This article is part of WikiProject Underwater diving, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Underwater diving-related articles to a feature-quality standard, and to comprehensively cover the topic with quality encyclopedic articles.Scuba divingWikipedia:WikiProject Scuba divingTemplate:WikiProject Scuba divingSCUBA articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
@Pbsouthwood I have to say, I don't see the point of inserting a bunch of primary-source redlinked members. Full memberlist can be found at EL. Bluelinked people not sourced to the org itself seems less WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Do you intend to include a full memberlist in this WP-article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, My thinking is that all members/inductees should be notable per the stated purpose of the organisation, and if so, could be expected to each eventually have a Wikipedia article, which would justify the redlinks. By listing them, we would have a list of notable women divers selected by a sort of peer review external to Wikipedia. My intention is to also list what they were nominated for, which might leverage a set of articles on women divers who have achieved something of sufficient value to be recognised in this way. A full member list does not seem unreasonable considering the content of International Scuba Diving Hall of Fame, and that there are currently only 250 of them – a very small number compared with, for example, professional footballers, musicians, actors, politicians, or criminals with Wikipedia articles. There may well be significant overlap with International Scuba Diving Hall of Fame list of inductees, and quite a few more bluelinks. Primary source should be sufficient for identifying members and what they were nominated for. Do you think we should notify relevant projects of this discussion? They may have valuable input. I was thinking of WP:WikiProject Underwater diving and WP:WikiProject Women in Red as the most obvious ones, maybe you can think of others. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 05:53, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pbsouthwood Well, as the one who started this article, my thinking is that membership does not equal WP:GNG or a hypothetical (?) WP:NDIVER, or close enough. And that goes even more for the org-admins. It helps, but it's not enough.
I wouldn't add all those redlinks at International Scuba Diving Hall of Fame either, if WP makes "lists", it should generally be bluelinks, or at least with org-independent WP:RS in an article like this, otherwise we're just copying their memberlist. In an article about the person, I have less problem with WDHOF as a source, though I would aim for an independent one who thought "that's interesting."
I'm fine with mentioning reason for induction for bluelinked people based on WDHOF itself, but I don't see it as essential either, it could take this article out of WP:ABOUTSELF quickly.
What notability guideline would justify automatic notability for everyone on that list? Do you expect all of them to have received GNG coverage? No other sporting discipline has criteria that override the requirement for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[ec] Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I appreciate your concern and recognise your difference of opinion. I have no problem with unlinking the org admins for the reasons you state. They can be relinked when useful. I do not claim that membership alone would satisfy WP:GNG, and am not a fan of special notability loopholes in general, but I do think that induction would in most, if not necessarily all cases, indicate a reasonably wide recognition of the person's notability as a woman within at least the field of diving. I would agree that a member list would be inappropriate for an organisation where one chooses to be a member, but this is conceptually different, as membership is conferred by the organisation as a form of recognition, which in a way is a declaration of notability of a kind. Whether Wikipedians recognise that notability is up to the consensus of Wikipedians. My guess is that to get nominated, a nominee would have to be well known within the international diving community, probably not only by word of mouth, any successful nomination probably implies that a fairly large number of mentions in media exist, whether we know about them or not. Thanks for doing the project notifications, I hope we get some responses. While we wait, I will not add any more redlink members, but intend to check for and add any bluelink members I may find, Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you want to make a bluelink member list, in a table or not, year of induction could be reasonable addition. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think year of induction and reason are appropriate. Reason for nomination seems like a thing readers would want to know more than date. I prefer a bulleted list to a table, but that is just my preference, mainly for ease of editing. I also chose alphabetical order for ease of editing, but do not have very strong feeling about it. grouping by year would also be OK. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 09:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, but it appears to be an official item in the nomination/inductionbrief diving related biographical statement. If you wish to remove it or clarify I will not object. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 09:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is also the option of instead of adding induction reason here, add something about it in the article on the person instead. There it's not ABOUTSELF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, That would also be a valid place to state the nomination/induction reason, but the nomination/induction reason remains relevant to the WDHOF, because it is about WDHOF and their nomination criteria as well as about the member, and it is also about the reasoning of the people who nominated the member, and ultimately connected with the notability of the member (notability has a meaning outside of Wikipedia too) · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My reading of the current texts you added is that they don't read so much as a nomination reason, more a "who is this?", but of course the 2 will blend. They seem generally fine to me, written that way. Nomination criteria is mentioned in article. Would you mind removing the remaining redlink, or are you working on that article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I'd like to change This section needs expansion with: list of members and the achievements for which they were nominated.
