Talk:Freediving

Risks?

I miss more information about the risks of the sports. It is something to be considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.252.232.240 (talk) 17:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

>you shoudl talk about pipin and audrey and how she died doing free-diving. >sports illustrated did an amazing story on these two.

Why sensationalise the subject over a single high profile accident? Very few free divers subject themselves to the risks of record-breaking no-limits diving.

There is a lot of exciting competitive freediving going on around the world, in the disciplines of constant weight, dynamic apnea and static apnea. It is rare for a competition to take place without some national or world record being broken. The advances in endurance are quite phenomenal.

At the same time, the governing organisations ( such as AIDA ) take the safety of these events very seriously, and to date no fatalaties have occurred in competition. ( Which is why no-limits freediving is banned in competition. )

If freediving is to advance as a sport, then this is where the focus should be. I am sure Audrey Maestre would not have wanted her death to be the one thing the world associates freediving with, and even more sure that Pipin is of that opinion too.

Wikipedia isn't about advancing sports; it's about describing facts. If a sport's leading female record-holder dies in pursuit of a new world record, that's definitely noteable. As for Audrey and Pipin's wishes, they are immaterial; I'm sure Richard Nixon's ghost would rather his Wikipedia entry left out the stuff about Watergate, too. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Ex nihil 06:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure how they died. I think Audrey just drowned following a problem with her ascending gear. Don't know if Pipin was a hyperventilation victim. Regarding the stress of record-breaking, my experience with regular freediving is that many people push themselves to the absolut limit just for bottom time, I know I did. I'm a bit more conservative now.

Mammalian Diving Reflex

The Mammalian diving reflex article linked to from within this article mentions three factors as part of the reflex. The Free-diving article mentions a fourth, Splenic contraction: Releasing red blood cells carrying oxygen. Should splenic contraction be added to Mammalian diving reflex, or should it be removed from free-diving?

Proposal

The initial description and extended description doesn’t completely match. While I do favor the Claude Chapuis kind of freediving, I do think that it is too far fetched to classify it as a type and leave other sub species out of the discription. The following text is an proposal to improve the initial description and the extended description. Comments and a critical look to the grammar is highly appreciated.

Description

Freediving refers to a technique that is used with various aquatic activities. While in general all aquatic activities that include breath-hold diving might be classified as a part of freediving, some sports are more accepted than others. Examples of recognised freediving activities are (non-)competitive freediving, (non-) competive spearfishing, freedive photography and mermaid shows. Less recognised examples of freediving include, but is not limited too, synchronised swimming, underwater rugby, underwater hockey, underwater hunting other than spearfishing and snorkeling. The discussion remains if freediving is only a synonym for breath-hold diving or it does describes a specific group of underwater activities. Freediving is often strongly associated with compettive breath hold diving or *Competitive Apnea*. It is considered being an extreme sport where divers atempt to attain great depths, times or distances on a single breath and without the assistance of breathing apparatus like SCUBA. The following remainder of this article will only discuss competitive freediving as an athletic sport.

Competitive Freediving

Competitive freediving is currently governed by two world associations AIDA International and CMAS. Most types of competitive freediving have in common that it is an individual sport based on the best individual achievement. Exceptions on this rule is the bi-annually World Championschip for Teams, held by AIDA International, where the combined score of the team members makes up the teams total points.

There are currently nine disciplines used by official governing body’s and a dozen disciplines that are only practiced locally. In this article, the recognised disciplines of AIDA International and CMAS will be described. All disciplines can be done by both men as woman and while done outdoor, no differences in the environment between records is recognised any longer. The disciplines of {{AIDA International]] can be done both in competition as in an record attempt with the exception of Variable Weight and No limits who are both only done as record attempts.

Following official disciplines are recognised by (AIDA), (CMAS) or both:

Pool Disciplines

• Static Apnea is timed breath holding and is usually attempted in a pool. (AIDA)

• Dynamic Apnea with fins. This is underwater swimming for in a pool for distance. For this discipline the athlethe can choose if he uses bi-vins or the monovin. (AIDA), (CMAS)

• Dynamic Apnea without fins. This is underwater swimming for in a pool for distance without any swimming aids like fins. (AIDA)

Depth Disciplines

The depth of the athlethe is for all AIDA disciplines announced before the dive. This is accepted practice for both competitions as record attempts.

