Talk:Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay

Copyrighted?

Given the consistency, thoroughness, and extreme speed with which this article and its companion article have been written, I am more than concerned that this material is being copied from a book, though of course I have no way to prove it since my Google searched have found nothing so far. (WT-en) Texugo 04:47, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Text below Moved from Talk:Dive sites of the Cape Peninsula and False Bay after article merge

Copyrighted?

Given the consistency, thoroughness, and extreme speed with which this article and its companion article have been written, I am more than concerned that this material is being copied from a book, though of course I have no way to prove it since my Google searched have found nothing so far. (WT-en) Texugo 04:45, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Peter Southwood, has his name on a number of articles[1] written about the bay, so I think we should extend the benefit of the doubt here, though it would be nice with some confirmation Peter? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 17:41, 9 August 2009 (EDT)

Hi all, The material is as you guess being copied from a book, but this is not a problem in this case as I am the author, and the book has not been published, for reasons explained in more detail in my talk page User talk:Pbsouthwood in response to these same users above. Cheers, Peter. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 12:28, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

If you want to confirm my claim, it should be possible without too much difficulty to search for a Cape Town dive shop, and mail them to ask if they know of me and my book project. It is possible that some will not know what you are talking about, but a couple of tries should get a hit. If you do this, I would be interested to know how many tries it takes. Cheers, Peter. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 15:01, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

If anyone has an idea for a substitute for "Topography" to use as the heading for the section about what the site is like from a physical layout aspect, I would like to consider an alternative. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood

Headers and titles

Since we're in new territory allowing you to creating all these articles for dive sites, I'd like to voice a few concerns. I think we need to standardize and wikivoyageize some things before there are too many more of them. It might be good to make a new article template to sort of match the other types of articles we have, seeing as how there are at least several dozen more of these coming our way.

• Article titles - I don't think "CT Dive site Blablabla" is a good way to title these. I'd say let's leave out "CT Dive site" and just use the name of the place, then have the first line of the article say (as it does with other articles) "Blablabla is a dive site in city/region name".
• Headers should match our standard headers when possible:

• Understand, not About the Region
• Get in and Get around, not Getting around or Access. Position should be included in Get in
• Stay safe, not Hazards
• Contact, not Emergency contact numbers
• Put features and marine life under a top-level See header
• Put explanation of the name, topology, conditions, depth, geology, skill level etc. under a top-level Understand header

I'd like to hear some opinions on this before we have hundreds of them to deal with... (WT-en) Texugo 03:42, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

Mm-mm, I don't think dive sites are "destinations" in the Wikivoyage sense, it's probably worth developing a custom template for them.

At any rate, I think the most sensible thing to do would be to merge this article into Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay and have the individual dive site entries as districts (subarticles) under that, eg. Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Geldkis Blinder. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:14, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

I agree with Jani's naming scheme, though I'd like to see if we could come up with a shorter, but still appropriate name, for the top level article? I also think we should develop a template - where should we start up a discussion about this? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 07:02, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

I did not notice all this discussion before, but thanks for the comments etc. I have merged the Dive site list into Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay as recommended. Oddly enough, I did it before I saw this, because it looked like the better way to go. We are thinking alike here. I also started Wikivoyageising the section headings, and will continue to do so. I will try to finish this before inputting the lesser dive sites. I agree on the usefulness of a template, and have been cutting and pasting a home made text boilerplate template. a real one would be better, but I have no idea how to make it. If you can come up with a better name for the top level aticle, I will be most interested to see it, I have been thinking about that for years. I see I have a lot of editing to do. The site names as subarticles sounds like a good Idea, how do I do that? The problem is that even in this one region there are ambiguities in site names, and over a larger range this will be worse. Names like "Bell buoy" "Pinnacle" "Roman Rock" "Long Beach" etc come up frequently all over the place as dive site names. If someone can do one of the sites to demo I will clean up the rest. Is there a maximum size for an article before it should be subdivided? Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 08:12, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I have wikivoyageised headings in main article to some extent and reshuffled content to suit. Need more inspiration. Will now have a go at one of the sites. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 09:06, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

I have now also wikivoyageised the site CT Dive site North Paw and CT_Dive_site_Coral_Gardens_Oudekraal and I would appreciate comment on whether this is OK or if there are more recommendations. I will try another site or two to see if the new layout has any problems, but would prefer not to invest too much time changeing the bulk until a consensus is achieved on at least something that will be near to a final layout. Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 10:02, 31 August 2009 (EDT)

Would it be appropriate to use IsPartOf to link the dive sites back to the main article in this application. I have seen that it is inappropriate to use it for a range of things, but it looks like it might work in this case. However I have no idea HOW it works, so I am guessing... Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 11:48, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

I have worked out how to do it and have started the changeover. Most of my questions have been answered in the process. It will take a couple of days, but I like it much better than the original, so worth the effort. Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 08:01, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

I have also worked out how to make a template and have done so. See Template:Divesite intended to be used as a substitution template. I have tested it on Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Finlay's Deep and it appears to work satisfactorily. I have included a lot of comment text to help a new user get the hang of it. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 16:10, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Your wikivoyageization is coming along, and the template looks pretty decent. A couple more things:

• I think it would be perfect if you could swap the Stay safe and See sections, to have the same section order as other articles.
• Let's take the image out of the template. Other templates don't have image prompts, and they are pretty ugly when they aren't filled in.
• Remove the Gallery section. Unlike Wikipedia, we have decided against using these, not least because travelers often access Wikivoyage from low-bandwidth internet cafes in third-world countries where waiting for a lot of pictures to load is inconvenient.

(WT-en) Texugo 23:04, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

I have swapped the Stay safe and See sections in the interests of uniformity.

At this stage I would prefer to leave the one image in the template to serve as a reminder that without that information the site description is incomplete. In exceptional cases it may not be needed, and can simply be deleted. The image prompts in the existing sub-articles are there because I have either an image to upload, or I have an image in mind, which I am hoping someone else will upload. There is still a long way before I finish with the currently available text and images.

I have removed the Gallery section from the template, and will go back to the sites to clean that up.

Thanks for the useful comments. (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 03:54, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Discussion of Combined article starts here

Request for comments - Diving guide topic

I have reached a stage in the regional diving guide topic main article Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay where there is not much more that I can think of that would be useful to add, remove or change, except occasional additions of new dive sites as they become available. I have gone over it and worked on style, grammar, punctuation etc, and though I have no doubt that I have missed things, I dont think I will spot much more. It is time for a fresh eye to look it over and spot the obvious shortcomings, so I would like to request anyone who has the time and inclination to review it and let me know what they think should be changed to improve it. It would be particularly helpful if someone who is a recreational Scuba diver would do this, but any constructive feedback will be welcome. Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 16:03, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

Actually Peter, I'd suggest you nominate this for a star. While we have no established standard for dive sites, I think it meets the bar; completeness, good prose, maps, pictures - everything seems to be in order, a nomination will allow us to root out any issues, and will probably give you a small handful of reviews. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 17:04, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

Oh, after checking I see some of the sub dive sites isn't as complete as I thought they were, hmmm, thoughts anyone? --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 17:07, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

I'd say please get rid of the dozens of red-link Image: tags. Delete them or stick an image in there, I don't care, but it shouldn't be part of the template if there is no image to go in there. (WT-en) Texugo 19:52, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

Ok, gave it a bit quick read through, and have some comments:

• Substrate not sure exactly who the target group is for this article, but as a diver who get beneath the surface once or twice per year, I've no clue what that word means. I'm not a native speaker, so that probably offers an explanation, but in general I have a pretty fluent understanding of the language. Using the same logic Upwellings and Zonation might be bad section headers, as I had to read through the sections, to understand what they were about. I'm not saying they are wrong, it might just be my English skills failing me here, but maybe some native speakers can comment on that.
• Contact section The contact section is really the weakest point, as this is unchartered territory I'm not sure what to do here - problem being we don't allow dublicate listings, and usually prefer to have listings in the destination article, but as this is very specialized, I don't know wether there is much point in this. My suggestions:
  • Dive schools (Learn section) - I think these should go in the destination guides instead, Replace it with some prose in a TOP level header - this empty list is not good (I get that they are in the directory, but it doesn't mix well with the how we do stuff elsewhere on WT)
  • Cope - Should be renamed, or separated out as a TOP section header, as this breaks with our manual of style.
  • Buy - All these listings are very specialized, and probably belong better here, than in destination guides, I'd suggest to separate the listings out as a top level header called Buy and then merginf all the different sub sections (except learn), with the services directory. It's a huge article, so real estate becomes premium at this point, the current mishmash seems to waste it.

