Talk:Scuba diving

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Scuba diving (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Scuba diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Scuba diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Water sports (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Scuba diving is within the scope of the WikiProject Water sports, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Water sports. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edit request on 15 January 2012[edit]

I want to improve the infermation (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This template is for requesting specific changes, if you want to be able to edit it yourself you need to create an account (It's really easy and only takes 30 seconds) and then become autoconfirmed or confirmed--Jac16888 Talk 12:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Further reading, and other minor things[edit]

I have added Cousteau's The Silent World to the list of further reading, but ... the list is still very biased towards BSAC publications. I'm not a SCUBA diver, but there must be experts here who could judge which other books should appear on the 'essential reading list'. I left the e-book on the list, but is it (in effect) an advertisement? (I'm not an expert in the field, so can't judge.)

I also took the liberty of removing the call for inline references (dated 2008) as there are now 25, which seems reasonable.

Finally, I think the talk page needs tidying up and then archiving – lots of the discussions are years old, and it takes ages to find the active topics. --Wally Tharg (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Wikipedia:Further reading should be considered an essential reading list. The intention is more to allow editors to recommend books that they feel would expand the coverage given and be of interest to readers. This article covers a very broad topic and potentially many books could be recommended, so I don't worry unduly about 3 BSAC publications being there; I do worry that nobody has seen fit to recommend PADI Encyclopedia or similar notable works, for instance. As for George Campbell's "DIVING WITH DEEP-SIX", I can't see any advertisements or commercial links on the pages; and although I wouldn't necessarily agree with all that he writes there, I think it might be of interest to readers.
I'm sorry, but I don't agree that 25 inline citations are anywhere near enough to source all of the potentially challengeable text in the article. It only takes a few moments to see that the History section is completely unreferenced and there are multiple {{citation needed}} templates throughout the text. I'm not going to edit war with you over it, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody re-added a {{refimprove}} at some point.
I'm not sure what tidying up you can do to a talk page. Nobody should be refactoring other people's comments, so I suggest you might want to just cut and paste the older threads into Talk:Scuba diving/Archive 1. --RexxS (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Have added one PADI manual to the list, but couldn't find the encyclopedia you mention on Amazon. That's one for someone who has it on their bookshelf. --Wally Tharg (talk) 11:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to the point[edit]

The article title is Scuba diving, so I am going to try to get it back on topic a bit, and move the off topic material to more appropriate articles. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 February 2013[edit]

Remove and correct below:

Not to be confused with Self-contained breathing apparatus, which describes breathing sets used out of water.

Add corrected text as shown: SCUBA = Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. Which describes breathing sets "underwater" for scuba diving, the Header of this page.

--Fpique (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done This header:

Not to be confused with Self-contained breathing apparatus, which describes breathing sets used out of water.

at the top of the page is for visitors who accidentally come to this article in search of the Self-contained breathing apparatus can find their way to the correct article. This header is not used to describe the article it is placed on. Camyoung54 talk 20:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done The hatnote would be appropriate for Scuba set or just Scuba, but Scuba diving should not be confused with SCBA, and is not a search string reasonably likely to be used by someone looking for Self contained breathing apparatus • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: this page should also tell a...[edit] posted this comment on 18 June 2013 (view all feedback).

this page should also tell about some famous achievers of scuba diving

Any thoughts?

This article is also a redirect from "Scuba divers", so the reader had reasonable expectations of finding that sort of information. The navbox "Scuba divers" would have given the desired links if the reader had known to use it, but it may be that that is not sufficiently obvious to the average reader. I will make Scuba divers a disambiguation page with links to the most obvious options. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Changed Scuba divers and Scuba diver to redirect to List of underwater divers • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: A video of scuba diving (wea...[edit] posted this comment on 29 October 2013 (view all feedback).

A video of scuba diving (wearing of gear, diving etc.) may be added please

This would be useful. If anyone knows of a suitable video, please upload to commons and add link.

• • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hazards of scuba diving - first paragraph needs updating.[edit]

This paragraph mentions a 1970 and a 2000 study that shows that divers risk factor is 36 - 96 times more the drivers. What about the DAN 2010 Fatality workshop proceedings? Which show a much lower risk factor . . . 163/1,000,000 for diving and 154/1,000,000 for driving.

I don't know about the risks percentages of technical diving but I feel that this opening paragraph grossly over states the risks of recreational scuba and must be changes.

Any opinions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by One 4 All (talkcontribs) 23:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Change it and cite the reference. You could mention that the calculated risk has changed over time, or whatever conclusions were reached in your reference. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:34, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The article was very informative, giving many examples of scuba diving, and also giving the basic beginning history of it as well. Packed with tons of information, which is all relevant to the article topic’ Scuba Diving. The article does not contain any bias, or side in the content. There is definitely a neutral standpoint in this article. As I was reading the article there were a few places in which citations where not there and were needed. There was over 59 references cited in this article, some in which I clicked on; most of which were from books. The information given seems to be up to date as scuba diving can be. Even the large amount of pictures that were shown throughout the article seem well within the past decade or newer, which help to fully understand the equipment they describe used for diving. I clicked on quite a few links, which brought me to similar information related to scuba diving. The links are great because if you still don’t fully understand what they mean in the article, by specifically clicking on the links you can get a better understanding of the article and the vocabulary to go along with the topic you are reading and learning about. The table of contents is great, breaks down sections and different areas of diving you would want to learn more about. There was a large list of related topics right before the references, all in which were talked about in the article. It’s great as a scuba diver myself, I understood the producers and equipment discussed in the article, but I think that it was easy enough to understand for anyone to read and contained no bias. Over all this was a great article for getting a better understanding of scuba diving; from the very basics, to all kinds of diving that can be done, to the dangerous hazards of diving as well. ScubaSarah8Scubasarah8 (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Scubasarah8 (talk) 23:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Scubasarah8. Thanks for you comments. It is always pleasant to see that people find an article useful, and that someone has used the linked references (and that they still work). Please feel welcome to add a {{citation needed}} template on any statement which you think needs it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)