|Professional diving is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|WikiProject Scuba diving||(Rated C-class)|
|This article is written in British English (colour, realise, travelled), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
I'd say keep them separate. Neither article is that great but they are about significantly different things: Commercial Diving is a highly specialised operation which needs a separate page, but the Underwater diving page is just a general introduction to the whole topic of diving - be it SCUBA, free-diving, commercial or however else. Definitely keep them separate - but cleaning them both up and expanding would be good. If you get time before me then please do it! Iancaddy 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I agree to all of Iancaddy's arguments. Heinrich L. 19:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
- I also strongly oppose the merge. This article contains a lot of information specific to commercial diving. The majority of scuba divers are recreational for whom the introductory material on Underwater diving is appropriate. Viv Hamilton 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup, don't do it. Keep 'em separate. --UD75 17:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Man, that hazmat diving sounds just wonderful. I can't possibly imagine welding something inside a live septic tank. Now that should definitely be on the discovery channel's world's dirtiest jobs. LOL,Yeah that would be A shaty job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Referring to this line in the article:
"The US NEDU was responsible for much of the early experimental diving work to calculate decompression tables..."
Any sources to back that claim up? The Royal Navy were already working on refining decompression tables for their air divers before the US Navy had even set a personal standard for their diving equipment. Even the US Navy diving page cited below it mentions simply "refining" Haldane's tables of 1904. --UD75 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In A.D.C. course classes, it is also noted that The British Royal Navy did much of the ground breaking work on the decompression tables. U.S. Navy adopted most tables adding and modifying as they deemed necessary. The U.S. Navy Experimental Dive Unit was a for runner for pushing the extremes and also developing some of the upper limits on mixed gas diving. --Preach Fish (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)PreachFish
Section re 'International commercial diving operations and organisations'
Some new some sub-headings have been added to the section entitled 'International commercial diving operations and organisations'. As the new content looks like spam, I would suggest renaming the section heading in order to discourage its use as a business directory.Cowdy001 (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)