It's easy to be critical, and I'm not sure about any of this, so I'm hoping others will comment too, so we can nail down something that works. Other than these nitpickings, this is really really great work. --(WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) ^Talk 21:06, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

The Contact section means something specific in our article templates. Overloading it to mean something else in this template is probably not a good idea. --(WT-en) inas 22:55, 1 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for the quick responses! I am not sure how best to respond to all this, so I will reply more or less in the same order down here.

• Stefan: Thanks for the vote of confidence. Your second comment on the state of the sub-articles is relevant. I dont think the main article is ready for star nomination because the sub articles still need a lot of work, mainly uploading the images. My own opinion is that at least a few of the sub articles should be of star standard before the main article should be considered star. I would say three, but dont really have a strong opinion of the number. I also think that at least half of the sub-articles should be guide standard, and most should be usable, limiting about 25% to outline, and hardly any stubs. Also I feel that since the article so far is almost entirely my own work it would be more appropriate if some other Wikivoyager would make a star nomination when it is ready. I am quite happy to claim guide status, since I kow that it is adequate as a guide, but Star is something that should come from outside. I have not been here long enough to have the feel for it.
• Texugo: Please be patient with the red links, I am searching my files for the images that belong in those placeholders. I have gone through about 6 DVDs so far and have another 4 to go. There are specific images that belong with most of the links that are in the original document, but not in a format suitable for Wikivoyage, and it is a slow and tedious business finding the originals amongst the tens of thousands of images on file as I dont have them in the computer, and they are only indexed by date and site. There should only be red links for new unexplored sites when I have finished. The request for comments was for the content, format and style of the main article. I appreciate you taking the time to review and comment, and your comments will be acted on, but it may take a few weeks.
• Stefan again:
  • Substrate refers to the material or object that the marine organisms are living on. It could be rock, wreckage, artificial structure, unconsolidated deposits, anything. I do tend to get a bit technical in my terminology. I blame it on my education. (I am an engineer). I will look at the article and see if I can work around it or at least define it somehow. Your English is probably as good as most native speakers, so if you have a problem, I must find a solution, or I miss most of my audience
  • I will also look again at upwellings and zonation, though I am glad to see that you understood after reading them, so they succeed in their purpose. They are perhaps a bit more educational than would be normal in a guide, but I think they do help the user to understand the region.
  • Contact: You have found my biggest headache area. I just dont know how to format it better and was hoping for suggestions. I will try to explain my reasoning for the way I have done it and maybe that will inspire someone to come up with a better solution.
    • There is a necessity for listings of the categories Dive School, Dive equipment retailer, Dive equipment service and repair agent, Charter boat operator, Liveaboard boat operator (other regions).
    • It is undesirable to duplicate any listing, partly beacause it is a waste of space, but mainly becase it makes it likely that when details are updated, duplicates will be left out of date, which does not help the traveller.
    • Some businesses provide one service, others provide several, so they cant all go under the same heading if one of the conventional Wikivoyage headers is used, as the header will be wrong most of the time for most of the listings, making it more difficult for the traveller to find the information needed.
    • I like the concept of keeping to a limited and standardised range of headings, as it makes a quick search easier when you know what to expect, so I really like to stay with the Wikivoyage headers, but there seems to be an incompatibility between the available headers and the ideal of single listings in this context. (The headings work fine in their original context of mainstrean destinations, but it may be difficult to get them to work in alternative contexts, like diver guides, and there are other specialist guide topics that may well come up in future: Surfing is one that comes to mind, another is small boat cruising.)
    • The listings in the dive guide are all very diver oriented and also very useful, if not essential to the travelling diver, and have no apparent utility to other travellers, so I strongly feel that they belong in the regional dive guide and not in the mainstream destination article, as they will be less useful to the diver, and dilute the ordinary traveller information.
    • I couldnt think of a better word than contact to describe these listings as a group.
    • The best compromise I could think of was to list the names only under the sub-headings Learn, Buy etc (I had to add a couple like Fix where there is no existing standard heading and it feels like it fits in OK), and then put in the detailed listings under the final sub-heading.
    • There may be an obvious alternative, but I dont see it yet.
    • I am also not very happy with Cope but it is the Wikivoyage heading that looks most appropriate to me, and it does technically fit the purpose in this context. I use it as a sub heading under Contact because it is a listing of contact details. It could be moved up as a main heading without disrupting anything if the consensus is that it would be better there, but I would like to know the reasoning if it is not merely to comply with the mainstream template style. One could argue that emergency information should be more immediately obvious, but that feels a bit weak to me. No big deal, I will go with the flow if there is one.
    • Look at the Contact section as a user: Does it work for you? To me it passes this test, but I dont claim that there isn't a better way.
• Inas: I have tried to explain my position above. Thanks for your comment, If you have any alternative to suggest I would like to see it. You have been doing this for longer and may have some insight I have missed.

I now go back to the article to see what I can do. More later... (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 03:45, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

More replies to comments:

• Stefan again: I looked at the Upwelling and Zonation subsections again.
  • I dont think there is a problem with Upwellings, as it does explain the concept as well as provide useful information.
  • Zonation is another matter. The information is possibly not sufficiently relevant as it mostly refers to the intertidal zone, where divers generally spend as little time as possible. I will just cut it out altogether. If someone thinks it should stay we can put it back. There were whole chapters of background like this that I have not included on Wikivoyage, but might put up in Wikipedia one day if I ever get around to it.
  • I have edited the subsections The habitats and Rocky shores and reefs to clarify the concept of substrate. Please let me know if you think this is better and/or enough. I have continued to use the word as it is the best one I know for the purpose.

That's all for now, Back to searching through DVDs for the right images for a while. Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 05:14, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Firstly, you have done a truly remarkable job with this Peter. I have watched with great interest as you have built this article. Very well done. I am a recreational diver so will try to comment from that perspective and well as on some of the specific WT-related points.

• General Topography section text needs one or two paragraph breaks.
• In the Marine Ecology section (extremely well written by the way), I would find it useful to have more species-specific information within each habitat(or perhaps have a separate sub-section for this).
• The Cope and Read sections would make more sense to me if they were placed at the end of the article.
• The Services Directory is a nice idea and removes the need for repetition. First time though, I did wonder why the Learn section for example was just a list of bulleted company names with no details of courses, contact etc.... perhaps these should just be listed in a prose sentence with commas and not as bulleted points? Same goes for Buy, Dive Charters, Fix etc. --(WT-en) Burmesedays 04:27, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Hi Burmesedays, Thanks for the comments:

• Paragraph breaks in General Topography: Done. Well spotted, I did this in early days before I realised that you have to put in an open line to get a paragraph break.
• Marine Ecology: More species specific details? I can do this. The problem is where to stop. Is this the appropriate Wiki to write on the marine biology in detail? I can, no problem, but I fear I will go too far if encouraged. If you could give an idea of what you think should be there, and there is agreement from others I will do it. Otherwise there will be a fairly comprehensive guide to the marine animals of the Cape Peninsula on Wikipedia over the next year or so which one of my colleagues at SURG [2] has written, and to which I was a contributor. I can add a link to that when the main article is started. Actually I can go over to Wikipedia and put in the stub. I can still put in more here if it is considered appropriate.
• Cope and Read at end of article: I have no strong opinion on this. Would like a consesnsus, as it may become a style policy for diving guides. See also comments by (WT-en) Stefan (sertmann) above and my replies to them. On second thoughts I agree with you about the Read section. It was originally only references on the ecology, but it has grown and I will move it to the end as suggested, where it can be useful for everything else as well.
• Services Directory: Do you think that stringing all the service providers in a sentence will be as effective as a list? It will save a little space, but will it be as easy to find the information you need? I dont know. Second opinions, anyone?

Cheers, (WT-en) Pbsouthwood 06:09, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Only destination guides have to follow our standard section headings. Please feel free to use whatever headings are appropriate without feeling like you have to use short imperative verbs like "Cope", "Read", and "Contact". (WT-en) LtPowers 06:42, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

We have way too many problems with people putting contact details of all sorts of things in our destination guide Contact sections. Those sections are of course supposed to be about internet access, post offices, etc, that is methods of contact, rather than people to contact.

