User talk:GregoryPye

GregoryPye, you are invited to try Wikipedia training modules[edit]

If you're looking for some guidance on how to get started, try these training modules.

basic rules how to edit evaluating articles

adding images citing sources copyright rules

about these trainings

We're trying to improve our tools for helping new editors get started. These trainings are hosted on the "Programs & Events Dashboard", a tool for helping Wikipedia editors organize editing events. You can optionally log in using your Wikipedia account to keep track of which trainings you've completed.

If you have feedback, we'd love to hear it!

This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GregoryPye, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi GregoryPye! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

20:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, GregoryPye, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Scuba set. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RexxS (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Scuba diving[edit]

Hi GregoryPye, Do you have any specific interests or areas of expertise? Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pbsouthwood: Expertise (in diving) .. not by a long chalk when compared with several others in this group, though I am a technical diver, so do know which way is up and not to head there too fast. But, I think know enough to recognise that some of the articles I looked up on Wikipedia around diving have been a bit patchy or have odd balance of information ... I can suss out what they are saying only because I already know it. Some I would also note look really good, like Underwater diving. And, whilst off work ill for a few weeks, and looking for non-energetic things to do, I thought it was high time I tried out editing rather than just noting that some things I looked for on Wikipedia were weaker than might be desirable. So, I thought that some of the oddities in the diving area might be worthwhile. Not sure how much time I will have in a couple of weeks when back at work, but can prob. manage a couple of hours a week. One piece I was wondering if it might be useful to look at Recreational dive sites which feels a bit incomplete - e.g. some sites that I would have expected as they are have been / are historically notable so would could be candidates for inclusion in an encyclopaedia are not there - e.g. great blue hole in Belieze (notable for Coustou amongst othehr things) or blue hole in Dahab (notable sadly for death rate ... but notable nonetheless). And, whilst the wreck list is longish, it omits ones I would have expected, like the Thistlegorm, but includes ones like the Stanegarth in Stoney Cove ... and that's nice enough if you are already in Stony Cove, but is the wreck equivalent of a Z-list celebrity. So, feels like there might be some value in trying to get that into a good list of what really is notable (and why). But, happy to be steered elsewhere if you think it would be worthwhile. Greg (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you like best, but if you are looking for something particularly helpful to do, please consider giving comments on the talk pages on what appear to you as obvious errors, omissions, inconsistencies, redundancy, unclear explanations and the like on any WP:SCUBA tagged articles. If you have suggestions on how to improve them, go ahead and suggest. If you have suggestions for good sources for specific information, list them, even better, add them to the articles. Reducing the number of uncited statements in articles in the list of B-class reviews is a big job, and every bit helps. If you (fail to) find anything missing that should be here, list it. There are very few of us very active, and fresh eyes can notice the stuff we don't see from over-familiarity with the articles and project. Good feedback is very useful.

By all means add to the wreck dive sites list. It grows when people spot things that should be there and add them. Try to include a reference whenever possible. The problem with recreational dive sites is that there are so many of them, and so few are supported by reliable references. If you have the inclination to write unreferenced stuff based on personal experience that would be considered original research on Wikipedia, consider writing travel guides for the sites on Wikivoyage, where they will be welcome. I do a lot of work there on voy:Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay and voy:Scuba diving. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Peter:. On the first para, I will. On the second, my point was more that the wreck list in that article reads a bit like a laundry list of wrecks that can be / have been dived rather than an attempt at identifying the more notable ones (aka those one might expect to find easily referenced or at all in an encylopedia). Notability is of course a bit subjective, but I might expect for example that it was because it was historically important, either as a boat or as a diveable depth wreck / collection of wrecks, an exemplar of a particular type of wreck for diving, or some other factor that would pass a 'you'd know it if you saw it' test (e.g. worth of a write-up on that factor in a reputable source - rate of diver deaths at blue hole in dahab just might pass that kind of test for example, though having looked I am not blown away by the source quality findable). Same might apply to reefs, caves etc. It might then be worth an 'and also' list on another page that serves to keep these references to a longer list. This is more a conv. for that talk page (and I wil move there) ... context here in respect of your note was to note that my inclination was not to add more unreferenced stuff / personal experience, more to see what could be done to help wikipedia be encylopedic, and leave other vehicles for the travel guides (on which front I will look at wikivoyage - I hadn't heard of it)