• Constant Weight with fins. The athlete has to dive to the depth following a guideline he or she is not allowed to actively use during the dive. The ‘constant weight’ (“poid constant”) refers to the fact that the athlete is not allowed to drop the weights during the dive. Both bi-vin as mono-vin can be used during this discipline (AIDA).

• Constant Weight without fins follows the identical rules as Constant Weight with fins, except no swimming aids as fins are allowed. This discipline is the youngest discipline within competitive freediving and is recognised by AIDA International since 2003.(AIDA)

• Free Immersion is the discipline where the athlete uses the guideline to pull him or herself down to depth and back to the surface. It is known for its ease compared with the Constant Weight disciplines, while it is still not allowed to release weights (AIDA).

• Variable Weight is a record discipline that uses a weighted sled for descent. Athlethe returns to the surface by pulling themselves up along a line or swim while using their fins (AIDA).

• No Limits is a record discipline that allows the atlethe to use any means of breath-hold diving to depth and return to the surface as long as an guideline is used to measure the distance. Most divers use an weighted sled to dive down and use an air filled bag to return to the surface (AIDA).

• "The Cube" is also known as "Jump Blue" and is a discipline where an athlethe has to descend to 15 meters and have to swim as far as possible in a cubic form of 15 x 15 meters. (CMAS) Each organisation has its own rules on recognising an attempt. These can be found on the website from the respective organisations.

Audrey Mestre records

Comment on the records and Audrey Mestre case. I recognise the importance to give the reader information about the records and the tragic incident that claimed Audrey’s death. However I do feel that it is best to add another section titled ‘current records’ and ‘history’ to keep things readable. --Apneist 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Free-diving in fiction

As there is only one item on the list, is this section necessary? Should it be deleted, or does someone have something more to add to it?--Dani 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Should be able to add 'The Big Blue' and the more recent 'Freediver'. Plus an ep of 'Baywatch' called imaginatively 'the Big Blue'.

• Delete section. Superfluous, adds nothing useful to article.

• • Delete. Totally agree with above. I demoted it to below the real thing for clarity but I think it detracts from the whole. Ex nihil (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but how about Glaucos (comic)? it's a comic of Freediving. Can someone find the refrence?

maybe [1] can be the refrence. Or not? that was absolutely not the reference.

thanks. (sorry if i say wrongly, i am an intermediate English speaker) Dhio - 270599  16:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly agree with the motivation for deleting this section, if we do so it will simply reappear. (I've had the same problem with other articles.) Casual Wikipedians seem obsessed with popular culture, and if their favourite film, TV show or band doesn't get a mention, they feel compelled to add it in a new section, or add to an existing one. This is a public project, so I'm afraid it's something that we need to grit our teeth and bear. --Wally Tharg (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Wally Tharg. Leave the section, and shove it in a corner where it is less annoying. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Free-diving vs. freediving

This article is inconsistent on the use of a hyphen. Considering the title of the article is "Free-diving", I would assume that the hyphenated form should be used, but not being a free-diver (or freediver) myself, I have no knowledge of the matter. For the sake of consistency, though, only one of the forms should be used. Benstrider 01:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have just had a look at my freediving books, and they all omit the hyphen in their cover titles. I vote we change globally to the single word ... but I'm sure someone will insist on reverting it! --Wally Tharg (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search for Free-diving. Out of the first 100 hits 4 used the hyphen, a few more used two words, nearly 90% one word. I agree to change globally to Freediving, and also recommend change the article name with redirects from Free-diving and Free diving. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Safety is an integral part of freediving"

The article as currently written states:

Due to the nature of the sport, safety is an integral part of free-diving [...]

"Safety is an integral part of free-diving" is *VERY* sloppily phrased. At first glance it seems to be saying: Hey, don't worry about safety when practicing this sport, freediving is inherently safe!

Rather, the *apparent* intent was to say that any practice of freediving must include strict adherence to safety measures as an integral part of the activity.

Say what you mean!

Toddcs (talk) 04:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been changed. Quoted text not found in article. Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Equalisation

Do free divers equalise their ears, etc, like scuba divers do? Cesiumfrog (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

http://freedivingexplained.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/basics-of-freediving-equalization.html

Answer seems to be:

• equalisation is physically necessary for freedivers, but
• various more advanced equalisation techniques are used compared to scuba. (Mainly because of the shortage of available air. E.g., as the air in the held breath contracts with descent, at depth the lungs are too compressed for simply blowing toward the nose).

Seems like an important subtopic for the article to detail? Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Err ... yes! The rates of descent and ascent are far higher than in SCUBA, so quick and effective equalisation is essential, as is mask volume compensation. I'm sure folks like Emma Farrell could write a whole section on it. --Wally Tharg (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability of freedivers

I've made my first attempt at revising the list of famous notable freedivers (only a handful are truly famous). My critera were: if they were mentioned in the list of world record-holders in the section above (!), which resulted in one addition; if a Google search for:+freediving +"diver's name" returned a 'reasonable' number of hits, excluding mirrors of the present article; or, if a Google search for:+aida +"diver's name" returned a 'reasonable' number of hits, again excluding mirrors of the present article. This resulted in four deletions, one of which might have been a joke self-inclusion by an editor. If anyone objects to these revisions, I think it is now up to editors to justify themselves in this thread.

I have also removed the broken links, as these are simply encouraging people to create more biographical stubs of non-notable people. --Wally Tharg (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

World record holders would probably be accepted by most people as evidence of notability.

Title holders of major competitions also probably good, as long as the competition was notable. (sorry, it can get recursive...)

The other criteria may be challenged. It depends on what the hits were.

Generally, the person should be notable for freediving, but I think you are already addressing this.

People who are notable for other reasons and are incidentally freedivers is a grey area and best avoided, but if notable for freediving as well as other reasons, may get away with a lower level of notability in freediving (like playing a freediving role in a major movie, or the stunt person). Play it by ear, and if anyone doesn't agree they can challenge the specific cases.

It might be useful if the reason for notability was included in the listing, and a reference or two is never harmful. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for support, Peter; shall look for some good links. Was reassured to find that most of the divers listed got hundreds of hits on Google, and interestingly, all were primarily freedivers, i.e. none were people notable for things other than freediving who 'also' freedived. (A good example of the latter would be Jessica Alba, who freedives and does her own freediving stunts.) Most held records of some flavour. I deliberately didn't add two people who are well known for their freediving writing, but not for their competitive freediving. --Wally Tharg (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition of freediving

The article is still woolly on the definition of freediving, but I didn't want to pile into editing before airing my thoughts. I was taught by AIDA-qualified teachers that any breath-holding underwater sporting activity was freediving, since it uses the mechanisms of freediving, even though (as the article points out) it might not be competitive. It is then useful for the article to say that it will focus on the competitive aspects.

This therefore excludes snorkelling, because a person doing this (by definition) uses of a snorkel to breathe underwater, and need not hold their breath. The moment the snorkeller ducks underwater he/she becomes a freediver, even though they might not 'know' it, be very good at it, or have freediving training. (Analogy: cycling down to the shops is still cycling, even though it's not the Tour-de-France.) Saying that 'to some degree' it includes snorkelling is just a cop-out, because it's quite possible to snorkel without ever freediving – indeed, that's what most snorkellers do. --Wally Tharg (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It is fair to say that while breathing through the snorkel one is not free-diving, but snorkelling is a significant part of many activities which focus on the free-diving aspect. I think this should be explained somewhere. The lead section is probably the best place because you can set the reader straight and redirect to snorkelling if that is what they were looking for.

The article may de facto concentrate on competitive aspects, but the title implies that the other aspects are not excluded, and may get a fair share of focus if anyone is prepared to do it. There is no problem with a group of editors providing content on their preferred aspect, but they should not attempt to exclude other valid aspects. If you want an article on competitive aspects only you can always create one with a title that implies competitive aspects. This can always be done later as a split if it becomes desirable.

