Talk:Deep-sea exploration

message: Nasnema, 
As I explained on your talk page, this all too common English usage error, has nothing at all to do with "local dialect."  Given that you are evidently British and have displayed over your history of edits here a very marked preference for your own "local dialect," I refer you to the entry for "enormity" in the highly respected (British) Compact Oxford English Dictionary:
enormity
    1 [mass noun] (the enormity of) the great or extreme scale , seriousness, or extent of something perceived as bad or morally wrong:a thorough search disclosed the full enormity of the crime
    (in neutral use) large size or scale:I began to get a sense of the enormity of the task
    2 a grave crime or sin:the enormities of war
Origin:
late Middle English: via Old French from Latin enormitas, from enormis, from e- (variant of ex-) 'out of' + norma 'pattern, standard'. The word originally meant ‘deviation from legal or moral rectitude’ and ‘transgression’. Current senses have been influenced by  enormous
Usage
Enormity traditionally means‘ the extreme scale or seriousness of something bad or morally wrong’, as in residents of the town were struggling to deal with the enormity of the crime. Today, however , a more neutral sense as a synonym for hugeness or immensity, as in he soon discovered the enormity of the task, is common. Some people regard this use as wrong, arguing that enormity in its original sense meant ‘a crime’ and should therefore continue to be used only of contexts in which a negative moral judgement is implied. Nevertheless, the sense is now broadly accepted in standard English, although it generally relates to something difficult, such as a task, challenge, or achievement
The sentence in the Deep-sea exploration entry that I'd edited did not use "enormity" to relate "to something difficult, such as a task, challenge, or achievement," so its usage to apply to an object -- geologic time -- was incorrect as a matter of standard English, even in its least prescriptive BRITISH application.:
By the late 1860s, controversial modern scientific theories, the origin of life by evolution and the enormousness of geologic time had created a foundation of scientific curiosity and provoked a rising interest in marine exploration.  
Ravinpa (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Enormity" vs. "Enormousness 

message: Would the discovery and exploration of the RMS Titanic wreckage be considered "deep-sea exploration"?  Is there any consensus regarding how deep is "deep-sea"?  Should the discovery/exploration be added to "Milestones...". 
Copied From User_talk:Drbogdan#Deep-sea_exploration
Deep-sea exploration
Since you seem to be a principle editor for this page, I'd like to refer you to my question on thetalk page.  If the answer is "no", please leave a note on my talk page (I'll need to make some changes). Thanks, and regards, 
:@Eric F - Thanks for your recent comment - Please understand that I'm more a casual editor, than a principle one, for the Deep-sea exploration article -nonetheless, you've asked some very good questions - according to Wikipedia -> "The 'deep sea,' or deep layer, is the lowest layer in the ocean, existing below the thermocline and above the seabed, at a depth of 1000 fathoms (1800 m) or more." - also, according to Wikipedia -> "The wreck of Titanic remains on the seabed, gradually disintegrating at a depth of 12,415 feet (3,784 m)." - thus, the Titanic wreck would be in the "deep-sea" I would think - finally - based on the above, the Titanic wreck would qualify as a "Milestone" of Deep-sea exploration as far as I can see - but that's my opinion fwiw - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comment - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titanic 

message: The second paragraph has a source at the end of it, which is a question-answer-type part of the website it links to. However, the answerer uses the deep-sea exploration article itself as a source for the answer.
Blaziken (T-C) 07:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section problem 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Deep-sea exploration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090501194025/http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?vendorId=FWNE.fw..de026100.a to http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?vendorId=FWNE.fw..de026100.a#FWNE.fw..de026100.a
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090417093811/http://deepseasystems.com:80/thl404-8d.htm to http://www.deepseasystems.com/thl404-8d.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100208003634/http://www.history.com/content/deepseadetectives/history-of-deep-sea-exploration to http://www.history.com/content/deepseadetectives/history-of-deep-sea-exploration
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Deep-sea exploration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209114759/http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=207274 to http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=207274
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110131074234/http://www.boulderinternetguide.com:80/Entertainment/origins_of_submarines.htm to http://www.boulderinternetguide.com/Entertainment/origins_of_submarines.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101005020142/http://www.ceoe.udel.edu:80/deepsea/level-2/tools/history.html to http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/deepsea/level-2/tools/history.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110215223336/http://www.floridasmart.com:80/subjects/ocean/deepsea.htm to http://www.floridasmart.com/subjects/ocean/deepsea.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Deep-sea exploration. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140625050833/http://deepseachallenge.com/ to http://deepseachallenge.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140625050833/http://deepseachallenge.com/ to http://deepseachallenge.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The construction and materials of pressure vessels is somewhat off-topic and would be more appropriate in an article on  pressure vessels, pressure vessels for human occupation, or submersibles. Unless anyone can provide logical and convincing reason why it should be covered here in such detail, I propose to split it out and merge it into another article when I have worked our where best it should go. This should not be controversial, but I mention it here because of current uncertainty about the best merge target or targets, so it may not happen immediately. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split out section Construction and Materials of Pressure Vessels 

message: , why do you consider Otis Barton's dive irrelevant to the topic of deep-sea exploration? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 06:00, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the Otis Bartons's dive was mentioned to reach only 1300 m in 1948, while Albatross expedition trawled depths down to 7000 m during 1947-1948. I do not insist really, just thought that Otis dive contradicts the timeline if milestones in ocean exploration are to be mentioned  in a chronological order. Both can be kept, if specified that one was a dive and another involved trawling activities. 2001:6B0:D:768:11F8:FD1F:BFCD:86E4 (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , I assume you are the same person as the IP address above. Thanks for the explanation, I think the difference between a dive and trawling is sufficient to justify keeping both, so will put it back and make sure the distinction is clear. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant?