Talk:Divers Alert Network

Possible copyvio

Section DAN America Recompression Chamber Assistance Program (RCAP) removed as likely copyvio of Recompression Chamber Assistance Program. --RexxS (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

There are several other DAN organisations

This article specifies DAN America in the infobox. How do we deal with all the others? Should each get a separate article, or do we remove the infobox and cover them all in the same article?

RexxS, Gene Hobbs, Cowdy001, Your opinions and suggestions would be appreciated. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The point of an infobox is to give the reader an at-a-glance summary of the key facts about an organisation. This (short) article is 90% about DAN America and I really don't know how we could justify creating other articles out of the single sentence that refers to DAN in other countries, let alone find good sources for them. I should point out that See also is to aid navigation to existing articles, so I'm going to remove the red links. {{Infobox organization}} has a parameter |subsidiaries= so I'll use that to include the four IDAN organisations that are mentioned in the infobox. Is that any better? --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your better detail knowledge of policies.

I am having a go at putting together an article for DAN Southern Africa in my sandbox. There should be even more information available for DAN Europe, but I have not looked into it yet. I would appreciate any comments on the developing article. At the moment my biggest problem is that my sources are basically from DAN SA publications, but I have not actively looked for anything else yet.

Based on what I have found about DAN SA, there seems to be a lot of room for expansion of this article. I would not be surprised if Gene Hobbs has a lot of good references that could be used to expand it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I have had the same concerns re the DAN article and have previously considered starting some additional articles about some of the other DANs. So far, I have rough drafts for both DAN Asia Pacific and IDAN. The sources are reasonably good for the former as there are numerous articles in the SPUMS Journal, a mention in an Australian book on recreational dving safety, and one paper associated with DAN AP’s work with an Australian Government water safety committee. I can finish this draft and upload in the near future. The IDAN draft suffers from a reliance on material from a primary source, i.e. DAN. The infobox - I would suggest the use of the word “affiliate” rather in lieu of the word “Subsidiaries” as the DAN material that I looked at states that the IDAN members are all “nonprofit, independently administered organization(s).” Is there an agreement on using “DAN” in lieu of the words “Diver Alert Network” in article titles? Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It's good that there's more sources out there relating to the other DAN organisations. The criteria for a stand-alone article are our general notability guidelines. It's not really a question of primary vs secondary sources, it's more about third-party sourcing. The GNGs say "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 or list." So we can't build an article just on what a subject says about itself - you can image the problems that could cause (and see http://www.metropolis2.com/demo/rex.htm if you need convincing)! Personally, I much prefer a meaty article covering multiple related subjects than a bunch of stubby little articles that often repeat each other in parts. The infobox wouldn't be a problem for a comprehensive article, as there is no bar on having multiple infoboxes on a page. (It's very common with pop music where a song may have several covers, each of which has its own infobox.) As for the label "Subsidiaries", we only have the choice of labels that the infobox offers - see Template:Infobox organisation. Nevertheless, if it was necessary, we could propose adding another parameter at the infobox talk page. I have the template editor bit, so I could implement any consensus that arose there. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Either way is OK for me. The problem with independent articles may be in establishing notability in the eyes of some editors, as it has to be done for each article, which is more work. I am convinced it is possible, but may take a lot more effort to find the suitable references. The problem with one combined article is how to lay it out so that it does not get too confusing or labyrinthine, or repetitive. None of these is likely to be insurmountable. I will continue with my sandbox article, which you are welcome to peruse and make suggestions for improvement. I hope Cowdy001 will do something similar, and we can see how much overlap and variation exists and where each could be expanded.

I think the full names might be better for the main titles, with DAN X as redirect and internal abbreviation for convenience. Open to persuasion on this point. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Only a suggestion, but if I were designing a large article on DAN, I'd start with a concise history section, then have a section devoted to what DAN does and its importance in the diving world globally. It could then move on to cover DAN America, which could carry level three subsections on Programs/conferences, Research and Publications. That would then be followed by as many level two sections as needed to cater for DAN International, DAN EU, DAN SA, DAN Asia, etc. where it would only be necessary to discuss local activities, news coverage, programs and publications, where they differed from what was already covered. Redirects to sections are easy to create for anyone searching for e.g. "DAN Japan" or "Divers Alert Network Japan". The advantage ought to be that such sections could be created now without having to scratch around looking for sources to satisfy GNG, and it should in theory bring more eyes to bear on the topic to help improve it. In practice, of course, we know that there's only ever a handful of us editing on scuba topics, so I guess it won't make much difference which way we go. --RexxS (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Without going into the consequences too deeply that looks like a reasonable approach. If necessary the article can be split later if it gets too big. What are the rules about using more than one non-free logo in more than one infobox in a single article? Each of the regional organizations should have an infobox, and each should preferably display the regional logo. Are we going to run into edit wars with people who will claim that it is not specifically allowed and therefore is forbidden? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any evidence of a standardised style/format for articles on organisations. Does anyone know if such exists, or do we just do what seems a good idea at the time? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As usual I decided to just go ahead and start the process and see what happens. Suggestions and help welcome. Cowdy001, feel welcome to plug in your stuff any time you like. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Peter, that's looking very good. You can use as many non-free images as you can supply reasonable non-free rationales. In the case of two or three logos for regional affiliates, I think we could mount a pretty strong defence, so don't worry about it. Actually it looks like DAN has released the main logo under a free licence, so we only have the DANSA logo to account for. I've updated the free-use rationale on its page. --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of any recommended format for organisations. The people most likely to know would be members of WP:WikiProject Organizations, which is only semi-active, but I recognise a few of the names there. Perhaps Lquilter, Arsenikk or Jusdafax might have suggestions for structure? Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter (Southwood), as I can see where the article is going, I will be able to add content for DAN Asia Pacific in the near future. Please reply if you have started any work on content on this particular organisation. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cowdy001, I have been leaving it for you to avoid duplication of work. If I do anything, it will go directly into the article, but I don't plan to do anything until you have done your bit. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I upload some content for DAN Asia Pacific minus the following - a brief description of service and the medical advice used by this IDAN entity. I will add this and some stuff later. With respect to an infobox, I have not added one yet as I think they all need to reduce back to the bare mininum in order to line up with the appropriate section of the article. Also please refer below for the section entitled "Diver Emergency Service". Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I have also add REDIRECT page entitled Divers Alert Network Asia-Pacific in order to accommodate a number of Australian specific and diving specific categories as well as making space for a future possible article and to link current & future 'red links' back to Divers Alert Network. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Publications