The lead section should broadly describe what the title is about, the table of contents will give a good idea of what the article actually contains. Sometime it helps if the lead includes disambiguation to limit the appropriate range of content intended for the article.

If all this seems obvious to you, go ahead and edit. Cheers, Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 06:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Technique

The current text reads: Murat goes into breath-hold mode for up to 30" I translate that the number and the symbol are 30 inches. But from the context, I assume that 30 feet is meant. But as I do not know, I won't make the correction on my own. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It might be intended to mean 30 seconds.

There is a lot about this section that appears ambiguous, and is very poorly referenced for material that is quite different from conventional practice and standard diving physiology texts. Exceptional claims require reliable evidence, and this is entirely absent. If anyone knows of references, please either cite them in the article or mention them here. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This totally uncited section has not been improved since September 2014, probably longer. If there is no improvement including at least one reliable source by 20th May 2015, I propose to delete the entire section. Anyone who disagrees is free to argue their point here. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No improvements have been made, no-one has argued for retention. I can find no reliable references and must assume that the information is original research at best. Based on the available evidence I have deleted all the uncited material in the section. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hoizontal distance vs depth in records

I suggest that the tables of records have separate columns for depth and horizontal distance records. The current layout is difficult to use for people who are not familiar with the discipline names. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I still find the tables of records difficult to use, and would like to see separate columns for depth and horizontal distance. The use of "distance" for both in the tables is confusing as depth is referred to everywhere else in the text as depth, and only as distance in the tables. This is inconsistent. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Peter (Southwood), I would suggest the following approach. Both tables be re-sorted and split so that two new tables entitled 'Pool disciplines' and 'Depth disciplines' are created for both AIDA and CMAS records and that the 'distance' column for both 'Depth disciplines' tables be renamed 'Depth'. Also, there should be an explanatory sentence added under the heading 'Pool disciplines' to clarify that pool disciplines are concerned with distance and/or time etc. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That would work as an alternative. Probably clearer and neater. I will see if I can identify which disciplines would go into each table. I hesitate to make major edits to the tables mainly because of the uncertainty of which items are depth and which are horizontal distance. Bit of a Catch 22. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is also static apnea, which is described as being usually done in a pool, and neither distance nor depth is relevant. Adding a third table seems over the top, so will probably bundle it with the distance items.
• Jump blue is a distance item, and if a 15m cube is required, is unlikely to be done in a pool, so distance≠pool
• Starting to reconsider whether just adding a depth column to the existing tables might not be simpler and more generally clear. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added a depth column to both tables. It works for me. Please check I have got the depths and distances in the right columns. I will accept any alternative which gives equivalent or better ease of understanding and accessibility. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The depths & distance are in the correct columns for AIDA and appear to be so for CMAS which is more difficult to check due to the very complicated presentation used for its records on the PDF downloaded from its website. It may be a good idea to harmonise the table of CMAS records with the AIDA table, i.e. shorten the names of the CMAS disciplines. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to alternative proposed name. Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Andrewa (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Free-diving → Free diving – The hyphen is never used this way in sources; the space is common; the compound noun "free diving" of course takes a hyphen when it is used as an adjective, as in "free-diving apparatus", but otherwise usually not, as was agreed by several users already in this talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Support move to Free diving for reasons given above and redirect from Free-diving Ex nihil ^(talk) 09:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME. --B2C 00:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
• Please consider third option "Freediving" which appears to come up considerably more often than free diving or free-diving in my searches. See also earlier discussion on this page. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 03:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, freediving is an acceptable alternative, though it looks like it has only become as popular recently. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Another point to consider is that all the items in the freediving graph almost certainly refer to underwater breath-hold diving, whereas some of the cases of free diving may be parts of longer phrases referring to something which is free and connected with diving (not that much diving related stuff is free). • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Freediving. I supported the move to Free diving above but following the suggestion by Pbsouthwood I did a little research and came to the conclusion that the overwhelming diving industry standard usage is Freediving and I am just behind the times. Free diving still seems to be a popular but layman's term but diminishing, to almost everybody engaged in the industry or the sport it is freediving. I also found that most successful searches on free diving actually went to freediving when the link was followed. My local diveshop, who advertise Freediving courses pointed out that it might be complicated if they advertised Free diving courses. After a little thought I would like to change my support to freediving. Ex nihil ^(talk) 05:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Support Freediving. Cowdy001 (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support either move Red Slash 03:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blacklisted Links Found on Freediving

