Talk:Professional diving

Merging

I'd say keep them separate. Neither article is that great but they are about significantly different things: Commercial Diving is a highly specialised operation which needs a separate page, but the Underwater diving page is just a general introduction to the whole topic of diving - be it SCUBA, free-diving, commercial or however else. Definitely keep them separate - but cleaning them both up and expanding would be good. If you get time before me then please do it! Iancaddy 00:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree to all of Iancaddy's arguments. Heinrich L. 19:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I also strongly oppose the merge. This article contains a lot of information specific to commercial diving. The majority of scuba divers are recreational for whom the introductory material on Underwater diving is appropriate. Viv Hamilton 12:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup, don't do it. Keep 'em separate. --UD75 17:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

General

Man, that hazmat diving sounds just wonderful. I can't possibly imagine welding something inside a live septic tank. Now that should definitely be on the discovery channel's world's dirtiest jobs. LOL,Yeah that would be A shaty job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.153.2.146 (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Decompression Tables

Referring to this line in the article:

"The US NEDU was responsible for much of the early experimental diving work to calculate decompression tables..."

Any sources to back that claim up? The Royal Navy were already working on refining decompression tables for their air divers before the US Navy had even set a personal standard for their diving equipment. Even the US Navy diving page cited below it mentions simply "refining" Haldane's tables of 1904. --UD75 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In A.D.C. course classes, it is also noted that The British Royal Navy did much of the ground breaking work on the decompression tables. U.S. Navy adopted most tables adding and modifying as they deemed necessary. The U.S. Navy Experimental Dive Unit was a for runner for pushing the extremes and also developing some of the upper limits on mixed gas diving. --Preach Fish (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)PreachFish

Quality Class

I think this article is possibly B-class, but certainly a very good C-class. It should be capable of meeting GA criteria with a little work. --RexxS (talk) 20:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Section re 'International commercial diving operations and organisations'

Some new some sub-headings have been added to the section entitled 'International commercial diving operations and organisations'. As the new content looks like spam, I would suggest renaming the section heading in order to discourage its use as a business directory.Cowdy001 (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I have changed the header to be more descriptive of the intended content, but it is a bit verbose. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:10, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

B-Class review

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. More citations needed, but should not be difficult to get them. N 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. Lead needs to be expanded to summarise contents. N 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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Professional 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 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.

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) 19:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Title of article should be changed from Professional diving to Commercial diving

I've heard of two types of diving: Recreational (Sport) diving and Commercial diving, but this is the first time that I've heard of "Professional diving." When police scuba divers recover a drowning victim, the phrase is "commercial diving," not "professional diving." When ships are maintained and repaired underwater, commercial divers do the job. To use an analogy, a highway sign will say "No commercial vehicles," not "No professional vehicles."Anthony22 (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

If I were to make use of my HSE Part IV to teach diving for reward, I'd be working as a professional diver, not a commercial diver. I can assure you that none of the police divers I know would think of their work as commercial, and I'm pretty sure that nobody recovers drowning victims as a means of making profit. Collins dictionary defines "commercial" thus: "Commercial organizations and activities are concerned with making money or profits, rather than, for example, with scientific research or providing a public service." The current title looks right to me. --RexxS (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)