Talk:Depth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Disambiguation This page is part of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] What else?

  • Measurement of ocean depth with pressure guages and correction for temperature
  • Apparent depth due to refraction
  • Optical depth in a liquid or gas
  • Measurement of depth on an irregular body, such as an asteroid
  • Indirect measurement of depth for an earthquake

[edit] others

  • General measurement of fluid pressure and barometric pressure, relate to those articles.
  • Relate to articles on dredging operation (same as oceans)?
  • Relate to article on depth measurement using photogrammetry, surveying, GPS.
  • Examples of depth in hydrogeology and geology.

Steven McCrary 20:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


  • What does DEPTH VISION mean?*

Xcomputerxgeekx 00:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physics

This article isn't Depth (physics). It's about depth in all forms. Let's not remove good information about non-physics meanings. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:41, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Attention needed

This article needs to be improved in order to be encyclopedic. Apart from the introduction, sections are disperse and not connected. Apart from the introduction, definitions of depth are not clear. (For example, sections 3 and 4 are very debatable)

Also, the article is mainly written in a non appropiate tone (for example, expressions like As we learned in kindergarten, or asking why? to introduce the formula of depth, in particular sections 2,3 and 4).

Probably, we'd better turn this article, to a list of meanings, like a "page of homonymy", as I have seen in French Wikipedia fr:Profondeur. Any opinions about this?

--John C PI 23:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dismabig or ?

Checking out the links to this page, I'm kind of at a loss to how many of them should be "disambiguated". Most of the links really intend some kind of dictionary defintion, which I agree shouldn't be on wikipedia. But I'm not sure if this should be a straight disambiguation page either. Looking at length, height, width, I think something like that might be better than the current page (although for sure the current page is better than what was here before). Thoughts? Ewlyahoocom 17:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is not really a proper disambiguation page. A disambig page is supposed to be used when there is more than one article that could have the title "Depth". Looking at the links on this page, although most of them are related to the concept of depth, very few of them could be retitled as "Depth" without severely confusing readers. This should be redone as a substantive page on the concept of depth. --Russ Blau (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
If you find pages using the dictionary definition of depth then it's probably best to change the link to a Wiktionary one or just remove it. In this case the latter is likely to be better because the vast majority of readers will know what "depth" means. If it's being used in a specialised context then there should be a link to the appropriate article, but that's clearly not the case with the majority of these. Soo 13:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)