Contact makes perfect sense in the diving articles in isolation - but it is a really bad idea to use the section headings to mean a completely different thing in the diving articles to what they mean in the other article templates. It will add significant confusion to an already confusing section. --(WT-en) inas 08:54, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

On marine ecology and species. As a rec diver and one with a layman's interest in marine biology, I find it very helpful in a dive guide when a quick run down of the star or unusual species to be expected at any particular site. Stars tend to be big stuff and pelagics: eg mantas, sharks, sunfish, any mammal and turtles of course (but it is much more helpful when the actual species is highlighted... nothing more useless than a statement like: lots of big turtles here. I think a dive guide that gives say, the 5 star species to be expected, is really helpful.--(WT-en) Burmesedays 09:18, 2 October 2009 (EDT)

Replies relating to last few comments:

• LtPowers: Your point taken, but I like the idea of remaining stylistically consistent with the rest of Wikivoyage, and I know that this opinion is shared by some of the others, as I was requested earlier to try to fit in with the existing main section headings.
• Inas: Your point taken too. I have given this a fair bit of thought, and have come to agree that it is a problem, there doesn't seem to be an obvious better option for the current usage of "Contact", and I will try to come up with an alternative for the dive guides. So far I dont have one that I really like. "Get Service" for the shops, charter boats and other operators is the best I have come up with so far. I will probably use it until something better comes up. "Get Help" may do for the emergency numbers instead of "Cope". It is more direct and to the point, and should be clear to any user.
• Burmesedays: The problem with a 5 species shortlist is that at most sites you cant really "expect" to see many of the star attractions. "Hope" to see them is about as good as it gets with big pelagics. Nevertheless I will bear this in mind and try to produce a shortlist of the star attractions for the sites. In some cases where these are sessile invertebrates, like sea fans or noble corals, it is quite easy, but our reefs don't really have the sort of territorial large fish that you find on tropical reefs. Cape fur seals are almost everywhere. You could see one on most dives. They become background. Southern Right whales are relatively common, but hardly ever seen during a dive, much the same with dolphins. There is not much point in saying you may see them at a site if it only happens once or twice a year, and is totally unpredictable. It took me 700 dives before I saw my first whale. —The preceding comment was added by (WT-en) Pbsouthwood (talk • contribs) .

Removal

I have removed CC-by-Sa 3.0 disclaimers and broken images links from most of the sub-articles. I was going through the article sequentially, so if anyone wants to continue what I was doing, you can start here. Thanks. (WT-en) Texugo 22:35, 11 March 2010 (EST)

Checklist for Star Nomination

Note: As of 14th October 2010 the article complies with the current criteria as indicated on the checklist for Star article status except for the 3 subarticles at Star level. There are at this stage 2 and one nominated. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 02:58, 14 October 2010 (EDT)

As of 13th November there are 3 subarticles at Star level. The article now complies on this count. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:00, 13 November 2010 (EST)

General

• Standard template used or other appropriate layout complying with the Wikivoyage style conventions. Complies
• Correct English usage: Spelling, grammar, consistent with either local English usage or UK or US English conventions. Complies in general - may have a few small errors
• Correct technical terminology understandable by native English speaking recreational divers. Complies

• All sections of the template contain substantial and useful information unless not applicable to the region, in which case this should be specified. Complies

Section checklist

Leader paragraph

• Leader paragraph explains what the article is about and who it is for. Complies
• Basic geographic extent of the region is stated. Complies

Understand

General topography

• Some information is provided on the physical geography of the region. Complies
• Extent of the region is clearly defined. (a map or other illustration is sufficient) Complies
• Major landforms defining the region are mentioned and named and if necessary, explained. Complies
• Topography of both underwater and land is described. Some form of relief map drawing or illustration should be present. Complies

Climate, weather and sea conditions

• If applicable, a description of the regional climate, weather systems, oceanogrphy in terms of tides, currents, seasonal water condition variations, max and min values. Complies

Marine ecology

• If applicable, a description of the regional marine/aquatic ecology. Complies

Equipment

• Special equipment and training required or recommended for diving in the region, both general and sub-region specific. Complies

Respect

• Explain any special procedures or precautions to avoid ecological or archaeological damage. Complies
• Any local legislation affecting diving in the region is explained sufficiently to allow a reasonably prudent diver to confidently avoid contravention. Information must be accurate and current. Complies

Get help

• List of emergency contact phone numbers for the region, and where there is no appropriate emergency service within the region, contact details for the most appropriate services outside the region. Complies
• These numbers should include where possible: Recompression chamber facilities, Hospital, Clinic or doctor, Diving medical practitioner (specialist), DAN local contact number, Police, Ambulance, Fire department, any specialist rescue organisations that may be of use, Sea rescue/Coastguard. Complies

Get service

• A listing of Dive schools, Dive shops, Air filling facilities, Scuba and cylinder service facilities, Dive charter boats, liveaboards, etc IN the region should be provided. Any known idiosyncracies or specialist abilities (such as affiliated training agency, or foreign languages spoken) should be mentioned. Complies
• If there is no representative of any specific class of service business in the region, the nearest convenient agency outside the region should be listed, with approximate distance and any other critical information. Complies
• It is not necessary to list every dive school, shop, charter business, air filling station, or equipment service agent in the region, but at least one reputable representative of each of these classes should be listed with adequate contact information. If dry suits are recommended in the region, a dry-suit repair agent should be listed. Complies

Learn

• List names of dive schools in the region Complies

Buy

• List names of dive shops in the region Complies

Rent

• List names of places that rent dive gear Complies

Do

• List names of operators, charter boats, liveaboards operating in or from the area. Complies

Fix

• List names of people or organisations which service and repair: Scuba regulators, BCDs, Cylinders, Drysuits. Complies

Details

• List contact details of places listed in "Learn", "Buy", "Rent", "Do" and "Fix". Use the Other listings insertion template. Complies

Get around

• Explains how to get around the region to dive sites and launch areas as a diver with dive equipment. Options of private and public transport as available should be discussed. Complies

Stay safe

• A comprehensive description of regional hazards, the risks connected to them, and appropriate mitigation where applicable. Complies
• Information should apply to a significant percentage of the sites in the region. Complies
• Hazards specific to only a few sites should be covered in the dive site sub-articles.Complies

See (Listing of dive sites)

Number of dive sites listed should be appropriate to region size. In general a region should not contain less than one city or other significant destination unit. Complies

Sites which would ordinarily be reached on a day excursion from a destination such as a city would be in one dive guide, even if there are a large number of them. Alternatively, unless there is a good reason, such as the conditions are very different from the nearest other sites, it would not be appropriate to have a regional guide for a smaller number of sites than about 5, even if the sites are on different islands or near different cities.Complies

A guide should not cross national borders except in special circumstances. Complies

• At least three listed local dive sites must be at star standard (unless there are fewer than three sites in the region, in which case all must be of star standard. Two down, one to go nominated Complies
• At least 90% of locally known named sites should be listed. (or 100, whichever is less).Complies
• At least 50% of the listed sites should be of guide standard or better. (or 50, whichever is less). More work needed 49 sites up to Guide, plus 3 Star — Complies
• At least 75% of the listed sites should be of usable standard or better. (or 75, whichever is less)Complies — 132 sites Usable and better, comprising: 80 Usable, 49 Guide, 3 Star
• All listed sites should at least be described to outline level, unless newly discovered or potential sites, and not yet explored, or up to 5% of listed sites known to be dived, but where information is not available.Some work needed All red links sorted out. There are 15 Outline sites and no sub article stubs — Complies

If there are more than 100 local sites in the region, the number of sites may be limited to 100, and/or this number used for the percentage calculations. This condition is intended to prevent an area with large number of dive sites becoming too difficult to get to star level.More than 100 sites, this rule applied for percentage calculations

(these numbers are only for guidance, if there is a good reason to differ, explain and go by consensus after discussion on the Star nominations page)

• listing of dive sites should normally provide a paragraph describing each site in general terms. No great detail is required. Complies

Copy of discussion archived from Star Nominations page

This is the first Regional Dive Guide to reach a level where I think it can be nominated for Star. So far this has been virtually a single handed effort, including the proposed criteria for star status for this type of travel topic. It is breaking new ground, and needs a legitimacy check by the community, so please all take a look and see if there are any issues that should be resolved at this stage, as this will set the bar for future regional dive guides. There are explanations of my reasoning and choice of criteria on the article discussion page, which are recommended reading. Those who don't feel they can comment on an activity they don't participate in can look at the general Wikivoyage criteria for Star, such as language and formatting.