Cyberbot II has detected links on Freediving which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://g.co/maps/4eb9a

  Triggered by (?<!-)\bg\.co\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 14:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment for B-class

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. Some dubious sources and dubious claims which could not be sorted out by a Google search (deleted). Whole section on fiction and documentaries is unsourced. Most of this is uncontroversial, and most is also probably quite easy to source.Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. Lead mentions several underwater sports, but article concentrates on competitive apnea. More on the other sports is needed. They all have articles, so summaries would be adequate, but more is needed than in the lead. Expanded to cover an introduction to the most important subtopics and links to the main articles. There is still some material not included, but I think it is up to B-class for coverage.Y The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Structure is OK. Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Looks OK Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK, technical terms generally linked. Y

Article could be brought up to B class with a bit of work, but keeping it at C until listed items have been improved, particularly the dubious claims and the lack of content on other underwater sports. It is a top importance article for WP:SCUBA, so worth a bit of effort. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Main problem now is poor referencing. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted a few dubious claims, and added some content, so promoting to B. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move of references to reflist for maintenence

There are a lot of inadequately formatted references, which I propose to improve. However, I find that this is easier if the reference definitions are assembled in the references section. If there are no objections I will move the ref definitions to the ref section and format them more consistently, and try to expand them where possible. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds like a great idea. Ex nihil ^(talk) 04:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Freediving. 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/20151120210138/http://www.aidainternational.org/competitive/disciplines to http://www.aidainternational.org/competitive/disciplines
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160817130747/https://www.aidainternational.org/Home/WorldRecordsAll to https://www.aidainternational.org/Home/WorldRecordsAll
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091218102200/http://library.thinkquest.org/28170/21.html to http://library.thinkquest.org/28170/21.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Abbreviations for disciplines?

They are important because names of disciplines are quite long.
It is important to have a consensus so that articles are uniform. I'll mention abbreviations which I'd encountered

1. Skandalopetra: SKA, SP or something else? Even though very rarely (any kind of) abbreviation is used and quite possibly doesn't have official one, it can be useful especially in tables.
2. Jump blue: JB, JMB or something else?
3. Dynamic apnea with bifins: sometimes shortened to DYN BiFins or DYN Bi-Fins instead of DYN BF. I think shorter is better, more useful, and in the end truly abbreviated.
4. Variable weight apnea without fins: weird discipline by CMAS, doesn't have official abbreviation, but VNF pops up possibly as a copy of CNF and DNF abbreviations.
5. Guinness disciplines dynamic apnea with fins under ice and dynamic apnea without fins under ice (diving suit allowed) which are usually called differently like horizontal swim breath held under ice with fins or wide-diving under ice with fins or wide diving under ice without fins (just some examples) and that creates confusion but have the same rules as DYN and DNF (only under ice) i propose to be DYN under ice and DNF under ice.
6. There is also Guinness discipline deepest human under ice or deep diving under ice. Found somewhere that it's essentially NLT under ice. Is it or is it not?

213.149.61.214 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Where do you propose to use the suggested abbreviations?
• How would readers know what they mean? · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Abbreviations are already used in articles connected to freediving; most often biographies of freedivers. But they are used inconsistently (that is first of two reasons for this; the second one is: names of disciplines are too long (you can imagine if average freediver competes in 3.5 disciplines, while each discipline has more than 3 words on average and diver competes at, at least, 5 world championships (not to mention other competitions) how his biography looks like and what a hassle it is to write one) -so abbreviations are effective in the articles.). How would they know? How does one find out 4x100m is a relay? Learning. They would come to the general wiki article about freediving, which is this one, and find out. So that means that this article needs to establish the norm. 213.149.51.113 (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see the value of abbreviations when the full term has been used and then the discipline is mentioned again several times in the same article, or there is a space problem in a table, but each abbreviation should be defined somewhere in each article that uses it, usually the first time it is used, as they are not common knowledge, and that is what the manual of style recommends as far as I remember. If there are commonly used abbreviations used by the competitions organisers we should stick with them, otherwise I suggest the freediving editors agree to a set, record them here and on the project page, and use them consistently. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

For the under ice disciplines, if there is no existing standard why not just use ice as the qualifier, people will get the under part without spelling it out., like NKT (ice) or NLT-ice or similar.

