Talk:Diver navigation

Pilotage?

This article refers to pilotage, which is navigation that compares landscape/seascape features with markings on a chart. However, this article makes no mention of using charts. Unless "pilotage" has a different meaning for divers, supported by a reference, it should not be used here. User:HopsonRoad 14:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps answered with this citation: UK Divers (October 16, 2007). "Underwater Navigation". UKDivers.net. Retrieved 2016-05-16. Navigation by reference to terrain features, both natural and artificial, usually with the aid of an appropriate chart. User:HopsonRoad 15:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Article title

I can see no reason to title this article anything other than Underwater navigation. if there were multiple articles laying claim to the same name, and another one was the primary topic, then we would use the parenthetical disambiguation scheme and call it Underwater navigation (scuba diving), but in the absence of competing topics, WP:DAB recommends the primary topic should be titled as succinctly as possible. I can see there is an argument at WP:PRECISION that a title should be "precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". However, as Submarine navigation is about the only other topic that could claim the title, I see no reason to change the current scheme, especially not to one where Underwater navigation would be a redirect to Underwater navigation (scuba diving). That really would be the worst of both worlds.

I've added a hatnote to direct submariners to Submarine navigation, as that should be sufficient where only two articles have potential overlap. If there were more than two, I could see a case for making Underwater navigation a disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS, but not just with two. --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the surprise, RexxS. I acted as I did because the article appeared to not have received very much recent attention and appeared to not meet WP:MOS standards, especially for verifiability. But apparently, I was too bold. I was working on Piloting (navigation) and saw the the first category listed was "Underwater diving procedures", which were not well laid out in the article before I started the rewrite. When I looked here, I saw the reference to "pilotage", but without the mention of maps—normally a key aspect of pilotage. In looking at diving curricula, I found that divers often regard pilotage to be just remembering landmarks that will be needed for the return journey. However, I chose the reference that emphasized the need for charts, even if drawn on a diver's tablet.

In short, this title appeared to be a general case of underwater navigation, which might be construed to include both submarine navigation and scuba navigation. As such, it was surprising to a non-diver to see no reference to submarine navigation. (I fixed that with a "See also.") But I understand that to a diver, "underwater navigation" is a term of art that doesn't need further explanation. I feel that my clarification preserves both the term of art and notifies someone not versed in the topic—like me—which type of navigation they are likely to find. Your solution informs them only once they have arrived, not in the drop-down choices of topics in the search window. I prefer my alternative, but am OK with yours. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 01:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Please don't apologise. If nobody made bold edits, we'd never have built Wikipedia, and I'd hate to think I had discouraged you from being bold. I do appreciate the improvements you've made, especially finding a relevant reference, which is all too often missing from scuba-related articles. There is surely a lot more that could be said about underwater navigation, but it's difficult to find solid, reliable sources. I probably should spend some time looking at the training manuals from the major certification agencies for more material. I can envisage that if this article could be expanded, then we could spin off something like Diver navigation (not all divers use scuba, of course) and recast Underwater navigation as a summary style article giving an overview of a diving article, the Submarine navigation article, and perhaps the Underwater orienteering article. There are also parts of the Piloting (navigation) article you were working on that touch on the use of depth contours on charts in order to navigate. I'll ping a few of the regular scuba-editors to get some more opinions.

@Pbsouthwood, Legis, and Gene Hobbs:: Peter, Legis, do you think we should be re-organising this topic along those sort of lines? Gene, are the training manuals the best place for references, or do you have sources at Rubicon that would be useful? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Most diver navigation is by scuba divers, as free-divers don't generally spend enough time at the bottom to need to navigate except by landmarks on a very basic level, and surface supplied divers are constrained by the length of their umbilicals and are generally directed from the surface. the techniques used by scuba divers can be used by free and surface supplied divers if they need them. The title could realistically and unambiguously be changed to Diver navigation, which would slightly extend the scope to include surface navigation for divers, which would be a good thing. The lack of references is an issue. The only reasonably comprehensive source I have is draft material for the CMAS-ISA 2-star and 3-star diver training manuals, but it would be inappropriate for me to cite them as I wrote them. The material was not available on-line last time I looked. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have copies of four BSAC and two PADI manuals that have content about underwater navigation - I will compare these with the article's text to see if they can be used as references. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC) 07:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

