# Talk:Scuba diving

I want to improve the infermation
122.163.59.85 (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)

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)

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)

Remove and correct below: 
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)

 Not done This header:  
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)
 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)

122.177.233.57 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)

101.50.85.89 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)

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 (talk • contribs) 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)
Building on the above, the article uses a figure of 1.7x10-3 fatalities / year for driving as a comparator.  This is as per the cited article, though is not actually in the source reference stated within that cited article.  In any case the range of that metric across the world varies by about 50:1 Traffic collision, and represents a very different frequency of activity in a typical year.  So, I don't think it really educates the reader usefully / accurately and have removed it. --Greg (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair comment. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:33, 7 July 2017 (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)

I'd like to point out that there is only one female pictured on this page (and in a bikini only learning to dive at that). There is no mention of the gender preconceptions, the historical male dominance in the field, or the now diminishing gender gap in the sport. (unsigned comment by IP 76.11.147.214  moved to bottom of page)

What gender preconceptions?
What "Historical male dominance in the field"?
If you can privide some reliable sources supporting these assertions I wold be happy to consider adding a section, but I have been diving for over thirty years and in my personal experience there were a sigmificant number of women in the field at all levels during all this time. This article is about diving, not so much about divers. Where I come from, and at the places I have dived and trained divers, women were always welcome and generally judged on their merits as divers. No systemic bias was apparent. Some were good and some were not, much like the men. They may have generally been the minority in numbers, but not by a large proportion, and in some fields were often the majority group.
If there is a diminishing gender gap, please indicate the evidence by citing your references, preferably those which provide statistics.
We illustrate our articles with freely licensed images that are availble to us. The choice is sometimes surprisingly small. Do you have any suitable photos photos we can use to improve this? Upload them to Wikimedia Commons and leave a link here. The one of a female demonstrating a skill in training is the most suitable we had for that purpose (I looked, quite carefully, at what was available). It was not chosen for any other reason. The same can be said for all the other images. Supply us with some  photos that better illustrate the sections in the article and we will use them. It does not matter to us whether the subjects are male ot female, just that they are appropriate to illustrate the point.
This is Wikipedia, if you have content that you think should be included, and can support it with suitable references, you are free to add it yourself. If the material is appropriate it will be kept, though it will probably be edited to fit in better, if inappropriate it will be fixed, deleted or moved to where it is more appropriate. If you prefer you can suggest content on this talk page (with references) and if it is appropriate to the article we will add it.
When you add a comment to a talk page, please add it in the correct place and do not overwrite somone else's conrtibution. A new conversation should be at the bottom and have a topic header. When done, please sign your comments by typing four tildes ~~~~, which will convert into your signature (in your case, your IP address) when you save.
If anything is not clear, please feel free to ask for clarification. Cheers · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 18:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why the article on scuba diving is written in British English. There is no such thing as a famous scuba diver and Britain is not famous for recreational diving destinations. The world's most famous dive destinations are located in the Caribbean, not cold water climates such as England. Also, Britain has a smaller number of recreational divers in comparison with other countries such as the United States. I am absolutely certain that this article is perused by a relatively small number of Brits in comparison with people from other countries.Anthony22 (talk) 11:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The article has no strong national ties to any nationality, so per MOS:RETAIN it should stay in the variety of English first established in the article.  I believe the primary author is South African, in fact, not English. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

CH IMG 7401.jpg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The redirect Ecuador scuba diving has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 December 10 § Ecuador scuba diving until a consensus is reached.  cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are outlined below:

There are several uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs.
The "Emergencies" section has an orange "expansion needed" banner at the top of the section from 2019.
Is anyone willing to address these concerns, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd be happy to give it a shot and expand the "Emergencies" section, I'll add some stuff on. Harveywalker500 (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Pbsouthwood, you were the main author of the article when it became GA, and I see you were the one who added that maintenance tag.  What do you think is needed to return the article to GA level?  I think the article is getting very long and am not sure expansion is the answer, to be honest -- perhaps moving some material to subarticles would be better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I will have a look. I often use an expand section tag when I notice something is missing, to remind me what needs to be done. Sometimes it takes a while before I get around to it, but pretty sure it is mainly a matter of finding some sources. I will also look into possible splits. Harveywalker500 If you have some ideas, go for it. I will join in as soon as practicable. Do you have diving experience? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I do! I'm certified as a PADI Divemaster and hope to complete my OWSI soon after university is finished.
I'll go through some of the text and see if it's suitable but it all looks good as far as I can tell. I'll find some  sources for now. Harveywalker500 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Mike, If you have any suggestions for splits I would appreciate your input. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I think what happened is I started the Emergencies section, got sidetracked int writing a mew article on Underwater diving emergencies, and forgot about the unfinished work here, so I now think it should be tightened up and maybe condensed a bit rather than expanded. Cheers. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Usual request to add citation needed tags wherever you want citations. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 18:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: CN tags added per above request. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I have started work. It may take a few days as there is more than just the citations to do. A lot of other work on diving topics has been done since this article went through GA, and some cross-referencing may be appropriate. Also other work may come to mind while I am at it. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 19:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Have found some refs and removed a few dubious claims for which refs could not be found. Currently looking at tightening up the emergencies section, to make it summary style relative to the fairly comprehensive main article at Underwater diving emergency. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I may still tinker a bit, but I think is is basically done. I have restored or found refs and cleaned up the Emergencies section. Please check that there are no important things I have missed, and that the revised Emergencies section makes sense to people who are not me. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: Thanks for doing this. Citation concerns have been resolved. I think the next step is to make this article more concise by spinning out information into their daughter articles, as recommended by WP:TOOBIG. I recommend that each section be about 4 paragraphs, as that is about the length of the lead for an article: since most of the information has been spun out, the information would be moved over and the lead of that article brought back to this parent article. Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Easier said than done, but it is a fair criticism and I will look into it.
Are you referring to level 2 sections, including all subsections, being slashed down to about 4 paragraphs total, or subsections at whatever level being limited to about 4 paragraphs? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Z1720, do you feel the article is now compliant with the GA criteria? I think you're right that it would benefit from moving some material to sub articles, but I don't think it's a problem for the article's GA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 08:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: WP:GA? 1a states that "the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience". In my opinion, an article that is too large does not have prose that is concise. I would want this to be addressed before recommending a "keep". Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Conversely, one could make a point that if the prose is concise, and the content is all necessary for clarity and completeness, then the article is not too large. However I think it should be possible to trim it down, and will try to do so. Clear and understandable to a broad audience can in some cases requires more explanation than what would give the most concise product, so it can be a bit of give and take. My personal view is that clear and understandable should not be sacrificed to concision. I am also not a fan of having to link out too much to be able to get the  picture for a person who is reasonably familiar with the topic and terminology, but everything is a compromise. If you have any suggestions for which parts of the current content are not necessary for clarity and comprehensibility for a suitably broad audience, please let me know. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: No, if a section has subsections with daughter articles, those could be larger. For example, "Safety" has "Hazards", "Risks" and "Emergencies": I would be OK with each of those level 3 sections having roughly 2-4 paragraphs of text. If it was larger than 4, there would have to be a good justification for the extra material and I would typically recommend that the section be broken up with additional headings. Since this is such a wide-reaching topic, I think that each of the sections can act as leads of the daughter article. For example, "Emergencies" has a header of "See also: Underwater diving emergency". The lead of the "Underwater diving emergency" article can be the outline of the text that is in the "Scuba diving" article. This will help editors determine what text needs to go in the parent article. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I will look into it in more detail. This may require rewriting the leads of the daughter articles, and probably looking up some sources again due to our policy of not requiring citations in the leads. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: I agree with this. Hopefully the lead in the daughter article is properly sourced in the daughter article, or in this article. Happy to help with trimming words (aka saying things using less characters) if you so wish. Z1720 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)