Talk:Geographical exploration

Dora the Explorer
I mean, come ON.

Thoughts about article improvement
Some random thoughts about improvement of the article. Other thoughts later, if i get the chance. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It needs to begin with some introduction to the concept of exploration (as the lead currently does). We need to distinguish exploration from trade or use of territory. Not all travel is exploration - if it were, the article would become hopelessly bloated. I'm not sure how we should distinguish exploration from settlement.
 * I like the idea of the major sections being "definition / etymology"; "history (or notable periods) of exploration" and "methods of exploration". I'm not sure that we need "terrain and places" as well as sections that describe the history and the methods. However, what the article really needs and has almost nothing on, is material about exploration of the oceans, and of space. I admit I'm not sure how those things fit with the history / methods categorisation.
 * Do we need a separate section on notable explorers, or in a top-level article such as this, confine mention of them to the context in which they appear in the "history" section? I favour the latter.
 * Content that would be valuable: underwater exploration - history including work of James Clark Ross, Challenger expedition, dives of the Bathyscaphe Trieste and the Kaikō; technologies such as bathyscaphes; interplanetary exploration, including probes, and the technologies involved in delivering remote landers on other bodies (such as Mars or Titan).


 * I've added these suggestions to the todo list. ~KvnG 14:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I am working on a draft for underwater exploration which should not be a redirect to oceanography and should become summary section/main hatnote content here. Finding good sources for some aspects of underwater exploration has been a bit slow. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 07:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Article now live in main space. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 09:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Summary section now added. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Philosophical aspects
I came here looking for the meaning of exploration and found almost nothing of interest, mostly some semi-coeherent criticism of the language and political inclusiveness or otherwise of space exploration, which seems mostly to be based on editorial type articles. There is room for improvement. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 12:01, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I've tried to improve the lead based on Oxford's Atlas of Exploration, and Fernández-Armesto's Pathfinders, but the article obviously still needs far more work. DFlhb (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Topic seems to be Geographical exploration
The more general topic of exploration is much broader. Is this use of the term justifiable as the primary topic? Should it be a disambiguation page? (Explorer (disambiguation) does not seem to be most appropriate disambiguation title, there are thousands of them, and they are people, while exploration is an activity) &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 05:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Since no-one has commented, I will propose a rename/move to Geographical exploration, leaving the current title for the broader topic of the general concept of exploration, Please restrict comments and recommendations to options which can be supported by rational argument and evidence. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Still no comment, so will make the move.&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Modern Age is unsuitable section title
Technically the "Modern era" includes the "age of discovery", and "Modern Age" is otherwise undefined in this context, so not helpful to distinguish a time frame. Not sure what to suggest as an alternative, as I have not been much involved in writing this article. Maybe Late modern period or just define the period by a start date. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 05:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any counterproposals I will change it to Late modern period. I am not strongly attached to the term, but suggest that any better alternative that suddenly comes to mind be proposed and explained here before changing. I would appreciate a ping. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This has been done. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 17:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)