Talk:Surface-supplied diving

message: Commercial surface supplied standard is a compressor not a "cylinder".  A compressed gas (usually air unless it is saturation diving) tank is often used a backup (secondary air) however it is not usually the primary when there is a tender (somebody attending to the diver on the surface).  So if the "cylinder supplying the umbilical is exhausted it can be removed and replaced with a full one at the surface" it is implied there is a tender.  Compressed air tanks (usually scuba tanks) on a hooka are used for small(often solo) operations, such as boat hull cleaning. However there is rarely a tender. Even in snuba there is not usually going to be a tender available to change the tanks. Since this type of diving does not use coms (a diver tender communication device) there would not be anyway of knowing if the diver was out of air. I do admit the scenario described by this statement is theoretically possible, however the required situation is very much not the norm.  This last sentence should be amended.Landrycameron (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A surface-supplied system known in commercial diving as scuba replacement uses high pressure storage cylinders to supply the gas panel with primary and secondary air, and heliox is generally supplied from banks of HP cylinders, but  is essentially correct about the usual surface supply of breathing air. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial surface supplied standard is a compressor  

message: A merge of Compressor diving into Surface-supplied diving is suggested:
#Compressor diving is a subset of Surface-supplied diving.
#Compressor diving, though rather different in detail, is not sufficiently different to requre a separate article.
#Compressor diving article is small and likely to remain small.
Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

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.There are still a large number of uncited paragraphs, but most of the material is uncontroversial, and should be fairly easy to source. Those left are mostly fairly obvious and uncontroversial but proving slow to find, so I am going to promote. 
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. Coverage is generally adequate, with a few places needing a bit more clarification, and an empty subsection. The existing content should be adequate for B-class. 
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.Article structure is logical and fairly well defined. 
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 to me. 
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. Plenty of relevant photographs of reasonable quality. More would be nice, but there are enough.  
Needs more citations, but as this should not be difficult, will delay promotion until there are fewer citations needed. I will get back to this, but assistance would be welcomed. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment for B-class 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Surface-supplied diving. 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://www.imca-int.com/%28F%28HgoxzyeluluOK_Nh2f6_zim-2B84gkOvCTu_AmwHNcKDtdlHYtGfqT-wmnIrcBoQE0ipE1nbMQerGIKG2VBUAyxvfXjbagbYuWkWR7ajBSMlpv65vptXhWARBOd7Y7opa-v9UX7emzJTcA9qeePkvrwLsv_G1ymrPxbJKe_w__w1%29%29/media/71123/imcad043.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161104080007/http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/ to http://www.saflii.org/za/legis/consol_reg/ohasa85o1993rangnr41716/
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) 00:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article is fairly large, and the biggest section Surface supplied diving#Equipment could reasonably be split out as a stand-alone article Surface-supplied diving equipment, for which there is already a redirect with possibilities. The topic is notable under WP:GNG and I consider the split uncontroversial. A similar situation exists with other diving modes and their equipment: Scuba set and scuba diving are the most obvious example. The related snorkeling and snorkel (swimming) are a similar case. The split out article would have the potential for considerable expansion, and there are already articles that could be considered detail subtopics of surface supplied equipment. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The content of the equipment section has been used to start Surface-supplied diving equipment, and I have started to condense the content of that section in this article to the appropriate level of detail. This may take a while. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed split