Talk:Scuba Schools International

Training offered in comparison to PADI

I'm not sure if the {{Fact}} tag is intended to cover the "modelled on PADI" statement or the assertion that both "offer the same information and training" or both.

However, the second statement could be refined along the lines of both organisations belong to WRSTC and are technically regulated by ANSI.

I'll edit the second statement, removing the tag and leave it to the discretion of the OP to re-insert it at the appropriate point if felt necessary. RexxS (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, while looking for online sources or leads, I came across an interesting page authored by Alex Brylske which relates some history of the development of regulation of Scuba Instruction in the USA [1]. It would be a decent starting point for an article on Regulation of Scuba Instruction but obviously further research would be needed. RexxS (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability Guidelines

I've no idea who seemed to think that SSI doesn't meet notability guidelines, but that's practically libelous, since they're one of the biggest certifying organizations out there. Certainly top 3. Anybody who's been involved in SCUBA for a while would have heard of them. I've removed the tag. 112.5.104.107 (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to meet either the general notability guidelines or companies' notability guidelines. Those are summarised as:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article.

The first source (http://www.divinghistory.com/) is a self-published site that probably doesn't meet our standard of a "publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The second to sixth sources only make a passing mention of SSI, which is well-short of "significant coverage". The last source is from the SSI website and is not "independent of the subject".

Both of us know that SSI ought to be notable by Wikipedia standards, but the article does lack significant coverage from independent reliable sources. There is a need to find those sources (national press, scholarly journals, etc.) and the tag you removed was not libelling SSI, but inviting editors to find those sources and incorporate them into the article. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "practically libelous" was a bit extreme. I certainly didn't mean to imply actual libel was taking place. You'll forgive me if I'm sounding picky, and perhaps you can simply point me to the right area to answer me questions, but there seems to be a lot of vagueness in what you're looking for. In particular, I'm not sure what kind of website exists besides a self published one and I'm not sure what constitutes "significant coverage". If you can clear those issues up for me, I'm happy to do whatever leg work is required to bring the article up to code. Kind of funny, really, since I've always been a PADI man. 112.5.104.107 (talk) 05:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to editing Wikipedia, anyway! We're always glad of another contributor and thank you for taking an interest.

Some websites are published by an organisation and the pages are written by others - online newspapers, scholarly journals, and so on. These are independent of the topic they are writing about and can often be relied on to take an unbiased view. To some extent, online scuba magazines, like http://www.scubadiving.com/ or http://www.divernet.com/ etc. are independent, but we have to beware of the practice of writing articles about those who spend money on advertising in a magazine, so some care is needed. In those cases, we can investigate whether the source has a policy of editorial oversight, or whether the article has been peer-reviewed. Contrast that with http://www.divinghistory.com/ which appears to be an enthusiast's site - probably quite accurate, but it doesn't have the reputation for checking facts that, for example, http://www.nytimes.com/ has.

"Significant coverage" is discussed on this page: WP:Notability #General notability guideline and if you have time, it's worth a read as it helps anyone to get a feel for what makes a subject notable in Wikipedia terms. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scuba Schools International. 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/20120617071926/http://www.wrstc.com/agency.php?country=europe to http://www.wrstc.com/agency.php?country=europe

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) 12:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]