Footnotes can be used to provide definitions if there is no other convenient place. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Unless someone comes up with a plausible reason why Free immersion apnea should remain an independent article, I intend to merge it into Freediving#Competitive apnea with a redirect to section.

The information is limited and duplicated, but the title should be a redirect.

Discussion

Oppose If you do that than you have to do that for the other 11 or so disciplines, otherwise you create chaos. Encyclopedia needs to be organized, not chaotic. The article is too short but that only means that it can be expanded upon. 213.149.51.113 (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Do we actually have articles for all those disciplines? I agree that we should handle them consistently.· · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:28, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I found that we have several, maybe not all yet, but they were not tagged for the WikiProject so I didn't know about them. I will try to tag them all so they can get better integration with the rest of the project articles. I accept consensus against merging into Freediving and have untagged accordingly. However, I would ask you all to consider whether it would make sense to have a single article with redirects for all the disciplines. Maintenance would be easier, and a more comprehensive and interesting article is possible. Some have been stubs for a long time. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose Freediving is a generic page that covers eleven different AIDA disciplines in addition to non-competitive activities. Merging just one of the AIDA disciplines into Freediving would be an anomaly and merging all of them would be impractical and unhelpful. However, it might be useful to further develop the Freediving page to make finding associated disciplines and non-competitive activities easier to find although for the AIDA activities it already does this pretty well.. Ex nihil ^(talk) : Ex nihil (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per Ex nihil. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Competitive apnea, official since??

There is quite a number of disciplines and 2 federations, disciplines were added afterwards, some were official then became unofficial so I think YEARS when each of the disciplines in each federation became OFFICIAL should be added to the article. 213.149.51.251 (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Biographies of freedivers

Not sure if this is the right place for it, but nonetheless. There is a problem with almost all biographies of freedivers. At the moment there are 3 organizations that award world record title (AIDA, CMAS, Guinness), historically there was a fourth organization (IAFD), which had quite a few world records. Since this is quite a small sport almost all biographies are of previous or current world record holders and as such list their world records. The problem is that very, very rarely organization under which the record was achieved is noted. It should be noted that usually freedivers achieve more than one record and in more than one organization so unless it is clear in the records list, what is what, the list and information itself is essentially useless. It has become poor practice. I tried mentioning it on talk pages but that is not effective. Infobox at the top of the article could do the job, if it is specific enough. Why is that a problem? For example you can set DYN under ice WR under CMAS which can also become Guinness' WR if it's better than the latter's (as Guinness "inherits" records), but you can also set DYN under ice under Guinness but not under CMAS - this situation happened in 2017. Or you have 3 WR's in DYN (3 divers with 300m) but two are under AIDA and one is under CMAS; and as Guinness "inherits records" they (could) list all three of them. 213.149.51.151 (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

This is a good place to discuss this problem. Any claim of a record should be referenced to a reliable source. If it is not, there is a template {{cn}} which produces , which can be added to the source text just after the unreferenced claim. If the claim is not referenced within a reasonable period (I allow a month) you are free to delete the claim as unreferenced. You can also use the tag {{clarify}} to request specification of which organisation recognises a record. Alternatively you are welcome to fix these problems by adding references yourself. If you need help with the formatting, just ask me on my talk page. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

records

world records need to be updated, for example Alexey 130 m, Alessia 107 m, see Vertical Blue in September 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.62.40 (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Record again

Alenka Artnik went down 120 meters: [2]. Please update. --VanBuren (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

NLT (No Limit)

From AIDA web site: NLT (No Limit) ... not NLT No-limits ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.237.30.70 (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sector No Limits and Sector are Italian wristwatch and diving watch brands by homonymous company, this has nothing to do with AIDA International's NLT (No Limit).