Talk:Cave diving

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Selective Sampling Bias

in safety, it says the danger to cave diving is because people do it with insufficent training and equipment. it then says that cave diving is safter because people need more training and equipment to cave dive. but that is saying "the bottem 90% of our population are just careless, if you ignore them, the safest 10% of our population is much safter than the entire population of recreational diving" when in reality, the safest 10% should only be compaired to the safest 10% or the entire population to the entire population, not safest 10% to the entire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.216.152 (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

This Article has a NPOV tag inherited from the "extreme sports" article. Among every cave diving authority I've seen, there is no dispute that Cave diving is an extreme sport. Extreme as in darwinian. It is excluded from the extreme sports debate, and I'm removing the NPOV tag. EjayHire 01:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavern diving

There is a short article on cavern diving that seems to try and distinguish it from cave diving I think the two should be merged 71.107.82.58 04:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)ratherhaveaheart[reply]

History

The fact there's a US and UK history section is silly. Those are but 2 countries of many, and their specific history in the sport is irrelevant to the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 154.20.13.41 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 September 2006.

The history breakdown between UK and US (Florida) is very relevant to the evolution of the sport. In terms of techniques, equipment and philosophy.

The two major schools of cave diving has a significant effect of cave diving today.

Poddiver 02:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land and sea

I know little on this subject, but should there be some distinction made between cave diving in a sea environment and land based caving? Derek Andrews (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just SCUBA

A lot of cave diving these days is done with rebreathers, not SCUBA. This is an overall flaw in calling this effort WikiProject SCUBA - SCUBA is a limited technology that is only part of diving. 201.134.173.244 (talk) 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first known use of the term SCUBA was by Christian J. Lambertsen describing his Lambertsen Amphibious Respiratory Unit (LARU) breathing apparatus which is a rebreather. SCUBA does include both open and closed breathing systems. Reference: Larson, HE and the Committee on Undersea Warfare (1959). "A history of self-contained diving and underwater swimming". National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council Report. Publication 469. Thanks --Gene Hobbs (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think there are any clues by, for example, http://www.rebreatherworld.com/ using the title "Rebreathers for scuba diving"? Rebreather is-a-kind-of scuba. Fatphil (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External Links section

Seems to me there is alot of movement on the external links section with links added, deleted, and sometimes reposted since there are perhaps differing ideas on what should, and should not go there. I am suggesting some organization into subsections with external links being listed under 1 section that best represents to dominant or most significant content:

- Training organizations at both National and International levels.

- Cave Diving Scientific and Technical content (note - content on the cave themselves is better under caves, or perhaps a new entry on phreatic caves.) This would include mapping and diving software specific to the activity, decompression issues of particular relevance to cave diving, other, equipment technical specifications, other.

- Visual content and public education sites

- EXCLUDE/INCLUDE ? - Organised cave diving exploration groups however these may be better placed under the heading for the caves they have explored.

Does this have a logical structure and capture the breadth of the suitable material that should be included in this entry? Any thoughts and discussion? Anything missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggpab (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article is arranged very awkwardly. I came looking for general information about this sport, and suddenly found myself reading about the "hazards" and "training" before the history or basic techniques and variations, i.e. the general interest items you would think would come before the technical stuff. Also, there needs to be some references in the sections where it discusses the dangers of diving being "arguable" and that deaths always occur under "unusual circumstances." Says who? Sources please. And finally, could that whole long section about notable dives, sorted by country, not be condensed into some sort of table. I do not know enough about this issue to change anything, but that would be my suggestion.74.92.180.145 (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The CDG (Cave Diving group) manual link was placed as it contains a history of cave diving and the CDGs history. As well as the techniques for cave diving. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.145.140 (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was placed originally as a reference, that is, it was supposed to be supporting a particular piece of text in the article. As that was not the case, it was inappropriate to be in "References". I re-instated the link to the manual in "External Links" which is the section for links to external sites that are relevant and useful for the article. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK seems reasonable, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.145.140 (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicks

(1) " ... exit routes may be at considerable distance, requiring the diver to have sufficient breathing gas to make the journey, resulting in potential deep diving risks." - The length of an exit route does not imply the depth of the dive. You can have long deep exits (which is what this comment seems to assume), but also, long /shallow/ exits (which can hardly be said to impose "deep diving" risks), short deep exits, and short shallow exits. I suggest: " ... exit routes may be at considerable distance, requiring the diver to have sufficient breathing gas to make the journey. The dive may also be deep, resulting in potential deep diving risks." - or somesuch.

(2) "With the establishment of technical diving the usage of mixed gases such as trimix for bottom gas, nitrox and oxygen for decompression the margin for error increases." - If the risk of making an error /increases/ (as it does with mixed gas dives), the "margin for error" /decreases/ - not /increases/. TC 203.122.223.121 (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - those are both good catches. I've made amendments, so see if they now meet your concerns. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the amendments look fine. Thanks for responding. TC 203.122.223.121 (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Tragedies' vs 'Events'

