Talk:Sidemount diving

	Underwater diving portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Image

I know that the image isn't a perfect fit for the article, but it will do until we can source a better one. --Legis (talk - contribs) 23:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, your picture is worth thousand words and I spent ages looking through Commons for just such an image. The article really needed it! --RexxS (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The primary image showed stage-mounted cylinders, on a diver wearing backmount. This is quite misleading, given that sidemount configuration differs substantially from stage-mounting of cylinders. Sidemount instructors are very keen to dispel the false understanding that sidemount diving consists of nothing more than 'slinging some stages for backgas'. The new definition of terms explains what is, and is not, sidemount diving. I have illustrating photos of sidemount configuration, that I will add shortly (new member restrictions on photos for the next few days). Devondiver (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research / Conflict of Interest

I am content to declare a Conflict of Interest, in that I have quoted (and referenced)some of my original work in the Sidemount article. At present there is a lack of published media concerning sidemount diving (beyond that already referenced) - but I have had a sidemount article published via my blog for some time. It was suggested to me that I contribute some of that information to Wikipedia.

The information I've added to Wikipedia is agency/configuration/philosophy neutral and has, to date, been accepted/supported by leading proponents of the sidemount diving community, including several leading scuba agency course designers/authors.

My only aim in adding my work to the article was to address some discrepancies, errors and/or absences of information - as were being complained about by divers on several internet discussion forums. I have no other vested interest in publishing this information, beyond public education.

For the record, I am a PADI/TecRec/ANDI Sidemount instructor, a SSI/BSAC instructor (non-sidemount) and have also received training from TDI. In addition to various instructional manuals, the original work I have quoted is sourced from direct discussions, lectures and training sessions run by sidemount divers/instructors who represent a further range of agencies, including IANTD, UTD and PSAI.

Please feel free to contact me, if you want to discuss.

Devondiver (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that, and it looks like it is sorted out quite well, with sufficient additional references to cover questions of OR. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Push for B-Class

I think with a little more work this article could be B-class.

B-Class criteria:

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
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.
The article is reasonably well-written.

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.
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.

• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Arrow S-Wing entry

Have removed comments pertaining to entry about White Arrow S-Wing under 'Hybrid'. The OMS Tesseract is a hybrid that works via backplate - so the comment attributed to the S-Wing was unsustainable. It also rung of an advertisement. Have also added citation/weblink for the White Arrow S-Wing. Devondiver (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the link but just got advertising for general sidemount gear from a retailer. Couldnt identify the S-wing. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any website or reference for the manufacturer. Is a small and generally unheard of sidemount BCD system. That may change in the future? Devondiver (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly likely that the equipment exists as similar kit from the manufacturer is being advertised, so I have no problem leaving the current mention. In time I expect someone will track down the home site and add a better link.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Google to search the hlbdive.com site for "arrow", but I can only find this page: http://www.hlbdive.com/en/288-arrow-cave-diving which shows White Arrow equipment, but not an "S-Wing". I'm afraid that the only ghit for the phrase "White Arrow S-Wing" is this article. It's just possible that it's a new product, so we could wait a week or so, but really we shouldn't have information in an article that's not verifiable. Sadly, the citation added doesn't do that job. --RexxS (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebreather Sidemount

Quote: "Level 3: " Rebreather Sidemount"[citation needed] single rebreather[clarification needed] multiple rebreather use[clarification needed] no mount penetration[clarification needed]"

I'm not aware of any agency that offers certification specifically with rebreather sidemount, certainly not as a stand-alone qualification. I do believe that some rebreather divers undertake basic (level 1) or tec/advanced sidemount (level 2) in order to develop skill/knowledge to sidemount bail-out tanks. A new generation of rebreather development does deal with specific sidemount rebreathers (mounting dilutent etc on the sides), but again, no evidence of agency sanctioned courses for that specific qualification.

For instance, the IANTD CCR qualification states that students may train sidemount rebreather if already qualified in sidemount. The training is thus not 'sidemount' based...as sidemount is a prerequisite, not a component. I can find no references online, or in scuba agency materials to support the existence of a specific 'sidemount rebreather' training course.

That section of the wiki entry specifically deals with sidemount training levels, as sanctioned by the major scuba agencies. In order to be a training level, it has to correspond with a linear pattern of training progression. CCR/Rebreather would not a linear follow-on (level 3) from technical diving (level 2). This makes the entry very confusing and it is unlikely that any citation to support the entry could be produced.

I recommend deleting this entry, for the confusion it may cause, plus lack of obvious citation. At the least, it should be moved into its own section 'Sidemount Rebreather' as a stand-alone section, rather than claiming to be a 'training level'.

Devondiver (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That ties in with what I have been able to find. Will you make the changes? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed and done. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images only for advertising a dive center ?

I am shocked to see that a lot of images which are also in extremely bad quality are here just to advertise a dive center in the Philippines, why wikipedia accept those watermarked images ?

Underwater photography is notoriously difficult to produce high-quality images, so we have to judge whether an image is useful to illustrate a particular point, even if its quality is not the best. Wikipedia does accept watermarked images, but we prefer non-watermarked. Having said that, I think you have a point about the sheer number of images that are watermarked for the same dive centre - it does seem to amount to advertising. I'll look through the images and remove those that I think are not useful and I'll crop off the watermarks on those that remain. --RexxS (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sidemount 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150822153703/http://www.sidemountscubadiving.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fdb3ldKs51k=&tabid=55/ to http://www.sidemountscubadiving.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fdb3ldKs51k=&tabid=55/

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changed link to https://web.archive.org/web/20130507155139/http://www.sidemountscubadiving.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=fdb3ldKs51k=&tabid=55 -- GreenC 20:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Looks good. 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. Looks good. 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 good. 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. Looks good. 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 good. Y

Just needs a bit of referencing. Nothing contentious, but may not be easy to find yet. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I've just culled the entire External links section as failing WP:EL. I'll leave the links here in case somebody who thinks they might meet WP:RS can use them to expand the article.

Our guidelines at WP:ELNO state that "one should generally avoid providing external links to: ... Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already in the article."

If any of the above links meet WP:ELYES, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." then please feel free to restore them, bearing in mind WP:ELCITE: "External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article." --RexxS (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sidemount 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) 19:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]