any mention online. I can see the full text of volume 5 for example:

  • Abderhalden, Emil (1912). Fortschritte der Naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Berlin: Urban & Schwarzenberg.

at the Internet Archive and several other volumes. The given ref is to volume 9 (IX. Band) that I can't track down. Is it just that volume that hasn't been archived yet? --RexxS (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spearfishing

Are snorkels legally required generally for spearfishing, abalone gathering, as opposed to scuba? Kortoso (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you've now read the Spearfishing article that goes into some detail about regulation. I can confirm though, that there is no legal requirement for anyone to use a snorkel while involved in any underwater activity. --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review

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.

    2. More references needed. ☒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.

    3. Reasonable coverage. checkY
  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.

    4. Structure appropriate. checkY
  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.

    5. Looks OK. checkY
  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.

    6. Sufficiently illustrated. checkY
  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.

    7. Complies. checkY

Not yet, close but needs more references. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Snorkeling. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider creating a separate article dedicated to the snorkel

Basic diving equipment comprises the swim fin, the diving mask and the snorkel. The first two have articles of their own, while the snorkel is simply treated as a subsection of an article entitled "snorkeling". Other language versions of Wikipedia have separate articles on the activity (snorkeling) and on the gear item (the snorkel). I am currently working on content for a possible contribution to the subject of the snorkel at Draft: Snorkel. I have read what has been written in this Talk: Snorkeling page and I have researched answers to some of the queries posted here over the years. I hope what I have found out about the history of the snorkel might complement what has been already written in the "Snorkeling" article. If my proposal of a separate article doesn't meet with approval, I'd still like to add what I've written in my draft without swamping the existing article. Opinions? Reactions? Helmardine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live (and you do too!) basic diving equipment also includes a wetsuit (or preferably a drysuit), and they also have their own articles dealing with them as pieces of equipment. I do agree that the activity of snorkelling is a fundamentally different entity from the piece of equipment called a snorkel. However, the two topics are closely enough connected to justify a combined article, even though that is not necessarily the case in other language Wikipedias. It's what the Wikidata folks call the "Bonny & Clyde problem". The English Wikipedia has a tendency to collect together related topics, so an archaeologist is dealt with in the article Archaeology. When the sub-topics grow to a reasonable size, then it is common to split them off as "daughter articles", usually leaving a brief summary in the "parent article" - see WP:Summary style for more detail of the conventions.
Your draft at Draft:Snorkel is excellent. My only comments would be that
  1. scuba (in the lead) and Luigi Ferraro in the section Draft:Snorkel #Tube are both disambiguation pages (I spot them because I have a script that colours dab links orange). I would link scuba equipment and Luigi Ferraro
  2. the usual convention in scuba articles is to use list-defined references, which makes the source text much cleaner, but it's completely up to you what reference style you prefer.
I'm always available if you need help or advice, so don't be afraid to ping me or drop a note on my talk page. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for such a considered and prompt response. I shall take on board your suggestions and I am now minded first to finish what I have started at Draft: Snorkel and then to incorporate it within the existing Snorkeling article instead of creating a separate article. Helmardine (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Snorkel now integrated with Snorkeling article and request for deletion of Draft Snorkel (declined today as Wikipedia article on grounds of insufficient content) has been made. Helmardine (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The snorkel is notable enough and there is enough information about it to justify a separate article. Also, this article is large enough to justify a split on grounds of size. There is no great rush, so unless someone comes up with a good reason not to do so I will do this when I get around to it. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to wait for others to say what they think about the creation of a separate article on the snorkel. There certainly won't be any objection from me if it actually comes about, however!

At some time I am contemplating expanding the existing separate section about full-face snorkelling masks, considering their growing presence in the swimming/snorkelling goods market in the 2010s. One complication is that not all masks with attached snorkels were in the past, or are in the present, the full-face kind. Both half- and full-face snorkel masks have an interesting though controversial history from surface observation and spearfishing devices in the 1950s to the current swimmers' and snorkellers' versions that began with the launch of the Easybreath. Helmardine (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helmardine, I have gone ahead and made the split. I have made a few edits in line with the manual of style for images, and expanded on a few details. The section in this article can now be summarized in a bit less technical detail as it is linked to the new article for that. Please do go ahead and expand the section on full-face snorkelling masks in the Snorkel (swimming) article rather than here. This one can use a bit more content on actually using a snorkel. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Southwood, thanks, I'm delighted that this has now been done. I've already made a change on the Snorkel disambiguation page so that "snorkel" in the swimmer's sense now points to Snorkel (swimming). Helmardine (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. As time goes by we will notice and fix things that can be improved. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Snorkeling"