Talk:Anti-frogman techniques

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject SCUBA, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Scuba diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

Contents

[edit] Latinism, etc.

Your effort to delatinize the language is commendable, however, considering the requirement for the material to be encyclopedic, to the point (non-literary and non-colloquial), my corrections were intended to achieve just that and to make it more in agreement with the USN Diving Manual. In all other respects, I would agree with you and stick to the Orwell's trusty Politics and the English Language, --Bo Basil 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple Wikilinks

I feel that this (good) article is overlinked to simple terms such as scuba diving, frogman, open circuit and rebreather. I guess the correct path lies somewhere between the two edits. WP:MOS ([1] and [2]) suggests that one appearance on a screen is sufficient. Finavon 11:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

  • There can be much text on a screenful, and it is tedious to have to search and search for the only link within miles to a word that occurs several times in a screenful. Anthony Appleyard 12:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- made easier if there are not a host of other links! I've restored the only correction I feel strongly about - avoiding the disambiguation page for diver. Finavon 13:44, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FBI and scuba diver info

  • I inserted a link USA scuba diver information said to have been handed to the FBI, and it was deleted at 06:52, 1 February 2008 with remark "Undid link to blog site added by Anthony Appleyard (talk) - unacceptable per WP:EL)"); but WP:EL says that links to blogs are "Links normally to be avoided", and the matter described ("After 9/11 the F.B.I. asked the nation's largest scuba diver certification organizations to turn over the records of all divers certified since 1998. This is now done on an annual basis.") is an important matter concerning privacy of information and freedom to scuba dive, and if the only online ref to it is a blog, then the blog will have to be the ref. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I deleted this again but didn't notice this message prior. It is hard to understand why an exception should be made to allow an EL to a blog because it is the only available reference making a particular claim. In most cases that would be a very strong additional condition deciding not to allow it.Professor marginalia (talk) 07:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copy editing, sourcing

This is a really interesting article with pretty in-depth detail, and a good example of how wikipedia can be a great resource for information about topics of special interest that most general encyclopedia's can't or won't include. Some copy editing will be useful, however, to document claims in it to particular sources. The article has some fact tagging already, and there are other places where a cite seems needed as well, places that aren't tagged yet. Unfortunately many parts of the article appear to be WP:original research, though most of these may indeed have references, and could possibly be sorted out once the citations are identified. For example, take this passage: "In most scenarios nowadays #1 or perhaps #2 is likelier, but in war or semi-war conditions or where there is a risk of terrorism #3 may be likelier than usual. A police-type technique that is reasonably safe on land may be risky to a scuba diver. The document nlsn leans strongly towards #1, and discusses only non-lethal weapons. But in war and semi-war situations there is more risk of #3 and the choice may be for lethal weapons." So far no source has been identified for the claim to "more risk of #3"-which is a real concern since it is contrary to what's written in the source that is identified, the nlsn. That's an example where a source is needed; if there isn't one, the claim can't be made in the article. My thought is to work through section by section, adding inline citations where they're called for, and fact tagging where necessary. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whether to include links to manufacturers' websites

Copied from edit comments
  • 05:31, 20 May 2008 User:Axlq m (47,394 bytes) (→Other external links: removed links to advertisements and non-working link.)
  • 05:45, 20 May 2008 User:Anthony Appleyard (48,045 bytes) (Rv deletions, or please discuss: these links have relevant info. Undid revision 213641926 by Axlq)
  • 06:23, 23 May 2008 User:Axlq m (47,394 bytes) (Revert. As I stated before, one link (projo.com) DOES NOT WORK, and two others exist for advertising, regardless of content. Please justify restoration on talk page.)
  • 09:01, 23 May 2008 User:Anthony Appleyard (48,078 bytes) (del 404 link but restore the rest: they may be adverts. but they are also good information: they are not mass adverts because only a few men in a nation will be in a position to buy such devices)
  • 04:48, 27 May 2008 User:Axlq m (47,930 bytes) (→Other external links: Compromise: deleted Kongsberg link as it was added by a serial spammer. The target audience of the links is irrelevant, the purpose is still advertising and search referrals))
  • 05:40, 27 May 2008 User:Anthony Appleyard (48,078 bytes) (Serial spammer or not, it contains relevant info, not only advertizingness. Undid revision 215207379 by Axlq)

Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New discussion

OK, I'll start. Referencing Wikipedia:External links:

  • The external links under contention fail to meet the relevant criteria for what should be linked, specifically item 3 (neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the article due to copyright) and item 4 (meaningful and relevant content not suitable for inclusion). The content of those pages could be integrated into this article, and the content is suitable for inclusion. Therefore, the links fail the "what should be linked" criteria.
  • The links do meet one or more of the criteria for links to be avoided:
    1. the sites do not provide a unique resource beyond what this article would contain if it were featured.
    4. The links were added for the purpose of promotion. This is particularly true for the Kongsberg link, which was added by a serial spammer 193.69.71.70 with a conflict of interest.
  • Links added due to a conflict of interest should be deleted. The only reason I came across this article in the first place was because I was cleaning up the mess left by this spammer in several other articles. The spammer has been warned but evidently pays no attention.

Now, all that being said, I admit it's possible for a spammer to submit a link that actually enhances an article while meeting the spammer's purpose of promoting his company. I've seen it happen in other articles, where a spammer posts something, someone else comes along to clean up, and the editors restore the link because it seems useful. The information in those links seems like it could be obtained from other sources, though. The article could include the informative content of those pages and do away with those external links. =Axlq 16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)