Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:44, 28 July 2009

Re:stubs

Hi all - I've been asked to drop a note here to explain about stub categories for caving, from the point of view of the stub sorting WikiProject. For stubs on caving to be in line with similar stub types (and therefore keep Wikiproject Stub sorting happy), a comparison can be made with the stubs used for articles on mountaineering. With climbing stubs, there is one category, with the template {{climbing-stub}}. Articles on individual climbs are double-stubbed - that is, two different stub templates are added - with climbing-stub and whatever regional geo-stub is appropriate. This makes it possible for editors who know climbing to find articles, and also editors who know their own local areas. Some examples of this method of stubbing can be seen at Hillary Step, Haiku Stairs, and Horse Flats.

By analogy, stubs about individual caves should be marked with {{caving-stub}} and also with the relevant geo-stub. Every country in the world has its own geo-stub, of the form CountryName-geo-stub, and many subnational regions also have (such as individual English counties, for example).

{{Cave-stub}} has been nominated for deletion, as it is likely to cause problems for WikiProject Stub sorting, and is also likely to lead to the possibility of regional geo-stubs being removed from articles, which would result in less likelihood of the articles being edited. In any case, double-stubbing as described above will achieve a similar effect to having a separate cave-stub, whilst also providing extra sorting for editors on a region-by-region basis.

By the way, you might want to consider the idea of a WikiProject-specific talk-page assesment system, as used by many other WikiProjects (for example {{WPBeatles}}). These have the advantage that you can rate all articles related to your wikiproject, not just stubs, and furthermore the template would be dedicated specifically for your WikiProject (stub templates are for use by all WP editors, whether they are poart of your project or not, and can therefore lead to problems of usefulness and scope). Grutness...wha? 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The {{caving-stub}} template was broken, as I found when adding it to Kirkdale Cave (produced an extra blank line and stray ]]). After a lot of fiddling I think I've fixed it, although the template still files under "T" in the category listing which may be avoidable. Apologies if I've broken anything, but it looks as if it's better than it was! PamD 09:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

First cave dive

I just spotted a conflict between two articles, Wookey Hole Caves and Jack Sheppard (cave diver). One claims "first successful cave dive in Britain" was in Wookey Hole 1935, the other "the world's first cave dive in Swildon's Hole on October 4, 1936". To me this doesn't compute, but I know nothing of this field. Maybe it is a simple matter of what equipment was used? If so, please clarify. If it is a case of there being no firm documentary evidence, the material should be rewritten or removed please. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The first cave dive using brearthing apparatus (Standard Diving Dress) was at Wookey Hole in 1935 on 14 July by F.G. Balcombe. Starting at 00:40 and ending at 01:00 (reference: The Log of the Wookey Hole Exploration Expedition, p. 51 (1935)).

Earlier attempts at Swildon's hole were conducted by Balcombe and Sheppard and the latter sucessfully passed Sump 1 on 4 October 1936 (reference: A Glimmering in Darkness).

Earlier cave dives had been conducted overseas by Swiss divers using hard hat gear (reference: The Darkness Beckons) Duncan Price (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Paisley Caves

A recent news item says that evidence for the earliest humans in North America was found in Paisley Caves, Oregon. Not sure if this wikiproject would be interested, but the article was recently born and could use whatever perspectives apply. The article's infobox could really use someone more experienced with it. —EncMstr 19:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

requesting review

I've been working on Jeita Grotto and i know very very little about speleology and caves, i just had to expand this article as it's subject is of great interest currently. briefly, i need expert opinion if it's possible, if anyone could have a look at the article and give me some recommendations, it'd help a lot.

thx Eli+ 08:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1

Your attention is needed at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cave research in India

I'm trying to save this from deletion or a redirect. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are maps to be considered primary or secondary sources?