Note that there is one requirement which is not yet satisfied — three dive site sub-articles should be rated as Star. There are two already rated as star: (Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Pinnacle and Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Partridge Point). The third dive site Star nomination is currently active (see above), and if Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Photographer's Reef makes it, then that requirement will be satisfied. -- Cheers, (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 03:35, 14 October 2010 (EDT)

The third dive site sub-article was rated star on 12th November, so this requirement is now satisfied. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 12:06, 25 November 2010 (EST)

Support with the following points to be taken into consideration:

• under General Topography, perhaps include the name of the 'long ridge of sedimentary rock' that extends through False Bay?

I dont know a name for the ridge as a whole. The shallower area at the south end is known as Steenbras deep. Do you think this information is appropriate in this section, as there is not much detailed information on the other features? I will put it in anyway and see how it looks. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

I think it's better to put in a name, even if it's only for a section of said long reef. (WT-en) Seascapeza 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)

OK, done. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2010 (EST)

• under Climate of the Western Cape, perhaps shorten sentences somewhat? They are very long which can get in the way of clarity.

Done. Good point. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

• last paragraph of Upwellings: what does the water temperature have to do with the visilibity? You say the the upwelling can reduce visibility on the east side of the bay, and then: 'however...' which is when you talk about temperature. It doesn't make sense.

I have rewritten this section to make it clearer. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

• do you think you should explain what is considered the Atlantic side of the peninsula vs False Bay? Because strictly speaking it's all in the Atlantic.

I have added a short paragraph in the general topography section. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

• I have changed the last paragraph of 'Water temperature' assuming that you meant that the bottom temperature in summer in the bay is colder than it is in winter, but this may have been a too-herois assumption. Is this correct? The bottom is actually colder in the summer?

According to my reference this is often the case. It is quite old and does not explain the cause. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

Well, well, well. I think finding out whether this is in fact correct would be very interesting, along with an actual explanation as to why that might be so, though not, strictly speaking, a necessary part of the article. (WT-en) Seascapeza 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)

• then, under 'Habitats' I found this sentence: For many marine organisms the substrate is another type of marine organism, and it is common for several layers to co-exist

... can you clarify?

I have tried. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

In my view, you have succeeded. (WT-en) Seascapeza 04:30, 11 November 2010 (EST)

• under sandy substrates, do you need to define sessile organisms? Or provide a link?

I dont know. WT tries to minimise external links, but I am not keen to put too many definitions in the text. Do you think that the term is too unfamiliar, and that it will make much difference? (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

I do think it unfamiliar yes, so I would prefer to either replace or provide a very short definition in place if extermal links are a problem. :Seascapeza|Seascapeza]] 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)

Go ahead with whatever you think best. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2010 (EST)

• under 'Respect' last paragraph of the diving rocky reefs sections -- perhaps, accurate and enjoyable though it is, it should be left out as not being encyclopaedic?

Wikivoyage is not an encyclopedia. I do not have to use NPOV, only to try to be fair. Do you think the statement is unfair or that the information is not useful to the traveller's understanding of the region? (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

points taken, quite so. (WT-en) Seascapeza 04:30, 11 November 2010 (EST)

• under 'Diving on wrecks in South Africa', it seems to me you need a section detailing how mnay wrecks there are around Cape Town rather than using a general SA overview -- perhaps this section should be a link to another article on wrecks in South Africa, while the Diving on wrecks in Cape Town has more detailed information?

I will look into this. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

The general informatiuon is also in Diving in South Africa#Diving on Wrecks in South Africa, so I have deleted it from Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay and put in a more local explanation. I dont know if it is what you had in mind, so please take a look and let me know. Feel free to improve it. Cheers, (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 05:42, 19 October 2010 (EDT)

• artefacts or artifacts? You use both.

I have changed what I could find to artifacts. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

• Under get help I would make 'in case of emergency' and 'find out' bigger fonts.. they are rather overwhelmed by the text as they are.

The only way I know of doing this is to use sub headings, which I have done. You are right, it does look better. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

• n Cruise Sub Aqua under dive packages: are they the only operator who provides dive packages? Does this, perhaps, need expanding?

Not sure that dive packages is actually something we want, but also not sure exactly what they mean. This listing was originally posted by Cruise Sub Aqua. Any opinions? (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

maybe Cruise SubAqua could them selves explain, or else section can be deleted -- in my view it's not really providing anything of much use cos this isn;t really like Aliwal where you get a standard 'dive package and accommodation' (WT-en) Seascapeza 02:27, 11 November 2010 (EST)

I have taken the Dive packages subsection out an not particularly useful. I suspect they are more of a booking agent than an operator, inspite of claims to the contrary, in which case they dont get a listing anyway. If they disagree they are welcome to provide more information. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2010 (EST)

• spelling of Sub-Atlandi/ean Diving

Their website uses Sub-Atlandian, so will go with that. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

• no operators listed under shark cage diving?

Good point, I will try to look them up. The problem is to try to get the legal ones. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

3 operators listed. It is not easy to find legitimate local operators as just about all the Gansbaai operators and booking agents list themselves as in Cape Town. If you know of others, please give details. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 05:42, 19 October 2010 (EDT)

• should there be a subsection on the Scubapro Dive festival?

It didnt happen last year (this year?). so not too sure. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

• then under 'See':
• is it an idea to put the max'average depth of all sites in the thumbnails?

Yes, possibly even a good one. I will put them in over the next few days. Quite a big job. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

Bigger job than it looked. Very tedious, but I think it will be worth it in the end. Take a look and see if the formatting looks right. That is the easy part to change, the slow part is waiting for each site to open to get the data. However I am doing a few other improvements at the same time. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 07:09, 19 October 2010 (EDT)

Okay, that's as far as I have been able to get for this session, will continue from Camps Bay in due course. (WT-en) Seascapeza 10:49, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

Thanks, several good points. Should keep me busy for a few hours. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 16:28, 18 October 2010 (EDT)

Make that days. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 07:09, 19 October 2010 (EDT)

Depths added as suggested, days it was. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 04:40, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

Okay, so my next lots of edits and views follow:
Support I have continued editing the article and with respect to the See section, have only minor changes to make in general. However, there are a couple of consistency issues which apply to the article overall:

• Capitalization: I have altered and adapted in ways that seem to fit but in some respects have not been sure how to accomplish your aim. Fish Hoek Reef is mentioned, and then Fish Hoek reef. I changed Rockland point since Millers and Oatlands were both capitalised, but there should be consistency here.

It is the name of a dive site — I will use Fish Hoek Reef. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

• Simon's Town, Miller's point, Simon's Bay etc. Is this accustomed usage? Because to me, Millers Point and Simonstown are the accepted usage. I have corrected one instance of Simons Town, since the bulk of the rest of the artucle seems to stick with Simon's Town, but it'd be worth making a decision on which form you wish to go with.

I use Simon's Town, Simon's Bay and Miller's Point which is how my Reader's Digest atlas of southern Africa spells them. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

I also checked the road signs, most use Miller's Point. SA Navy charts use Millers Point, Simon's Town and Simon's Bay. So I think the versions I have used are acceptable variations, and will stay with them. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 11:49, 24 October 2010 (EDT)

• directions and winds: south-east or south east or South East? Or South east? All variants are present.

I have been changing directions to uncapitalised except if they are part of a place name. Obviously I have missed some. Let's also leave out the hyphens for consistency. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

• dates, specifically of wrecks. 18th June or 18 June or June 18? All are present.

Aargh! Hadn't even though of that. Lets go with 18th June etc. I will change when I see them. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

• Then, specifically, the description of Castle Rocks is a repeat of the Miller's Point description. Surely that should be changed?

I have changed the wording of Miller's Point. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

• Also, under offshore False Bay reefs, there is reference to Table Mountain sandstone and Cape Peninsula pluton -- should these be in italics?

Yes, I am using the italics there to identify that it is a specific name for the formation, not a place description. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 15:55, 22 October 2010 (EDT)

But, overall, wow. Great intro and overview. (WT-en) Seascapeza 05:26, 21 October 2010 (EDT)

• SupportAlmost I've got two minor suggestions and one major one: there is a lot of text without accompanying images in the top half of this article, so it might be nice if the images could either be distributed a bit more evenly, or (better) if some of the images from the sub-articles could be brought into this region article. Second, for a star article the Wikipedia link should use the standard format, ie [[WikiPedia:Category:Marine Animals of the Cape Peninsula]] instead of the "Links to Wikipedia" formatting that it now uses. The major item that prevents full support is that there are several listings without full information - the cage diving listings lack descriptions, and while it might not be feasible to get prices for all of the listings, having at least a general range would be helpful. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 01:40, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

I will look into more pictures for the first half, but probably not from the sub-articles, and the images at present are placed where they are relevant.