My quick 5 cents: I think I initially started this article after I did my PADI UW Navigation course - my long term thinking was to try and build out articles on the various specialist areas of recreational underwater scuba diving. But I didn't get far before I gave up and happily more diligent people took it forward. I don't know much more about the topic now than I did then - I don't think there is a meaningful reference to underwater navigation outside of the scuba arena (I am sure that military submarines do something, but I am not sure what it is or what they call it). If you Google "underwater navigation", this is the subject that the first however many pages consider. Nothing on anything else. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad to see all this constructive discussion. I'm concerned that some editors may be tempted to create a how-to manual here. Remember to bear in mind that the tone shouldn't denote an instructional manual. I'm concerned that, if the material drawn from is primarily instructional manuals, then the level of detail would be too great for an encyclopedia and also not sufficiently notable as those from reliable sources. I would recommend the first course of action for this article would be to provide inline citations. Best of luck! User:HopsonRoad 16:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I endorse RexxS's and Peter (Southwood)'s suggestion that the title be changed to the unambiguous and simple Diver navigation, which would allow for snorkelers, who need to orient themselves, as well. User:HopsonRoad 17:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: I see no pushback against renaming this article Diver navigation, which elegantly fits the criteria for an article title that you cited above. I would suggest that the Lead start off with, "Diver navigation, known as "underwater navigation" to scuba divers, is a set of techniques—including observing natural features, the use of a compass, and surface observations—that divers use to navigate underwater." I encourage you to make that change. User:HopsonRoad 22:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If no-one else does it first I will try to do it later today. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone - and especially User:HopsonRoad for finishing the job - I think the article is improved by those changes. The only remaining question is whether Underwater navigation should remain a redirect to this article (as I would prefer), or become a dab page in its own right. I don't see a need for disambiguation beyond a simple hatnote when only two topics are involved, but it's now an easy job for anybody who wants to make it into a dab page at a later date. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with how things are structured, now. Cheers and thanks! User:HopsonRoad 20:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Article content upgrades

Firstly,I think it would be an improvement to move the second to fourth paragraphs from the top of the article to a new section entitled ‘Diver training and certification’ at the bottom of article in order to move information of a secondary nature away from the start of the article and to let the TOC to move up under the opening paragraph. Secondly, with respect to training, should there be discussion about non-recreational training such as commercial and scientific diving? Thirdly, should not there be content in the section entitled ‘Equipment” about items of equipment such as distance lines et al? Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That seems a good idea, as long as the lead section gives sufficient indication of the rest of the content. Go ahead and change to what you think is a suitable re-arrangement and we can continue to improve from there. Most of the work I did on this article was done when I was fairly new to Wikipedia, and there is a lot of room for improvement. Also there are now probably far more useful articles to link to. Where you think there should be a new section, add it or just add the header. Distance lines seem to be a valid piece of underwater navigation equipment, particularly for navigation in enclosed spaces. Either a section on navigation by line or a summary and link(s) would be good. I don't remember offhand what articles cover line use in caves and wrecks. I have some information on training of scientific and commercial divers - it is generally much the same as for recreational divers - but is more likely to be part of the initial training for scuba diving. Would you consider direction by surface personnel to be a form of underwater navigation? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I most certainly would consider direction by surface personnel to be a form of underwater navigation. You only have to think of the system of rope signals that we all used for diving solo under ice. The tender was often responsible for steering the diver in particular directions in 3 dimensions and there's a good section in Diver communications of course. It's probably a sufficiently well-known navigation technique to be mentioned in this article, but I'd really want some more sources, rather than relying on self-published sites like http://www.ucidiver.com/rope_pulls.html and http://www.ukdivers.net/comms/ropes.htm. --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

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. Needs refs. See discussion above. Now has refs in almost every paragraph, and no controversial content unsourced. Y 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. Needs Could use some expansion of section on guidelines and cave navigation, and electronic compasses, but not critical. Y 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. 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. Adequately 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. Y

Promoting to B-class. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diver navigation. 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/20110611091327/http://www.gue.com/files/page_images/expeditions/Mexico/guideline3.pdf to http://www.gue.com/files/page_images/expeditions/Mexico/guideline3.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 03:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diver navigation. 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/20160313082610/http://www.ukdivers.net/diving/uwnav.htm to http://www.ukdivers.net/diving/uwnav.htm

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) 02:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)