Someone reverted my change from "A series of tragedies between 1969 and 1973 in which 11 divers drowned..." to "A series of events between 1969 and 1973 in which 11 divers drowned..." and asked for a discussion on the talk page, so here it is. Please discuss this change here before reverting again. The reason for the change was that while both 'events' and 'tragedies' might describe what happened, 'events' is able to do do without applying a value judgement, while 'tragedies' necessarily carries the implication that the event was 'bad' in some sense. As an encyclopedia, it is not Wikipedia's place to make value judgements on events; the role of an encyclopedia is limited to the reporting of facts. Regardless of our personal feelings about this, or any, occurrence, Wikipedia must remain neutral. 203.24.97.8 (talk) 05:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point on "tragedies" but not sure that "events" is the best option. "Accidents" or "incidents" might be more appropriate. My leaning is towards incidents, as it is more neutral and covers the possibility that some were not altogether accidental, as being fairly predictable. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, "incidents" (but not "accidents", for the reason you describe) sounds fine to me, but I don't see any reason to prefer it over "events". Change it if you like, though. 203.24.97.8 (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The term "incident" is more popular for official reporting of events where things go badly wrong and people are injured or die, otherwise they are both very neutral terms. Perhaps I am slighly biased by my background in commercial diver training - we generally refer to incident reports, rather than event reports. Accident is for the coroner to decide. Tragedy is journalism or politics. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominican Republic/How-To

"If you see a warning or a Stop sign, do not go beyond no matter what your "guide" says, do not risk your life and report that dive operator and/or instructor that wants to take you there to all diving agencies, including the DRSS." Reads as a how-to article, and attempts to define who is and is not a professional dive authority without proper citations. Unencyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModernGeek (talk • contribs) 04:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Dominican Republic section needed an overhaul as it was loaded with POV and completely unreferenced. Possibly work by a non-English speaker unaware of our policies. Anyway I have rewritten it extensively and it should now be OK except it still needs references. Please take a look and let me know if you think it is OK. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards section

The Hazards sections mostly/completely references 1, which is 37 years old. Diving and cave diving have pretty much exploded since then. Any new data? If not, suggest removing some of the whitewashing of the activity. I've been diving for 25+ years and consider serious cave diving an activity for expert divers only. Not very encyclopedic of me, I know, but just because something can be cited doesn't mean it's still true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhys65 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Sorry for not signing appropriately; I'm new at this. Actually, my first post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhys65 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Rhys, we all did that when we started. I do agree with your comment, but on Wikipedia we can't just write what we know to be true, we have to have reliable sources that others can use to verify what we wrote. Sheck Exley was a hugely influential figure in our sport and it's natural that he is referenced heavily in the article, although there is clearly room for more up-to-date sources. Why not suggest a few that you might use here on the the talk page and get some feedback on how they could be incorporated into the article? Alternatively, we encourage editors to be bold, so you can simply change the text to reflect more modern views of risks, or whatever - although I wouldn't recommend removing text that has a reference attached to it unless you are supplying a newer reference to support the text that you write. There are several keen divers who keep an eye on these pages, so feel free to discuss anything that might improve the article with us here. Happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Venues without France?!

The region of Lot in France should be included in the venues section since it's the most important cave diving destination in Europe.

Spain also has many great caves like Pozo Azul, as does Croatia, Slovenia, and Hungary. There are isolated but great caves in Germany too (Blautopf, Numburg, etc.), Switzerland, Austria, as well as in Norway (Plura) and Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.30.69.251 (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, of course. Do feel free to improve the article. --Langcliffe (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have suitable references, please add relevant information on these regions. If you are not sure how to do it, you can provide the information on this talk page and one of our editors will check it and add it to the article. Or you can just go ahead and add to the article. If the information is useful and the references are satisfactory, we can easily fix any minor problems with formatting and grammar. You can also add free-licensed photos to Wikimedia Commons to illustrate the section. If in doubt, ask. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are now section headings for the countries you listed. This should make it easy to add some information for each one. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cave 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, 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cave 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are both external links, not references, so date is unimportant. No problem, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review

B
  1. 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.

    2. Needs a lot more referencing, and some of the unreferenced material may be contentious. ☒N
  2. 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.

    3. Concentrates a bit much on recreational side of cave diving. Needs some more on the scientific aspects. It also appears to be making some poorly supported claims about risk and incident rates. ☒N
  3. 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.

    4. Structure seems reasonable. May need some expansion to cover non-recreational aspects. Structure could be improved to present content in a more logical order. What - Why - How sort of thing instead of starting with the hazards. Possibly split venues out into a separate article some day, but no rush. ☒N
  4. 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.

    5. Appears to be arguing a point about risk and incident rates. Needs to be rewritten to present the information in a neutral tone. Better/more references would help too. ☒N
  5. 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.

    6. Seems oK. checkY
  6. 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.

    7. Seems OK. checkY

Quite a lot of work needed, mostly in NPOV and referencing. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cave 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) 11:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cavern diving is not the same as Cave diving

This is certainly true in the US(see above refs) and probably true elsewhere. I don't think Cavern diving warrants a separate article but this point should be made clear. 2A00:23C5:E06:701:E:5BAC:89C4:93BB (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to make the point clearly if there were any reliable sources that agreed on the distinction between cavern and cave diving. The sources quoted above differ in so many points that it is arguable whether they can be used to summarise the differences. About the only thing they can agree on is that divers wishing to explore caves need to buy additional certification. --RexxS (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And even that isn't true. You certainly don't need certificates to dive in caves in the UK. The difference between cavern diving and cave diving seems to be one made by the certification industry. Langcliffe (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Cave diving

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cave diving's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Britannica":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above, but it has been fixed. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due for a split some time

I think the material on cave diving regions should be split out into a separate article Cave diving regions some time as the article is getting a bit large. and the regions is the obvious split. Other ideas welcome, of course, but if there are none forthcoming before I get around to it I will probably just split as described here. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split done. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 11:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Cave_diving"