There are a few more pictures now. Take a look and let me know if you think the balance is OK or if more or less would be better. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 10:41, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

I think I have sorted out your second point, but please check to make sure I understood you correctly.

Working on the listings, have mailed several of the listed businesses for the missing information, and will insert as it arrives. I intend to only put in prices for a local boat dive,and if I can, prices for a local shark cage dive, as it would be impracticable to list much more. Obviously these are only possible from providers which offer these services. In several cases there is no useful representative price - such as dry suit repairs, which though a very useful service, has little in the way of fixed prices. (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 06:46, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

There are now prices for a local boat dive or shark cage dive where they are relevant and addresses etc. in almost all the listings. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 03:25, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

Full support from me - this is an amazing article and I've got no doubt it's got to be the best guide anywhere to diving in that area. -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 14:48, 21 November 2010 (EST)

Thanks for the update — and the vote of confidence — Cheers, • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 15:21, 22 November 2010 (EST)

• Almost Support. This is an incredible wealth of information! I want to take the time for a more thorough read-through, but that will have to wait at least a week. For now, a few quick thoughts:

1. Enlarge the images. 250-280px is pretty standard, and this will do a lot to make the article less intimidating.

I would be very happy to do this. My interpretation of the MoS was that images should br kept small to minimise bandwidth usage for the travelling user in places where connectivity is marginal, and similarly to keep down the number of images. However if encouraged to add more and bigger I will be very happy to do so, It is more a matter of where to stop, so stop me if I go too far! -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 02:54, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

Images enlarged to 280px, and 360 for maps. Looks nice on my monitor -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 03:55, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

The page seems to load significantly slower now. I would appreciate comment from others if they have the same problem. Have I overdone the sizes or is it just general Wikivoyage slowness again? What is the load time like from off the beaten track? • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 03:25, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

Being in LA I'm definitely not "off the beaten track", but the first page load was 10+ seconds, and a reload was 1-2 seconds. I suspect slowness may be due populating caches on IB servers. Are you seeing significantly worse times? -- (WT-en) Ryan • (talk) • 13:49, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

The time seems to vary with time of day, but what seems to be happening is the basic page will load in about 10 seconds, with a few items remaining, and the last one may still be waiting 5 minutes later. (usually a map). • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 15:01, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

2. The main point of this article or any region(esque) article, beyond a general introduction, is navigation around the dive sites (sub-articles). Renaming the See section to "Dive sites" and moving it either to the top or just below Understand could make navigation through the sub-articles much more user-friendly. You could perhaps retain a see section at the bottom, but instead use it to highlight what exactly you can expect to see throughout the region, and perhaps which "subregions" would be best for which types of "sights." (Forgive me for being a little vague—I have zero knowledge of diving.)

I can do this, but when I started (see article talk page) was encouraged to try to comply with WT section heading conventions, which is how the dive sites got to be called "See" in the first place. I would very cheerfully go back to "Dive Sites" and move them up the contents listing, but I would like to hear other opinions on this. I may just plunge forward and make the change so anyone can see how it would look. — it can always be reverted if necessary... -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 02:54, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

The more I think about this the more I like it. I will put the lists of dive sites at the top as you suggest (just below Understand) and keep see for a small introduction to the marine biology and what you are likely to see in the region in general. The new look "See" may take a while to develop. Suggestions and comments invited (User:(WT-en) Seascapeza and User:(WT-en) Gzsilavecz particularly, please comment). -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 04:22, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

"Dive sites" now just after "Understand", and new "See" started, but needs work. Main components listed, but need fleshing out. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 06:14, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

New "See" section written. I have tried to keep it short and general, but can elaborate if necessary. Let me know. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 05:27, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

3. My last point is the main point of contention, and is a bit of a downer. There should be no outline sub-articles, in my opinion. I understand that is a very tall order, with a full 31 outlines remaining, of a massive 200+ articles. Generally, region articles (and I think region article status criteria are the best point of reference for judging this article) will break down their sub-articles further by creating subregion articles. I can see why you might want to avoid doing this for the dive sites, however. But the subregions would each need to be at guide status for their "parent region" (which would be the equivalent of this article) to reach star status. In turn, the sub-articles for each guide region would need to be at usable status. On the plus side, usable status is generally not too hard to reach. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:11, 26 October 2010 (EDT)

On the final point, though I agree that a minimum status of usable is highly desirable, there are practicality issues involved with dive sites which are less prevalent with surface destinations, in that in some cases it is not easy to get the information, as it can be difficult to physically get there to gather it (there are no references to look it up, and if you want a map, you have to go out and survey the site and draw the map yourself). The dive sites in question are generally less frequently dived, and often a bit difficult to get to, and in many cases to some extent seasonal, so it would probably take over a year and quite a lot of money and effort to go out and get the information personally. I have developed the ability to write up a site to usable on the basis of only a few dives, in some cases as little as one, for a small site, but most sites need a couple of dives to gather the required information, and it seems like there is no-one else around here with the skill or interest to do it. If there is consensus that it is necessary, I will do it, but the nomination would have to be shelved for a few months. That is the minor issue.

The major issue is that the bar will be set so high that it may be virtually impossible for any region with more than a small number of dive sites to reach star status, and that once getting there, they may not retain it for long, as the underwater environment even in popular regions with good weather a lot of the time, is largely unexplored, and if a new site is found, we would presumeably want it to be listed immediately, not wait until there is enough information to make the article "Usable". In any case, our editing policy allows anyone to add useful information, so if someone dives a site, likes it and wants to let the world know, it is quite legitimate to add that information to the relevant article. It would go against the grain to delete it just because the article is rated Star, and similarly would discourage editors if the article rating had to be downgraded. I am trying to encourage divers to write up sites in other parts of the world, and it is not easy to get guide quality information from casual recreational divers — even professionals can seldom provide a coherent description.

It is therefore my contention that a certain number or percentage of outline sub-articles should be tolerated in a star dive region article, particularly when there is exploration required to provide the information. To me this is better than the more practicable alternative of deleting the sub-article if there is too little information available, as that goes against the completeness of coverage criteria. One could make a case that the foreign visitor only needs to know about the more popular sites/destinations/attractions, but the counterclaim is that the local visitor should also be catered for, and in the case of diving in the Cape Town region, the local visitor is the main user.

On the breaking down of a region into sub-regions: The main article is on diving in the environs of a single city. It would be possible to break the article up into five logical subregion articles, or with a bit of fudging, four subregions, by including the single inland dive site with the nearest coastal sites. The split would be rather uneven though. This would also mean that the number of star and guide dive sites would have to be increased as they would not be evenly distributed in the sub-regions. The subregions are largely seasonal, and some are more difficult to access and only occasionally diveable. The offshore sites are generally only dived a few times a year, and the depth of the deeper ones means that you can only dive there for 10 to 20 minutes at a time. To get them up to star could take years, The cost is another issue — deep sites require helium mixes, which are expensive and not easily available.

I value your opinion as you have done great work on WT, and know the policies and customs far better than I do for the regular run of regions and destinations (I am very much a monomaniac regarding dive guides), but I would like to hear opinions from other WT users on this point, in the hope of getting a consensus which can mould future regional dive guides.

As someone said. "Perfect is the enemy of good enough" No article will ever be perfect, not even the stars. There is always something more to be said, and usually a lurking error everyone has missed. And then something will change... It is better to know how to reach good enough. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 02:54, 27 October 2010 (EDT)

Three more outlines have been upgraded to usable, and over the next few days I may be able to upgrade one or two more. After that I will have to dive each site to get the data. With luck I may be able to do half a dozen over the summer season, others maybe not. -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 14:06, 28 October 2010 (EDT)

Outlines down to 25. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 09:53, 29 October 2010 (EDT)

Hmm, you might have a bit higher standards for a usable dive guide than I would (again, acknowledging that I am totally clueless about diving!). Probably the closest equivalent article is a small town (and this is a rough equivalent), which would use the criteria: Has at least a Get in section and one Eat and Sleep listing each with contact information. At least the most prominent attraction is identified with directions. Eat and Sleep obviously are not part of the equation for a dive guide. I'm inclined to argue that all that is truly necessary for a dive guide to be usable is the get in information (how to get there + instructions on how to safely get into the water) and a rough idea of what there is to see. By that criteria, I would judge, say, SS SA Seafarer to be very much at usable status already. The main criterion of a usable article is that an adventurous person could use the article without recourse to other information sources, and this article satisfies that criterion.