Please give your input at Misplaced Pages talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 12:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: New articles

A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Misplaced Pages articles and picks up those that are likely related to caves. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/CavesSearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Userbox User caver

Hey everyone. I've made a fairly simple userbox with the same image as is used for the WP:Caves banner, and incorporating the Category:Wikipedian cavers tag. Any thoughts? Take a look at my user page to see it in "action". I was torn between the fairly boring "is a caver" and something like "enjoys dark wet holes" but figured that for something that resides in the Template: namespace it should be worded as unprovocatively as possible :-) – Fattonyni (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Cave alterations

I've added a couple of suggestions regarding alterations to Template:Infobox Cave on the template's talk page. Feel free to add your 2¢. Fattonyni (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cave survey

I've now created a new article devoted to cave surveying, separate from the speleology article as discussed on the talk page there. I've used the contents of the cave cartography section from that page as the basis. Added more detailed information on the BCRA grades and a section on hydrolevelling amongst other stuff. Currently lacking in citations, images and plenty of other info, particularly on software -- please feel free to contribute! Fattonyni (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• I tried to add a sample survey image, but found the thumbnail illegible. Any hints on how to make these sort of things clearer? Ian mckenzie (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the image back but a little higher in the lede section. A more vertical example of a survey would probably fit the article better but the image you added is an improvement. Thanks for it. There is no way that I know of to make the details in the thumb itself more legible. The interested reader will have to click on it to get a better view. WTucker (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I know that this survey is less than ideal, but at least there's no copyright argument with it. It is my hope that a WikiProject Caves participant will replace it with a more suitable one. BTW, the full-size image also does not look so great, for some reason; I thought I had uploaded it at its original size and res, but even 'save for web' res shoulda looked okay...? Ian mckenzie (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh wait; I see that clicking the thumb brings you to a preview of the full-size image, which itself is too big to display. Should I replace the full-size image with one that is resized to fit the page? Ian mckenzie (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Clicking on the thumb will take you to an image page in the file namespace and if the image is too big, it will have an indicator that the full resolution is available with one more click. Sometimes viewing these detailed images is like trying to view a scene through a drinking straw. Images that are mainly used to give a general impression such as portraits tend to fit but those that contain detailed information such as maps tend to need a full resolution examination "through the drinking straw" to be fully appreciated. But, if you think you can improve it, go for it -- it's the wiki way. WTucker (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Project tags

Is there a policy on using the WikiProject:Caves tag? Is there a tag-master? It is inconsistently used (e.g. many articles on caves do not have the tag). Do I just go ahead and tag away? Ian mckenzie (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, tag away. WTucker (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, but for example, is it appropriate to replace a WikiProject Geography tag with a WikiProject Caves tag, since one is a subproject of the other? It would appear to be less cluttered that way, rather than including both tags. I've also asked this on WikiProject Geography talk, but have not had a reply yet. Ian mckenzie (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

While WikiProject Caves is generally considered a subproject of Geography, it is not strictly so. There are many existing and potential articles that would fall into the Caves project that have nothing to do with Geography. So, I would tend not to replace an existing Geography tag but to add a Caves tag. WTucker (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Caves on the map?

The article of this discussion page mentions putting caves on the map (an idiom?), and I see reference to overlaying caves onto maps using satellites. I don't know how you guys feel, or what you're affiliation with caving is, but I personally don't want the average person knowing about most of the caves in my area. Nor would I like them to have access to a map showing where these caves are all at. After seeing the abuse the general public puts caves through, I think I will avoid helping out this aspect of wikipedia. As with the List of caves, I don't see the point in having a list of caves. No one cares about every cave, and nor should they. Some are unremarkable. And most importantly, cavers practice location secrecy, so it's not likely that list will ever be more than 1% complete. With a lot of caves being on private property, having coordinates will be a problem too. Coordinates are supposedly innocent, but let's not kid ourselves or anyone else. The whole point of coordinates is to visit that location. And visiting a cave on private property is breaking the law unless you have full permission from the owner. You also don't want inexperienced people visiting a remote and dangerous cave, especially those with vertical entrances or those with no oxygen. I think it's appropriate to direct people interested in caves and caving to join a local grotto or visit the NSS website for more information. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not alone in your concerns about freely publishing cave locations, especially unprotected, vulnerable ones. Most of the time this information can be removed from the article on the grounds of needing a reliable source. Reliable sources for the geocoord data are hard to find and often do not exist. Often these geocoord additions are simply original research and that is very much frowned upon. WTucker (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of ?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist    23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)