Talk:Decompression practice

B class rating
This article was split off an excessively large B-class article. There was no obvious reason why it should not retain the B-rating of the parent article as it is a reasonably complete treatment of the relevant section. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggested split of Decompression practice
,, and anyone else with subject knowledge. Opinions requested on the suggested split of Decompression practice at the GA discussion page Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, it's often easiest to split out any large lists first because it's easiest to construct a stand-alone list article from them and there's utility in having lists of things in their own article. Sadly, this article doesn't have any that would be big enough. The next candidate is any major section that is sufficiently self-contained to make the job of creating a stand-alone article reasonably uncomplicated. In this case I'd recommend spliting off all the content in Decompression equipment. The introduction to that section would make the foundation of a good lead and the rest of the content would go straight into an fresh article by just raising the heading levels by one. The only real work would be getting a concise summary into this article - I really don't like articles that have sections which are blank other than a main or see also template. That's not what summary style is about. You know all about leaving a trail for the attribution, so the job shouldn't be so long as to derail this GAN. Ping me when you've decided and let me know if you need any help, of course. --RexxS (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks RexxS, That seems to be roughly the same recommendation as made by Tomandjerry211, the GA reviewer, so I will start planning around this and if no counter-proposal is made in the next few days I will probably go ahead with it. Cheers &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Split done. I would appreciate a check to make sure I haven't missed anything.
 * The summary for the split out material is pretty long. Should it be trimmed? If so, how? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The summary for the split out material is pretty long. Should it be trimmed? If so, how? &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Decompression practice. 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/20120403025930/http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=999 to http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=999
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120403025930/http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=999 to http://www.bsac.com/core/core_picker/download.asp?id=999

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Conservatism (diving)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism_(diving)&redirect=no Conservatism (diving)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)