Also, I really like the new see section! --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

Peter, I am glad you like the new See section. I think the change and split of the old See into Dive sites near the top and the new See is a big improvement and addresses some old issues quite well. I can see room for development of the See section into a really useful section way beyond what it is at present, but that might require more Wikipedia links than usually approved on WT. We will just have to see what develops. (I am working albeit rather slowly, with Seascapeza and others on WP on marine life of the area, and it would not make sense to duplicate too much when a few links would do the job. Particularly as that side of things really is more encyclopaedic than a travel topic)

You may be right about the standards for usable. I must give this some thought. I will look at all the currently outline sites and try to hammer them into shape a bit more. Right now I am more busy with other work than I would prefer, and it may be a few days before I can really get down to it again. but at least I dived one of the outline sites last weekend and should be able to get that up to a good usable quite soon. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 15:13, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

I looked at the Seafarer again and you are right. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 15:13, 5 November 2010 (EDT)

Outlines now down to 21. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:46, 7 November 2010 (EST)

Outlines now down to 18. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 06:37, 13 November 2010 (EST)

Outlines back up to 19. Found one which was not on my list :-( • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 12:08, 26 November 2010 (EST)

Can I see the list? I have a hunch that I'd have no problems with your outlines. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 12:32, 26 November 2010 (EST)

Hi Peter, No problem, it is at User:(WT-en) Pbsouthwood/Dive sites The ones highlighted in orange are the outlines. The colour coding is pretty obvious after a cursory examination, except the magenta, which indicates a usable that is close to guide standard. I find the list very useful for keeping track of what still needs to be done (a lot). The ones that are still outlines are in my opinion not sufficient for an ordinary diver from a different region to use to dive the site, mainly on safety issues. There are a few sites that I have not personally dived yet, so I hesitate to call them usable in case they are not. I would have no problem with another diver rating them as usable if they have dived there, but this does not seem to be happening. Probably partly because the sites in question are the relatively obscure, less accessable, or less popular ones. Cheers, • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 13:31, 26 November 2010 (EST)

Outlines now down to 15. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 14:04, 26 November 2010 (EST)

There are still 5 or so that are pretty empty, which I would recommend focusing on, just to get the bare minimum of information an adventurous, experienced diver would need to get out there. But as you are aware, the strict regionguide requirements aren't really designed to force status requirements on 100+ sub-articles, and thus don't work as well with this particular guide that does not follow the exact same organizational pattern. I'm more than happy to call this extraordinary guide a star article--you have my full support. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 15:28, 27 November 2010 (EST)

It is largely a matter of opportunity. Some of those sites are ones I have been trying to get to for years. Sometimes a site will bocome the in place for a few months and then no-one will go there for a few years, or no-one that I dive with, which in practicality comes to much the same thing, as I tend to dive with a few operators who are survey-friendly. I will get them all evenrually, but it is quite likely that some new ones will be done before I get all of the outlines filled in. I will also admit that a few I have just been too lazy to go and dive, and I hope to get those sorted this summer. Anyway. I am happy to get your support and will now go and put a star on the site with a feeling of great satisfaction.

Support Okay. I have finally finished going through the whole article and have edited for small formatting/grammatical errors as I have gone along. Only a very few questions remain, namely:

• in the Eastern False Bay section, the introduction heading you have Intro to diving blah blah all in bold, but the 'from Gordons Bay to Hangklip' in regular font. Why?

No idea, I will have a look. It is quite probably a common or garden formatting inconsistancy. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2010 (EST)

Yup, thats what it seems to have been. Now all bold, like the other equivalent sections. You missed the lower case letter following a full stop! (also corrected) • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2010 (EST)

• if you have a look at the description of Rooi-els point, from the description, it doesn't sound like it actually is a dive site. Is it? Or is it just where one would expect a dive site to be?

I have dived there, it is aplace where people have dived. It may not be particularly popular or well known, but I think it qualifies as a site, and is the sort of place somone might well look at from the shore and wonder what it is like, and try to look it up. I am trying to be as inclusive as reasonably possible, but that is just my preference, there is no rule saying it must be so. Others may disagree, and I am open to debate. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2010 (EST)

I read the thumbnail, and see what you mean, but the explanation above still applies, it is the sort of place you look at from the road and wonder what is there. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2010 (EST)

• Finally, I am not sure how to solve the story on wrecks section. I like what you have done with the overall section as an overview of wrecks and obviously you have to include wrecks in 'See', but maybe the overall section on wrecks should go closer to the beginning?

Where? The only place nearer to the beginning would be in 'Understand', but then there would be three subsections dealing with wrecks? • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2010 (EST)

On balance though, I say, why not Star status now? (WT-en) Seascapeza 04:30, 11 November 2010 (EST)

Why not indeed. I would like a final comment on the number of outline sites from Peter Fitzgerald, as that is possibly the only outstanding issue. I have reduced them as much as I am likely to in the next month or so, and will probably have to visit the rest before I can significantly upgrade them. This will be done in time, but some can probably not be done until next winter, so I need a consensus on how many are tolerable. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 08:24, 12 November 2010 (EST)

Also waiting on recheck by Ryan. I think all the issues he brought up have been sorted, but would like confirmation. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 06:37, 13 November 2010 (EST)

(WT-en) Ryan now supports (see above). • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 12:06, 25 November 2010 (EST)

(WT-en) Peter now also supports, and since there are no outstanding issues and more than 2 weeks have passed since the last issue was listed, I will promote the article to star. • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 11:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)

Star nominations for Photographer's Reef and Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay

These two articles have been nominated for star and await revier and comment at Wikivoyage:Star nominations.

Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay is the first Regional Dive Guide to be nominated for star and therefore it would be desirable to get as much community involvement as possible, as this will to some extent provide a standard for future articles of this kind. (if it makes it). -- (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 02:30, 15 October 2010 (EDT)

Photographer's Reef has been promoted to star, Thanks to all who commented.

A large part of the issues brought up regarding Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay have been addressed, but there is a policy issue outstanding. If anyone has the time to look the discussion over and maybe even check over the article it would be appreciated. I think the process is nearing finalisation, as there is not much more that I can do at this stage based on the current outstanding issues. Cheers, • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 14:37, 19 November 2010 (EST)

Swept in from Travellers' Pub • • • (WT-en) Peter (Southwood) ^Talk 05:12, 17 January 2011 (EST)

Is the article too large, and if so, how best to split it.

It has been suggested that the article is too long. The most obvious way to reduce the size is to split off the Dive sites section to Dive sites of the Cape Peninsula and False Bay (currently a redirect) and replace it in the article with a short summary. As this is a star class article, and it would be preferable to keep it and any split part component as star class, I would like comment on this proposal before any action is taken.

1. Is the article too long?
2. Is the proposed split acceptable?
3. Will the original article retain star status after the proposed split?
4. Will the new article Dive sites of the Cape Peninsula and False Bay retain star status or at least be close enough to get there with a little work? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong coordinates?

• [12.81700,18.40685,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Miller’s_Point"], done
• [12.81700,18.46667,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Rocklands_blinder"], done
• [12.81700,18.46717,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Spaniard_Rock"], done
• [12.81700,18.46720,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Stern_Reef"], done
• [12.81700,18.46740,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Insanity_Reef"], done
• [12.81700,18.47420,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/SAS_Pietermaritzburg"], done
• [12.81700,18.47578,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Caravan_Reef"], done
• [12.81700,18.47652,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Castle_Rocks"], done
• [12.81700,18.47667,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Shark_Alley"], done
• [12.81700,18.47830,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Pyramid"], done
• [12.81700,18.47980,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Partridge_Point"], done
• [12.81700,18.48337,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Outer_Castle"], done
• [12.81700,18.48417,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Boat_Rock"], done
• [12.81700,18.48442,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Pie_Rock"], done
• [12.81700,18.48657,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Finlay's_Deep"], done
• [12.81700,18.48767,"Diving_the_Cape_Peninsula_and_False_Bay/Fan_Reef"], done

These coordinates may be incorrect. They are located in central Africa. Can anyone verify it? -- Joachim 79.239.29.174 15:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joachim, Thanks for the notification. They are indeed wrong, not even in the right hemisphere. I dont know why. If you spot any more please just add the site name to the bottom of the list. the top one would just be Miller's Point, for example. I will fix them and check to see hoe widespresd the problem is. You can find the correct co-ordinates in each article in the "Position" psection, but thay are in hddmm.mmm or hddmmss format, so must be converted for geocoding to hdd.ddddd format. The latitude of all the sites is around 34°S, not 12°N Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I've checked all the other coordinates. They seems to be correct. Grüße! -- Joachim Mey2008 (talk) 17:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Good, then they should all be correct now. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Inadequate table of contents

This guide would be of more practical use to divers if there was an adequate table of contents. Perhaps it could even use the expandable vertical ToC style as seen currently on this discussion page until a drop down horizontal style is made.

