Talk:Underwater hockey

message: WA ex player  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.119.65 (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that your first instinct is correct, but unfortunately humans are a far from rational race, and thus the sport does in fact exist. This is perhaps lamentable, but we knew what the world was like, when we signed the document authorizing our own birth, now, didn't we? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 09:37, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it exists. I remember seeing a thingie on TV about it once. Spectators found it boring; a British spectator said to a reporter, "On a scale from one to ten: one." So it's meant to be played rather than watched, which I'm noting in the article now. --Furrykef 00:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Spectator sport? Absolutely,
A recent video clip[ showing uck passing skills has been biewed ober 3,500 in less than one week. Check it out on You tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suIUd1aOTtQ
Dorsalgear 07:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  underwater hockey - skills video 

message: The page has been lacking citations for a while, and I hope that by adding a number of good references, we may be worthy of removing the "needs citations" tag as the information within the article is hopefully now verifiable (although the section on governing bodies may be a bit problematic).
Some articles on equipment are spread around in subsections of other pages, e.g. water polo cap, puck. Perhaps a selection of photos could be added, either as a gallery or as detail next to individual items.
It would be great if someone could contribute a photo of a kitted-up team for the historical section.
Note that most search engines will return this article (currently above any governing bodies or individual clubs) when someone requests "underwater hockey" - so it is imperative in terms of the appearance of the sport that the article is of a high standard.
DavidUnderwater (talk) 23:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent edits have focused on changing the spelling of this article from British English to American English and vice versa (e.g. BE: apnoea AE: apnea) rather than concentrating on the main task of improving or adding to the content. Can we now come to some consensus about whether British English or American English should be the norm here? If we can't agree, can we now move on and leave individual editors with the freedom to use the variety of English they feel most comfortable using? Helmardine (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Spellings should not be changed from one variant to another without good reason. As noted apnoea was changed to apnea without good reason and was reverted. Reviewing this article against WP:ENGVAR suggests that this is a British English article - all the very early material was about the invention of the sport in England and its spread to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa which suggests that the editors were probably British English speaking. However, however the article develops it must use only one variant of English and not mixed use  - see MOS:ARTCON.  Velella  Velella Talk   21:29, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: This video from the Independent is interesting, talking about "underwater hockey" played three-aside with oxygen tanks and hockey sticks. Have never seen this before, sticking it here so I remember. Seems different enough to be a separate sport (and the source suggests this) rather than being included as a variant of underwater hockey. NemesisAT (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Underwater hockey, not to be confused with Octopush"