to
This section needs expansion with: list of (bluelinked) members and who they are.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quite acceptable, and as I have added all the bluelinks that bit is redundant, so just who they are is enough. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 14:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JoelleJay, does my reply to Gråbergs Gråa Sång above (the edit conflict at 07:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)) adequately answer your question? · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 08:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still am not seeing how being in a diving hall of fame can confer notability. There are halls of fame for many activities that are seen as prestigious within their communities. You would have to demonstrate that achieving this distinction satisfies ANYBIO, but that is extremely unlikely to happen considering inductees into even orders of magnitude more well-known equivalents like National Baseball Hall of Fame are only presumed to have SIGCOV and ultimately are still required to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JoelleJay, did you not notice my statement I do not claim that membership alone would satisfy WP:GNG, above? · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, by that statement I thought you meant members would meet ANYBIO instead and so bypass GNG. I am not sure how soundly a redlink is supposed to predict wikipedia notability, but if you don't think all of the members would meet N I don't think it would be a good idea to redlink any without doing a quick search first. JoelleJay (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not think that one has to establish notability beyond reasonable doubt before using a redlink, but I will go back and read the guidance again. Also I have listed all the redlinks on the WP:SCUBA project page things to do list, so when they come up blue they can be transferred to WDHOF, and I do think it likely that they will all meet GNG, but obviously that is my opinion and only time will tell - come back and check in 10 years or so?. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 13:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JoelleJay, in case you had not noticed, this is not about the sport of diving, it is about the activity of underwater diving, and inductees are nominated for membership in recognition of a wide range of possible contributions, and from what I have seen so far, generally over a fairly long period. · · · Peter Southwood(talk):
Nomination criteria
I think the nomination criteria listed on the website might help in this discussion. I also propose to summarise the criteria as content for the article, as I consider it relevant to the validity of the membership list as content. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 09:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not unreasonable, but it's also more WP:ABOUTSELF stuff. Of the 23 cites in the article atm, 12 are to WDHOF. I can't say I like it. What this article could use is some decent coverage from say Orlando Sentinel (WDHOF website says they are in Florida) or CNN. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Always better to have more independent coverage. Maybe there are some refs on the linked pages of the members. I will have a look. There may be more coverage in diving magazines too, but I have not noticed it to remember, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 15:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was about to remove Lauren Hutton, the only hit for "dive" in her WP-article was "In 1982, Hutton appeared in two Pepsi Light commercials, one where she strips down to her one-piece swimsuit and dives into a swimming pool". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I saw that too. It bothers me somewhat that someone gets to be inducted into the WDHOF and there is absolutely nothing on their WP article of any relevance, but WP is written by some rather focused people and that may just have been something they did not notice, were not looking for, or did not care about. I will put a query on the talk page. Both pages mention "supermodel", and it seems unlikely that there would have been two operating under the same name and looking so similar. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 06:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I don't doubt they're the same person, but it seems WP missed to include something on the diving angle. It happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pbsouthwood Consider this: The WDHOF profile pages doesn't say "this is what they were nominated for". As written, the texts seem to be short dive-bios/"we accepted her because". At a guess, a nomination, "I propose the WDHOF induct X, because..." would sound different. Perhaps it's a distinction without a difference, but I don't think so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I understood the bolded text at the top to be the reason for nomination, and the rest of the text to be a condensed bio, I took the liberty of clarifying the first with information from the second, where I thought it was a bit vague, and to avoid using too similar wording, but you may be right. I will investigate further. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 15:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you consider it reasonable to say that those are the fields in which the member's significant contributions to diving were made which were recognised in their nomination? · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 13:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Possible, but the assumption is WP:OR. I honestly think that this article/listicle would be better served with skipping "nominated for" and going with a short "Who is this?" There probably won't be a big difference. And sticking with bluelinks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems like a reasonable plan. Do me a demo and I will take a look. It it reads well, I will follow that example for the others. · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 14:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically, change
Pamela Balash-Webber (2022), nominated for: Co-founder of the Virgin Islands Diving Association, PADI course director, and promoter of ocean conservation.