I'm all for a consistent "house style" but we really are doing a disservice to travellers in this retrograde universally castrated banner style of ToC. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, I obviously need spectacles! --118.93nzp (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Touting?

This edit would seem to be in violation of the don't tout rules. Is there an important reason why Adrenalised Diving should appear 3 times in addition to its listing? Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Broken link under "Weather data"

The link under "Real time weather data is available for False Bay from a weather buoy ..." doesn't show any weather data for me, and when clicking further through via "Data Buoys" --> "Data Buoy - False Bay", the last data there is from 2015.

Is there a better link for current temperature and weather conditions and forecasts?

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Diver using rebreather quipment image

• Under exotic equipement I removed the brackets from the commented out image Diver using rebreather equipment as this was still being picked up as a broken file link under Special pages. -- Matroc (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC) -- this one I picked up using my own image scan check -- the system is finding others I think but I only did this one image. -- There is one image not found in commons - File:Image of a boat run up the beach that remains as a broken link... I will let you handle that one.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gelderland (1).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Splitting PoIs between maps

Hi Matroc, I need some advice on splitting PoIs between maps. I would like to only display dive sites in the first map, only listings in the second map and only launch sites on the third map, and may make further splits later. I have been trying to work out if this is done using |group= or |show= or a combination, and whether groups can be assigned an arbitrary name, as I am using colours for dive sites in specific areas. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Seem to have figured out how to do this. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

yes - using group and show is easiest way... was away just saw this. -- Matroc (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Drawing a boundary line on a map

@Matroc: could you advise on drawing a simple polyline between a few coordinates. I have tried to copy and reverse engineer a track from another article using <maplink> but it does not display. I don't want a mask as there will be other similar boundaries, and the shoreline is too complicated anyway. The documentation suggests I can use {{mapmask}} for a track, but I can't work out how to do it from bare coordinate pairs, and it seems to close the polyline automatically, with unpredictable results. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

<maplink class="no-icon" text="" latitude="50" longitude="-121" zoom="5" group="mask">
 {"type": "Feature","geometry":
     {"type":"LineString", 
         "coordinates": [[-121,50],[-120,55]]},
      "properties":{ 
         "title": "A line",
         "description": "",
         "stroke":"#0000ff",
         "stroke-width":2 }}
 </maplink>

• This is simple draw a line between two points - want add to go to another point then just add to the coordinates.

"coordinates": [[-121,50],[-120,55],[-120,53]]}, - ( [long,lat] order ) and so on and so forth. (not closing line into a Polygon)-- hope this helps! -- Matroc (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• I just remembered I converted some of the old GPX files to create lines etc. in various mapframes -- User:Yurik/Sandbox/GPX1 - can take a look there for some complete samples such as Austsrailia by train etc. -- Matroc (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Turns out all I did wrong was using [lat,long] instead of [long,lat]. Thanks, I think I got it now, trick will be to remember it next time, but at least I now have a working example to refer back. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Great! (Lekker) - I've done that many times as well -- Note: in addition you can alternatively build those lines with a Kartographer mapframe as well and it will be a part of the mapframe. - It is different from the Template mapframe - ie. you need to add the width and height of the mapframe and specifically use show parameter to display markers/listings and other things. As added fluff - you can put in code to color text which is tricky because you use html characters to make the angle brackets etc. Probably best to use the Template Mapframe which automatically adds certain elements and follows wikivoyage standards and use a maplink to draw the lines.

• 1 Spot -- This is probably near the beach! -- Hope I have helped in some way to provide some insight into actual Kartographer code. There is more than meets the eye -- Best wishes and Cheers! -- Matroc (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Matroc: Sorry to trouble you about something off-site, but I am trying to do the same thing (maps with MPA borders) on Wikipedia, and it would seem that it must be done differently. Am I missing something? Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

maplink and mapframe are different on Wikipedia as the Kartographer Extension is not the same as is found on Wikivoyage.

• No group and no show parameters for one

<mapframe latitude="-34.0" longitude="18.6" width="400" height="400" zoom="9">
{
"type": "FeatureCollection", "features":  [
    {"type": "Feature","geometry":
      {"coordinates":
         [[18.470833,-34.109833],[18.556883,-34.109833],
         [18.556883,-34.407400],[18.250000,-34.407400],
         [18.250000,-33.901250],[18.400617,-33.901250]],
     "type":"LineString"},
         "properties":{
          "title": "Table Mountain National Park Marine Protected Area",
          "description": "Seaward boundary",
          "stroke":"#ffff00",
          "stroke-width":2
}},
    {
      "type": "Feature",
      "properties": {
        "title": "Spot",
        "description": "Somewhere near the Beach!",
        "marker-symbol": "-number-bar",
        "marker-color": "f01080"
      },
      "geometry": {
        "type": "Point",
        "coordinates": [ 18.47,-34.109 ]
}}
]}
</mapframe>

What does this mean:

I found that if you want all the Points, lines etc. on a mapframe, it appears that you would have to put them together in a mapframe as a Feature Collection - see code above.

also, you would have to do extra work maplinks to make any kind of listings in addition to the work you would do in the mapframe. (Wikipedia and Wikivoyage are definitely different in their approach).

See: sample I made for Wikipedia American Civil War Prison camps near bottom of page.

That is a problem in that when you click on the a maplink you get a pop-up map with only that marker; though, the mapframe has everything on it as found in the Feature Collection (I have a thought about this problem and will take another look later to get around that issue)

I left a note long ago that the group and show parameters should be included in their extension.

If you find out something different or changed, please let me know! Cheers! -- Matroc (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphan page

page Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Sterretjies Reef exists but not linked to --Traveler100 (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: Should it be deleted? --Traveler100 (talk) 06:53, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Traveler100: No, I was waiting to get accurate data to link it from the right places. Busy with that now. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Please reconsider Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay rollback

[Moved from User talk:Ibaman –LPfi (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)]

Regarding your rollback to Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay. I believe this is a legitimate addition of a business to a local services directory. Please advise. —The preceding comment was added by 102.165.91.169 (talk • contribs)

The listing says "Mobile operation - no offices." Our guidelines on listings says businesses must have a local presence, with address. If you want an exception, you should argue for that on the talk page. Moreover, I find the listing odd. It says, on Special:Diff/4069305/4070264 that "Cape RADD is a research station". I have not before heard about virtual stations – isn't the point of a station to have real-world facilities? At the linked web site, under Publications, just two articles are listed, one using "big data", probably not gathered here, and the other seems to critisise the methods of a study conducted in the area, not doing the empirical work themselves. Shouldn't a research station be able to link dozens or hundreds of relevant research articles? –LPfi (talk) 08:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, the project descriptions should present the project leaders and their qualifications, a comprehensive discussion on the used methodology etc., and articles or working papers produced so far. Nothing of the kind. I get the impression this is pure leisure diving, but with the "projects" and "research" giving participants a feeling of doing something important. If I am wrong, please rework your web site to answer these worries. –LPfi (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

There are several listings in this category that do not include an address, and another specifically that says 'Mobile Operation - no offices.' I do not see the relevance of debating an academic record for a listing categorised as providing diving services. Guided citizen science diving is a service not provided by any others on this list of dive tour operators, regardless of your views on the merits of such an activity. —The preceding comment was added by 102.165.91.169 (talk • contribs)

"Others are violating policy/guidelines" is never a good argument for anything other than removing the other listings that are in violation of those policies or guidelines. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

And if it is included because it offers "citizen science", then it should provide something scientifically valuable. I understand that citizen science is not academic research, but it should be useful other than in providing nice experiences. Your webpage failed to give me any evidence of this activity being useful for anybody but the business, and hopefully for the customers. Why doesn't the projects page link to more in-depth info on the projects? –LPfi (talk) 18:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I do not intend for this to be 'whataboutism'. This feels like a subjective barrier to entry that is not consistently applied to this list. Why is this a discussion about scientific relevance for a listing of dive clubs and operators? This is not a listing of academic institutions. Do I need to argue the educational value of citizen science? For the level of engagement that it provides above and beyond that provided by seal snorkeling and cage diving? The activity is unique, and receives positive reviews on Google, Trip Advisor, and AirBnb. If you are reluctant to approve this edit because the list is thorough enough, then please indicate as much and consider updating this list with the same scrutiny you have applied to my edit. I struggle to see any valid reasons apart from not providing an address. The rest are irrelevant excuses.—The preceding comment was added by 102.165.91.169 (talk • contribs)

[end of copied content]

I do not know much about citizen science, so you might have to explain or provide a link, but as that is something the web page talks big about and was included in the description in the listing, it has to be what it promises to. It is not enough that customers feel they have contributed to something big, and give positive reviews, they need to have made a difference. If the projects are not thoroughly planned or do not lead to publications that could increase knowledge or awareness in the scientific community, among politicians or among the general public, I do not understand the point. And if they are and have an impact, why doesn't the web site tell about it? –LPfi (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Let us try to get to the basics of this problem, Cape RADD is a research station does not clearly explain what it is/does. What is a research station in this context, and how does Cape RADD fit the definition. What does it research?. The services offered to recreational divers are listed, but do not indicate that they are specific to the Cape Peninsula and False Bay - Ocean safaris suggests a rather wider scope. Listings belong in the destination which fits best. If the activities offered are restricted to Cape Peninsula and False Bay, then they may be appropriate here, if they extend beyond this are they may be appropriate for an article covering a wider region. Is Cape RADD registered as a business or charity? if so what is the registered address? Why can this not be used? (I do have some experience with citizen science, so can generally understand arguments made in that context, but many of our users will not. Sufficient information to make sense to the reader is necessary.) Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If there are other listings which do not belong on the page, please at least name them so that they can be reasonably scrutinised. It would also be helpful if the problem areas could be specified, to avoid wasting volunteer time. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Table of contents

I was surprised to see that the page banner does not contain the table of contents, which is instead presented in a Wikipedia / WV non-mainspace article format. This is inconsistent with other articles, is unexpected, and looks wrong (after having become accustomed to the Wikivoyage way). I doubt that I am alone in this reaction. Can we change it to our standard? Nelson Ricardo (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I inserted the WP style TOC in several articles once upon the time when the WV style one didn't work. This might have been one of them. –LPfi (talk) 07:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi, I see that you have addressed this. Thank you! Nelson Ricardo (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: I missed the establishment of consensus, so I plunged forward, with an "undo if the TOC should be separate". For discussion, see this one. –LPfi (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there any reason why it had been done. I can't find the discussion. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 10:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed quite a while back, after the page banners were introduced, and before this page was assessed as a star quality travel topic. The Star discussion may contain relevant details, but as I said it was some time ago. Any article that carries the star can be considered approved by consensus for layout, formatting etc, which would include the ToC. That is one of the meanings of the star.

I am generally in favour of the banner type ToC, but it does not work in this and a few other articles, in this case because of the size and the need for subsection headings in the ToC to make page navigation reasonably practicable. At the time we looked into drop-down menu extensions for the banners, but no-one could get them to work reliably, so the status quo was accepted. If anyone can come up with a better looking system that actually works, on desktop and mobile, please test that it really does work at least as well as the current ToC, then ping me and we can reconsider the ToC. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 13:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

There may be something relevant in a discussion which preceded adding the parameter "notoc" to the page banner, which was considered necessary to accommodate this sort of problem, but I don't recall the details. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 14:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I now added a HTML comment on the notoc parameter. I don't think that the star means "leave this article alone, anything that seems like an error is there by purpose". If my edit and this thread went unnoticed for a month, then I suppose any vandalism or mistake could as well have gone unnoticed. There is no easy and obvious way to find the star approved version to compare with (yes, I know how to find it, but it is still some work, and star articles aren't supposed to be freezed), and as you notice, the discussion on the issue is "somewhere". Anything surprising or non-standard should be prominently marked as intentional, to allow normal maintenance without this kind of episodes. –LPfi (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

LPfi It would appear that I got the order of star assessment and introduction of banner TOC wrong. The Star discussion was swept onto this page shortly after the star was awarded (November 2010), so scroll upwards or use the TOC at the top of this page (you will have to expand the ToC). This means that the Star discussions are not relevant. My bad. It also means that the discussion might be somewhere in the discussions about the banner TOC, which happened during the migration, and I am not sure where they all are, but it was discussed, otherwise there would not have been a reason to have the parameter, and yet it exists, and I don't think I put it in. Your point about marking it as intentional is reasonable at face value, but as it is an optional parameter that must be put in by someone, it should be reasonbly clear that it was unlikely to have been introduced accidentally. It may have been the first time this parameter was used, and I don't think it was me who added it, but your point is good, an explanation in comments is a good idea, as time passes and memory fades, specially about things that go unremarked for years. We occasionally do not foresee that others may find something that was clear at the time to be obscure after several years have passed, and hundreds of edits have been made. (there may be a comment in the edit summary, I will take a look.) If you have any recommendations of how to get around the problem, let me know. I once suggested splitting the page (see earlier section #Is the article too large, and if so, how best to split it.), but got no discussion and forgot about it. Maybe it is time to revisit that possibility. Maybe you would have some ideas. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

SHB2000 The code functions, but does not provide sufficient utility. Try finding a specific dive site. The level 3 headers make a big difference. I have considered splitting out the section to a subpage, but I don't know of relevant precedent and am not keen on doing all the work and having it reverted as non compliant. See #Is the article too large, and if so, how best to split it above. One consequence of a split would be reducing the section levels, so the banner ToCs may work in both articles. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Pbsouthwood: I do get the level 3 headers also when the ToC is in the banner. When I move the cursor to a level 2 heading, I get the subheadings of that heading, that is. Do you find that inconvenient or does it not work for you at all? In the latter case, I suppose somebody should try to reproduce your experience with the same browser version etc. and write a bug report. –LPfi (talk) 16:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Screenshot showing a problem with the menu

LPfi What happens is when I mouse-over the first level ToC, the 2nd level drops down. then as or before I move the cursor over the 2nd level, a popup pops up and covers the dropdown to a greater or lesser extent, When I hover on the part of the menu I can see the popu disappears, If I try enough times, I sometimes get the 3rd level to appear before it is obscured by the popup, but hardly ever get a chance to even read it, let alone use it to navigate before the popup is back. When I close the popup, the menu collapses. I am using Firefox on Windows 10 on a desktop, most often, and sometimes Chrome on Android on a Samsung tablet, usually in desktop view. With the standard version ToC it all works without hassles and I can get to where I need to be very quickly. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah! That popup is disturbing at times, yes. But no popup appears for me when I have the mouse over a ToC item (I have the popups activated). Seems like an obvious bug, as the links are to the current article, and there is no reason to want to have a popup show what you already have on your screen. I have Firefox 78.12.0esr (64-bit) on Debian 10.10 (oldstable). –LPfi (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

This might not work for how you prefer to view the wiki, but my recommendation is to disable "Navigation popups" (under Gadgets) and enable "page previews" (under "Appearance"). They're a cleaner, stripped-down, less invasive progression. I used to appreciate all the extra info in the popups, both here and on WP, but have come to prefer the unobtrusiveness of previews. Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood, after further thinking about this, I kindly request that you restore the Wikivoyage-style page-banner table of contents. You have chosen to enable a non-default "gadget" and must accept its consequences. We should not override the Wikivoyage standard to accommodate edge cases. Only 20 "active" users have popups enabled (Special:GadgetUsage). Nelson Ricardo 2500 (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems I also have the preview, not the gadget. I seem never to have noticed there were two different ones. –LPfi (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I will switch to the preview and see how it goes. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 15:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

History

Note: from documentation of Template:Pagebanner "notoc: Optional. Enter notoc=true to stop the TOC being included in the banner and for the entire TOC to be shown within the article instead. Mainly to be used on articles with lots of sections" Diving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay has lots of sections.

Relevant discussion on Wikivoyage talk:Banner Expedition/archive 2013-19#Add a "full TOC" button? There may be more but my time allocated for this search is used up. I may find more later. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 09:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• banner template first added 25 May 2013 (commented out)
• [3] 8June 2013 (added custom image and decommented to make visible)
• (Force TOC as pagebanner does not provide multilevel TOC which is necessary for this article) 12 June 2013
• (try experimental TOC-less pagebanner) 12 June 2013
• (change to standard pagebanner template with notoc option) 9 July 2013. Some time between 12 June and 9 July, pagebanner template was edited to provide optional parameter to use original TOC style.
• Relevant discussion nay exist on Wikivoyage:Banner Expedition

Split out listing of dive sites

I have split out the listings of dive sites, and may trim some of the remaining text in the section. The site listings are now inDiving the Cape Peninsula and False Bay/Dive sites, which seems the logical way to keep the articles together, but I am open to discussion if anyone has a better idea (and can explain why it is better). Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)