Talk:Recreational diving

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Scuba diving High‑importance

	Underwater diving portal This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Water sports Start‑class High‑importance

	Recreational 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.Water sportsWikipedia:WikiProject Water sportsTemplate:WikiProject Water sportsWater sports articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section sizes

Section size for Recreational diving (24 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	3,528	3,528
Scope	3,806	3,806
Reasons to dive	2,663	2,663
Activities	2,340	6,149
Specialties	3,809	3,809
History	5,496	5,496
Standard equipment	2,854	2,854
Standard procedures	3,590	3,590
Training	1,505	6,778
Diving skills	372	2,225
Entry level	1,419	1,419
Beyond entry level	434	434
Training standards	3,048	3,048
Risk	2,561	2,561
Legal status	2,244	2,244
Economic impact	1,129	1,129
Demographics	3,222	3,222
Venues for diving	1,855	4,634
Dive site features	2,779	2,779
Marine citizen science	2,651	2,651
See also	368	368
Footnotes	593	593
References	19,713	19,713
External links	394	394
Total	72,373	72,373

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wikisun1952.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External Links[edit]

I think this page is attracting external links that are not directly related to the content of the article. The two added on 6 April 2008 seem to violate several Wikipedia policies: WP:EXT#Important_points_to_remember point 3; WP:EXT#Links_normally_to_be_avoided points 1, probably 4, possibly 11; probably WP:EXT#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest; possibly WP:COI. Although I am willing to WP:AGF, the editor is not identified and the links here are their only contribution to date. Although the links may be of interest to "Dive sites in New Zealand", I don't believe they they are appropriate in "Recreational diving" - how many dive sites or regions would warrant inclusion in this article? - see WP:NOT#LINK.

In the light of that, it is worth reviewing whether the Red Sea link, the Asia link and the Midwest Quarries link belong in the article as external links. Perhaps they could be rewritten as references or examples for content within the article, but I query their inclusion as stand-alone External Links. --RexxS (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that more external links are being added that do nothing other than provide a directory of dive sites. Although they may be tangentially related to this article, Wikipedia is not a directory and there is no limit to the potential number of such links once some are accepted. Nevertheless, I'd be keen to hear any other opinions before removing the external links, including the ones that are merely adverts for dive agencies. --RexxS (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these are developing into an advertisement drop. We could include references to information resources to divers as a minor topic, which could then include lists to things like magazines, USENET discussion groups, etc. But the challenge remains the same: how do they relate to the general topic? The short answer is that there's not a particularly strong link and as such, they should be culled -hh (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reader feedback: more hand signals for advanced divers[edit]

76.25.27.94 posted this comment on 6 July 2013 (view all feedback).

more hand signals for advanced divers

Any thoughts?

• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't entirely agree - there is an entire article called diver communications that can be consulted. It would be better to add a sentence somewhere and which links to the diver communications article and possibly other articles of use to those seeking information about Recreational diving. Alternaively, update 'See also' to include the necessary links.Cowdy001 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I have added a new section on procedures which links to a lot of related articles including Diver communications. It can probably benefit by some more content, links and references. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issues[edit]

The Issues section is devoid of references, apart from a couple of old primary studies in the risk section. The rest of it is written like a personal view, unsupported by any reliable source. In fact, checking back to February 2009, the version at that time had a {{weasel section}} template then. In fact the unsourced content dates back to an addition by an IP in September 2004. In over ten years, nothing has improved, so I propose we cut the section entirely as unsalvageable. Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RexxS, I would suggest replacement with possibly one or two new sections. Firstly, a section about "Training" is necessary to inform the reader that training is a fundamental aspect of contemporary Recreational Diving. This could be a precise of content from Recreational diver training. Secondly, I like to see retention of the content about "Risk" in the form of a new expanded section, subject to the availability of additional citation. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am with Cowdy001 on this. Lose the section "Issues", replace with a summary on "Training" and one on "Risk", NPOV and cited. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Recreational 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ymcascuba.org/default.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review[edit]

B	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 `{{cite web}}` is optional. Still a few uncontroversial citations needed. Good enough for B-class Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Looks OK Y 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. Looks OK Y 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 Y 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 Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK Y

More citations needed. Some challenged material still unreferenced. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still a few unreferenced claims, but for fairly uncontroversial historical details, so promoting to B-class • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Recreational 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Recreational 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]