Talk:Hyperbaric treatment schedules

Order?
, This list looks great! I want to add to it a bit but want to make sure I get the order correct. It is not alphabetical so what method should I use? Thanks! --Gene Hobbs (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not Peter, but I'm guessing he's grouped together US (USN/Tektite), UK (RN/RNPL), French (Navy/Comex), Russian, then German tables - and by date or number within each group. But it shouldn't really matter, Gene, I'm sure you can just go ahead and add stuff. Any of us can fiddle with the order later if wanted. Good to see you back editing! --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. The list does look great, Peter --RexxS (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The list looked like it could be by most utilized. I don't know of data on the Russian vs German utilization but that seemed reasonable. Worth checking while pulling the others. Hope you both have had a great holiday and I'll try to be more useful this year. --Gene Hobbs (talk) 00:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Order of chamber tables pretty much same as listed in Berghage, Vorosmarti and Barnard, (1978), and extended chronologically for later tables, with numerical/alphabetical order for simultaneously published sets - I couldn't think of any compelling reason to order them differently. Their ordering may well be as RexxS suggests, probably starting with US tables because that was where they were from. Any suggestions for a more logical or useful order can be considered, otherwise just slot in any additional chamber tables where they fit best. New national sources should be grouped together, in chronological order. When simultaneously published, put them in the order they are listed in original publication or numerical/alphabetical as seems best.
 * Order of In-water schedules basically followed the original WP article. Cheers, and welcome back, Gene. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Hyperbaric treatment schedules. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20120111092813/http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/FastAccess/2008TechnicalDiving.aspx to http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/FastAccess/2008TechnicalDiving.aspx

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) 11:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

¿msw?
The article uses this term 76 times, but does not define it. ¿What does it mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.233.65 (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point. It's "metres of seawater", commonly used along with "feet of seawater" (fsw) as a measure of pressure - e.g. 50 msw is the ambient pressure at a depth of 50 metres under the sea. 1 msw = 10.0693064 kiloPascals. It may also used as an indication of depth when measured using a pressure gauge - e.g. when doing decompression calculations a depth of 103 metres of freshwater has the same ambient pressure as 100 msw and a depth gauge calibrated for seawater would read 100 metres at 103 metres of freshwater. It's not an exact unit of depth, because of differences in salinity, but is precise enough for the situations in which it is used. We probably need an explanation in a subsection of an article somewhere, so that it could be linked. Perhaps Glossary of underwater diving terminology? Perhaps can suggest somewhere better? --RexxS (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * is defined in the glossary, and I think it is also in a few other places. However, the IP has a good point, and I will take a look and see if I can find a good place for an explanation somewhere in the text.&bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , I have added a section on units explaining msw and fsw. Take a look and see if you think it serves the purpose. Also experimented with Wide image. Looks OK on my screens. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The section on units looks good, Peter. I can read the text on about half of the images at present, but there's no obvious correspondence between the size set and the readability of the text for me. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I only changed the first two schedules to Wide image. I was thinking of setting the image size in each case so the text in the schedules display at roughly the same size, which will be about the same as article text size on my screen. I don't know how consistent the relative sizes of body text to image text will be on different screens. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no technical reason why the ratio of text-size-in-image to text-size-in-text should differ noticeably from one screen (or browser) to another. If they look the same size to you, it's a very good bet they'll look the same size to everyone. The only exception might be registered users who have changed their default thumb size from 220px. If they have the knowledge to that, they'll be capable of sorting any problems that arise from it by now. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the wide template makes the graphics a bit more generally accessible, therefore useful, but there may be a better way I am not aware of. Anyway I plan to gradually convert to wide. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I only changed the first two schedules to Wide image. I was thinking of setting the image size in each case so the text in the schedules display at roughly the same size, which will be about the same as article text size on my screen. I don't know how consistent the relative sizes of body text to image text will be on different screens. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no technical reason why the ratio of text-size-in-image to text-size-in-text should differ noticeably from one screen (or browser) to another. If they look the same size to you, it's a very good bet they'll look the same size to everyone. The only exception might be registered users who have changed their default thumb size from 220px. If they have the knowledge to that, they'll be capable of sorting any problems that arise from it by now. --RexxS (talk) 17:13, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the wide template makes the graphics a bit more generally accessible, therefore useful, but there may be a better way I am not aware of. Anyway I plan to gradually convert to wide. &bull; &bull; &bull; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)