Talk:Buddy breathing
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Pbsouthwood in topic Possibility of a merge?
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
|
Request for images
editIf anyone has a nice photo of buddy breathing, please upload to commons and link here. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Possibility of a merge?
editThe article does not seem likely to expand much. Should it be merged with a redirect? If so, into what article? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- About the only thing I'd like to see added is the research indicating that the first technique learned often becomes the default response in panic situations, so buddy breathing should never be the first air-sharing technique taught. But I'd have to find the reference for that.
- I looked through the list of articles linking to Buddy breathing and came up with these candidates for a merge:
- Buddy diving - has a possibly suitable section, Provision of emergency breathing gas, but you'd have to look at the balance between buddy breathing and the Donating the primary/octopus sections (which are far more important, IMHO).
- Diver rescue - relevant section would be Providing emergency gas, but it's an overview and a merge would give it WP:UNDUE weight, I think.
- Scuba skills - in the section Emergency air sharing, there's a paragraph already that could be expanded. I'd still be concerned about UNDUE, though.
- Recreational diver training - an overview article.
- So, I think my recommendation would be to leave it where it is. The technique is not favoured by any agency that I'm aware of, and merging it into another article, especially at the same level as 'donating the primary/octopus' gives it more credibility than it deserves nowadays. At least within its own article, there's space to explain why it's a bad idea in general and at best considered as a last resort. --RexxS (talk) 14:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- RexxS, If you find that reference about default response, please let me know. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
B-Class review
edit
B |
Looks OK Probably OK, not a large topic. Has structure, looks OK. No problem. Has a coup[le of appropriate illustrations. Would be improved by a photo of divers buddy breathing, but not urgent. Acceptable. |
Although quite small, it seems to fit the criteria, so I am promoting. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)