Jump to content

Talk:Wreck diving

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Shipwreck law is not the appropriate category

[edit]

I've changed the category back to shipwrecks. Although wreck diving mentions some of the aspects of law, this is only one part of the connection between wreck diving and shipwrecks. If anything wreck diving would be under uses of shipwrecks (along with salvage/treasure hunting), but it doesn't make sense to have a category for just those two. I think it makes more sense to leave this page under the main shipwreck category. Viv Hamilton 22:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things to consider

[edit]

I merged the section 'Things to consider when wreck diving' with Diver training because there was a lot of duplication between them. In doing so, I removed the statement that it is compulsory to take wreck diver training. It certainly isn't in the UK, but I don't know if it is compulsory in some other countries. If so, perhaps this could be added back in with a statement of which countries it applies to. Viv Hamilton 19:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreational diving

[edit]

I've reverted the statement that wreck diving is also known as salvage diving because this article only covers recreational/sport diving. Salvage diving is covered under marine salvage or treasure hunting. Possibly this article should be renamed as Wreck diving (recreational), or expanded to address salvage diving. Viv Hamilton (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


HOW MUCH MONEY DO WRECK DIVERS MAKE AND ALSO WHERE IN THE WORLD IS THE JOB RELEVANT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.145.105 (talk) 08:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Before adding external links to an article, an editor should read WP:EL.

In particular:

  • do not make links to pages that contain nothing that would not be incorporated into the article if it were a featured article
  • do not make links to sites that require registration or payment to view the relevant content.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote external sites. If an editor feels that an article would be improved by extra information, then please add content to the article and source it properly (see: WP:RS). Please don't just add an external link to an external site unless there are very good reasons that the page's content couldn't be reliably sourced and summarised in the article. --RexxS (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added external links which I believe to be relevant. Let me know if anything is off. Thanks! (Truthspeaketh (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Deterioration of wrecks

[edit]

Legis' recent edit on "Deep diving and wreck diving" made me stop and think. I've always thought that deterioration was mainly due to wave, and especially storm, action (so shallower = greater effect), but it's also logical that the main factor may be biological (shallower = might light, more life). On the other hand, my experience on wrecks around the UK suggests that wrecks like the Lucy, which is in a fairly sheltered bay, have stayed in good condition, unlike similar wrecks at similar depths in the English Channel which are often little more than encrusted piles of plate. So, does anybody know any good sources that would clarify the mechanisms of wreck deterioration? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good question. I made the comment just repeating a comment that appeared in Gary's Gentile's book and in the TDI Advanced Wreck Diving Manual, but both treat it as a supposition (or justification?) rather than providing any analysis of it. It would be good to have some solid research that supports or refutes it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 11:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be that no research has ever been done. I'll carry on looking. In the meantime, it's best to keep what you wrote. Would you do me the favour of citing those two books somewhere in that section, as I have neither of them and the article could use more references. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I was going to delete this section: Wreck_diving#Zenobia.2C_Larnaca.2C_Cyprus.2C_Mediterranean_Sea in the main article, and then it occurred to me that a more balanced section on popular wreck diving sites worldwide might be a punchy addition to the article. We would have to monitor it to stop an extravagantly long list developing, but a short rundown of some of the most famous wreck dives in the world (I am thinking, off the top of my head, Hilma Hooker in Bonaire, President Coolidge in Vanuatu, RMS Rhone in the British Virgin Islands, the Oriskany and the Spiegel Grove in Florida, the Zenobia in Cyprus, Truk Lagoon, Scapa Flow but there are probably a lot of others I have never heard of) could be useful. Any views on this? I generally prefer editing for usefulness to deleting. --Legis (talk - contribs) 12:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are thinking in the right direction. However, there is a Category:Shipwrecks with 80-odd wrecks that have articles, so some care might be needed in deciding what is popular, before we open the floodgates. I would, of course, want to add the Lucy, the M2 (submarine) (Weymouth), and the Salsette (English Channel). Aaargh - what a can of worms! - while writing this, I've found List of shipwrecks as well as a gazillion subcategories of Category:Shipwrecks with loads of other wreck sites hidden away. I can't even find a way to navigate to Category:World War II shipwrecks in the English Channel from the main category. There's a massive amount of cleanup needed here. I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this article needs a summary section for "Popular shipwrecks" and pointers to the list and categories, without mentioning any wrecks by name. Unless anybody has a better idea? --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it occurs to me that sourcing would a problem too. --Legis (talk - contribs) 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, having chewed the fat over it for a couple of days, here is what I am thinking. This section needs a rewrite, so I plan to do that, accepting that it will never be perfect. I then propose to start a separate article on List of wreck diving sites (as distinct from (a) shipwrecks in general, and (b) ships deliberately sunk for wreck diving). I think a list is better than a category, because a lot of popular diving wrecks may wait a long time for an article, and a redlink in a list is better than no information at all. Views? --Legis (talk - contribs) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering what a pain it is to find a wreck via the categories, I'd wholeheartedly support that idea. Any reason to exclude the deliberate sinkings? (Duane and Eddie in the Keys were fun dives!). Anyway, count me in to help. --RexxS (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more thought - it might be worth mentioning this to WP:WikiProject Shipwrecks --RexxS (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - I have taken a first stab - I will tighten up the sourcing when I get home and can insert page references. I'll also make a stab at starting the new list article later today. The start of a long journey! --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards of non-penetration diving

