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.Underwater divingWikipedia:WikiProject Underwater divingTemplate:WikiProject Underwater divingUnderwater diving articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Watches, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of watches on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WatchesWikipedia:WikiProject WatchesTemplate:WikiProject WatchesWatches articles
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.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm a diver with 10+years of experience and a good knowledge of the diving market. I feel that the market share % are not real or, at least, can't be applied to a worldwide situation.
Suunto and Oceanic are global brands, but the 6,6% attributed to Uwatec is way too low. For example in Europe the market share of Uwatec is probably around 40% and globally the number should be about 30%.
I'm unable to cite sources as I'm not aware of any real global market survey, so I refrain from editing the main page, but I'd like to see the data updated or, lacking some verifiable data, removed.
CarloA (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
This sort of information is unlikely to remain up to date for long, and probably is not a worthwhile addition to an encyclopedia article. No sources for the section have been brought forward since the template was added over a year ago. I'd agree with its removal. --RexxS (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Should we try and add a list of Dive Computers here on this page? I think the manufacturer pages should probably include models that they make as well, though I did not see any of the models listed on Suunto's page. Many of the makers also do not have pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevon7 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
I landed on this page as I was doing research on the different brands and features available. I was hoping to find a table with a list of models, and then columns that listed the capabilities etc. something like -> Manufacturer | Model | form factor: watch/console | gas support: air/nitrox/trimix | air integrated y/n | Built in compass | USB data transfer | Logbook capacity | Algorithm used | Max depth ... It is possible to go through all sorts of sites to find the info, or maybe there are magazine articles that would compare the models we can pull data from, but having this as a reference would be useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zevon7 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. But somebody would have to do the research and create such a list, and then somebody would have to keep it up to date for it to be useful. Nobody has volunteered to do that so far, which is why the list isn't in the article. --RexxS (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
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.
Seems 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.
Has structure, but can be improved. Order not very logical. Better now. 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 to me 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.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dive computer. 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.
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The section Dive computer#Manufacturers is turning into a adspam link-farm for every brand of dive computer on the market. I suggest that entries on the list are either notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia (blue-linked), or have a reliable source showing that the company actually manufactures dive computers (as opposed to rebadging another manufacturer's product). If that's agreed, then I'll remove all of the unsourced or unlinked names. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Article is now quite large and is likely to continue growing as more sources and details are found for the history section. I suggest that once it has expanded to be the largest section, and has adequate sourcing, that it be summarised for this article, and split out as a stand-alone History of dive computers.
Any good sources for expansion are welcome and may be listed here, or used to directly improve the article.
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. Mostly well referenced, with a few unreferenced paragraphs of uncontroversial content.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. Quite comprehensive coverage except for a few minor items where sources have not yet been found. Should be adequate. 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. Structure well defined and appropriate.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 fine to me. Y
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Plenty of photos and a few relevant diagrams, complies. Y
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 fine to me. Some background knowledge is necessary as it is a technical topic. If anyone feels something should be clarifies, just let me know. Y