(copied discussion about the list of publications to the new article talk page where it applies) There are accessibility reasons not to hide content, but the Publications section certainly looks over-long compared with the rest of the article and swamps the references. One solution would be to create a stand-alone list article. I've made a demo at Draft:List of DAN publications, derived from the current version of this article. That could replace the current section with a {{main}} template. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no objection to splitting for this purpose, It seems like a good idea for the reasons you stated. I don't see much difficulty in establishing notability for a list of what will probably be more than 150 publications, many in notable journals. I will look at the draft and comment here. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have looked at the draft. I have already sorted the second part of the list by year, but am amenable to alternative arrangements if they help in finding what the user may need. Date was chosen mainly because it is easy - there may be much better options, but I have not thought of them. Any suggestions? If not, feel free to hijack the article any time to make the split, or let me know and I will do it. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:18, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Done (List of Divers Alert Network publications). The lead needs a bit of expansion, and the list is far from finished, but is now a separate article.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The lead of a stand-alone list doesn't require much - just the background and inclusion criteria are usually sufficient (and you don't need the inclusion criteria if they are obvious from the list title). I should have pointed out that I deliberately didn't break up the second list by year in the draft, because it makes a real mess for screen readers if you have loads of empty description lists breaking a list into multiple separate lists - see the "Never do this" example at the end of Help:Lists #Common mistakes. You already have the list items sorted by date, so the pseudo-headers shouldn't be needed. If you really want to allow sorting/categorisation, then you'll need to switch to a table format. --RexxS (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I see. How should one put in markers to help find the year? (particularly useful while creating the list) • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to emphasise the year, then you could put it first:

• 1985: Wacholz, CJ; Bloch, K; Mebane, GY; Goad, R; Moon, RE; Piantadosi, CA; Camporesi, EM; Linaweaver Jr, PG; Kindwall, EP; Van Meter, KW; Myers, RAM; Bennett, PB; Review and analysis of DAN accident cases 1981-1984.
• 1989: Wachholtz, CJ; Dovenbarger, JA; Fowler III, GP; Rust, JS; Thompson, LD; Comparison of accident data vs. survey data of uninjured divers of DAN membership June 1988.
• 1989: Sheffield, PJ; Flying after Diving.

etc. We aren't tied to any particular format for text (unlike references using CS1 templates), so you can pick to display content however you feel it best suits the readership (but try to make sure we don't exclude he visually impaired or colour-blind, etc.)

The other option would be to make a table:

Other publications

Year	Title	Authors	Refs
1985	Review and analysis of DAN accident cases 1981-1984	Wacholz, CJ; Bloch, K; Mebane, GY; Goad, R; Moon, RE; Piantadosi, CA; Camporesi, EM; Linaweaver Jr, PG; Kindwall, EP; Van Meter, KW; Myers, RAM; Bennett, PB
1989	Comparison of accident data vs. survey data of uninjured divers of DAN membership June 1988	Wachholtz, CJ; Dovenbarger, JA; Fowler III, GP; Rust, JS; Thompson, LD
1989	Flying after Diving	Sheffield, PJ

References

etc. That would allow the reader to sort by whatever field they chose, although that's not a huge benefit in this case. --RexxS (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The main benefit I want at present is to make it easier to edit the list, so I have put in level 3 headers for each year, which can be converted to another system when the main work on the list is finished.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a very good solution, Peter. It allows screen readers to navigate directly to the year and, as you say, makes it easy for both readers and editors to find the publications for a given year. To stop the table of contents growing into something huge, I've put {{TOC limit|2}} at the end of the lead to restrict the ToC's display to only level 2 headers. Feel free to revert if you prefer the larger ToC. --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Diver Emergency Service

The following was removed from the "History" section - "In 1984 the Diver Emergency Service (DES) was started in Australia and New Zealand by drs. Des Gorman and "Fred" Gilligan. This would become DAN Asia-Pacific." This is because DES and DAN-AP have remained as separate entities. This is evident in the following sources. Firstly, the DES website at [1] clearly shows DES as the service provider and DAN AP as the funder of the service. Secondly, the following DAN AP webpage [2] clarifies that DES is an independent entity. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, Looks like the DAN Europe website has an error. Thanks, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)