[edit]

In the section " Types of wreck diving", there is this statement: Non-penetration wreck diving is barely more hazardous than conventional scuba diving (save that the underlying terrain may present greater risk of sharp edges). Around the UK coast, wrecks are prime targets for fishing boats and fishermen on small boats, because the wreck attracts fish. The result is that wrecks are often covered in near-invisible monofilament line - a huge entanglement hazard for divers. I can still vividly remember diving the Lord Stewart out of Brixham, and spending the whole dive wielding line cutters to cut myself out of line, every two fin strokes! So the statement I quoted above made me smile, to say the least. However, I'm not a WP:RS, so I'm flagging this up in case anybody can find a good source to modify that rather misleading bit of information. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations needed tag

[edit]

Is this necessary? It seems to me that most major statements in the article are footnoted and cite reliable sources. Views? --Legis (talk - contribs) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The {{unreferenced}} template was very old and is no longer accurate, so I removed it. I'd like to see a few more references in the article, but a tag isn't needed. When you think about it, an article is tagged, not for the readers, but to encourage editors to add sources. Sadly, there's only a handful of editors likely to add sources to scuba articles, and we all know each other and the articles anyway. So I'd say your judgement is as good as anybody else's who is going to look at talk pages. Removing these sort of tags is not going to be controversial, so just go ahead and do it. --RexxS (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British English

[edit]

The article has been in British English since the start. Please do not change spelling to American English.Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, Peter. I've dropped the appropriate template on this talk page for avoidance of doubt in the future. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wreck diving. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 17:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

checkY The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.

I've fixed the dead link. I had to search hard to find a snapshot at archive.org that wasn't a "403 Forbidden". It seems that's just too complex for Cyberbot II to manage (it seems to pick the first snapshot by default when there's no |accessdate=). It generally does a good job, so you ought to forgive it, Peter. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does a good job a lot of the time, but sometimes it just doesn't. Well done for fixing, the messages left by the bot were somewhat baffling. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I tried looking and was unsuccessful. Thank you. MartinezMD (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you elaborate what it is you can't use on the interface. You can change the archive URL then it uses by using the tool mentioned above. This has an immediate impact and the URL becomes fixed to that snapshot and no lingerie remains dynamic, meaning it can change based on what it encounters on Wikipedia. This allows most users to be able to actively improve IABot's reliability quite easily.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 02:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly that I couldn't understand what to do from the instructions. I tried clicking on the tool and was informed that I had to log in. As I was already logged in on Wikipedia, It was not clear who I should log in as, or what I would be logging into, so I left it there. Also I have no idea of what "no lingerie remains dynamic" means. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I'm on a phone so I'm typo prone. It's supposed to say "no longer dynamic". You're logging into the tool on labs. It's an OAuth login so it uses your login on Wikipedia to log you into the interface.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and suggestions for improvement requested

[edit]

This article is tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Shipwrecks as top importance, so I am requesting comment from them on what their members consider would be desirable changes and expansion. The article is rated high importance for WP:SCUBA at present, so I would like to get it up to B-class soon and GA in the foreseeable future. Please respond here. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing needs improvement. Ship names should always be in italics. No need for common merchant vessel prefixes such as MS, MV, SS etc, although RMS is ok. Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Referencing almost always needs improvement. Noted. If there are any statements that you particularly feel need citation, please tag them.
Ship names in italics - Noted. Looks like they are already all italics.
Prefixes: Should they be removed or is it just irrelevant?
Is there no major aspect of content or layout that needs improvement? Nothing significant missing that should be there? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not all ship names are in italics. Ship prefixes can be made to show or not by use of the various {{ship}} templates. For example, {{MS|Riverdance}} gives MS Riverdance, whereas {{MS|Riverdance||2}} gives Riverdance. I'm not sure about significant omissions. Are there any Wikinotable people who have been killed wreck diving? Maybe a subsection under Procedures and safety if there are. A section on salvage diving (i.e. legal salvage of cargo, recovery of human remains etc) seems to be needed. Mjroots (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B-Class review

[edit]

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. Mostly OK, but some challenged items outstanding. A bit better - should be good enough for B class. checkY
  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. Unsure. Good enough for WPSCUBA. Other projects may require additional content. checkY
  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 looks OK. checkY
  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. Looks OK. checkY
  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. Acceptably illustrated. 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. looks OK. checkY

Not yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good enough now, so promoting to B-class. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Wreck 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 04:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request

[edit]

Squirl1, In your edit adding an equipment section you referred to OHE 1/3 safety rule and positioning light. These terms are not familiar to me, and I have not been able to find an explanation on the internet, so have not been able to clarify them myself. I guess the former refers to the rule of thirds, but would like a confirmation, and an explanation of "OHE" on this context. Positioning light is even more of a mystery. Please either explain here what they are, and where you got the terminology from, or clarify in the article. Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 08:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OHE stands for Overhead Environment. For divers, this could mean inside a UW wreck, but also a caven or cave, even diving under ice is OHE. Simply every situation where a diver could not go straight up to the surface. So, the diver must first overcome a more or less horizontal distance underwater before one can ascend to the surface. 1/3 means (for divers) you penetrate (under OHE condition) maximum until 1/3 of your breathing gas is done, then you have 2/3 gas for the way back. Greetings Squirl1 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wreck_diving&oldid=1210997744"