Talk:Frogman

message: * If "The term preferred by scuba users [i.e. all of them...] is 'diver', but the word "frogman" persists in usage by non-divers" then why do "A few sport diving clubs have included the word "Frogmen" in their names."? Unsigned comment  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.0.49 (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reference is given to support the claim that the term preferred by scuba users is diver, though it is apparent that the term most commonly used is diver. The absence of references to support many of the claims in this article remains a problem. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalization 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Frogman. 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  tag to http://history.flyer.it/rebreathers/Italiano/sezioni/storia/frameset.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002210911/http://www.paginedidifesa.it/2005/guerrini_051213.html to http://www.paginedidifesa.it/2005/guerrini_051213.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/movies/tb_production.php3?t=tb&s=tb
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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  is optional. It has a long way to go. Many challenged claims outstanding. There are still in-line external links and editorial comments which must go.
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for , although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.Covers the topic fairly extensively, though it is difficult to make out the limits of the scope as there appears to be some out of scope content. This may be partly due to the term being poorly defined and partly scope creep. Significant work may be necessary to tighten up the content so that it is clear what the scope is and that it is what it should be. 
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.The lead does not summarise the content. The term remains poorly defined. Scope may need to be defined before it is possible to decide.
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. Somewhat unencyclopaedic in tone in places. 
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. 
:Not ready yet. The two most apparent problems are many outstanding requests for citations, and the unclear scope of the article. There seems to be a great deal of vagueness about what a frogman is, and attempts to define by what a frogman is not and uncited examples of frogmen. A great deal of the content is plausible, but unsupported by references, and references are not easily available on the internet. No authoritative text seems to exist. There are occasional contradictions. Dictionary and E Brittannica definitions are rather vague and often contradictory to parts of the article. It is not clear how this article can best be fixed, but a restructuring with a section on terminology may be a good start, and it may be necessary to discard much of the unverifiable content. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-class assessment 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Danish Frogmen Corps which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 03:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frogman. 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/20170212032918/https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/f9f595b1-7547-4929-8d05-b2e798390a3c/Frogmen-against-a-Fleet--The-Italian-Attack-on-Ale.aspx to https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/f9f595b1-7547-4929-8d05-b2e798390a3c/Frogmen-against-a-Fleet--The-Italian-Attack-on-Ale.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I always thought that "frogman" was a (rather old-fashioned) term for a SCUBA diver.  This article is the first time I've heard that it just means a military diver or "combat swimmer".  Not only that, but the article includes numerous dictionary definitions that treat it as a general term for scuba-diver.  Would it not be better to rename this article to "combat diver" (or whatever military term covers all military frogmen), and update Frogman (disambiguation) to link to both here and Scuba diving? Iapetus (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  I think this article would be better off as a redirect to combat diver rather than t'other way 'round. --173.180.86.252 (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I also agree. It seems the primary sources (special operations units) tend to use terms like combat diver, or the like. These are already listed in the introduction, but given "Frogman" is an informal term, it's more logical for frogman to redirect to combat diver. I5-X600K (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the disambiguation page is OK as is, but we could define the scope of this article and limit it to uses of the word in the context of diving, as a summary style article with links to the relevant usages where those articles exist, and move the bulk of the material on combat diving or special forces diving or whatever to a new article. I don't know offhand what all might be linked from Frogman with the new scope, but it should be possible to eliminate much of the vagueness currently infesting the article. Some input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history could be useful. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition and scope