Talk:List of caves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Caves
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of caving and cave articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

Worthy caves[edit]

Is this page meant to be a list of caves for which there are wiki pages to link to? That would make sense, otherwise it would just be a meaningless list of names. I understand that it is a work-in-progress and that even stubs take time to create, but it seems to me that caves could be added that hardly deserve mention and are never going to have their own page. There are a few of these already. Should there be an explanatory line added under the title, e.g. "List of Caves: significant caves of the world, by country"? Or am I OTL??Ian mckenzie 03:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Category collect pages that already exists. Lists allow the addition of pages not yet written (but that should be). Some caves probably exists which do not deserve a separate article and might only be mentioned here. Rmhermen 03:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess my concern is that there are hundreds of thousands of named caves in the world, and there is nothing to tell users to restrict their additions to ones that are worthy.Ian mckenzie

Limit the scope[edit]

The following was added to the article by Leitmotiv as a hidden comment in this edit:

I would suggest limiting this list to prominent caves. Prominent by being a national monument, national park, being historically well known, and other similarities. This list could go on forever, unless we limit its scope. No one wants to know about every little itty bitty cave. Include the ones that are popular or are tour sites! Cavers from around the world practice location secrecy to help protect the caves, so you won't be finding out about 99% of the remaining caves anyway. Limit the scope of this list!

I have moved it here since it is an appropriate article improvement discussion topic. WTucker (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree to limiting the caves listed, but it's very difficult to stop people from adding to the list. Cavingliz (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A list full of redlinks isn't going to add anything to wikipedia. Most redlinks (if they had their own page) would be unnotable so as to be worthy of deletion anyway. I recommend the first change to the list should be to remove all the redlinks. Otherwise this list is useless and an eyesore, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't fall within the guidelines of wikipedia standards. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's face the music. Most of these redlinks may never have their own wikipage. And a list full of redlinks is completely useless for wikipedia standards. I may begin deleting all redlinks. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry to take so long to reply. Please wait for a bit. I would like to mull it over. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I've been waiting. This topic "Limit the Scope" really can be spliced with "Worthy caves" above. 98% of all caves are probably not noteworthy or have so very little documentation that any wikiarticles on these caves would be futile. Any cave, or article for that matter, without references is up for deletion. I don't see the point of having redlinks in the list. Information on caves is so sparse and that's partly by design, because cavers' operate in secrecy to help protect the caves. Only tourist caves or culturally popular (old and new alike) caves will be noteworthy enough to have a wikipage. For example: in the county I live in, there's about 500 caves. But only about 15 of those are noteworthy and that's reaching! I could add redlinks for the remaining 485, but what's the point? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
You make a good case. A few thoughts:
  • Would visitors to this page be more pleased to find the redlinks present or absent. That's what this is about, right? A redlink does have a purpose. It shows the existence of a cave. It invites article creation. It gives an idea of how many caves there are in a particular region. If a redlink is misspelled or a synonym, a visitor may fix it, and that could lead somewhere good.
  • A redlink doesn't need to be sourced, just sourcable.
  • You talk of percentages of noteworthy caves. How is that evaluated. A single species of worm is notable. So is a tiny village in Djibouti. There may be many redlinks of seemingly tiny caves that are actually monsters, or connection to other caves.
I don't know beans about caves, but I do know that this is a long-term project, and the notability of some caves on Earth will be revealed. I would really like others to weigh in on this one before a chop. I did a massive chop at List of shipbuilders and shipyards some time back. I regret it now, and am considering restoring much of the content. (By the way, I think you're probably right. If you still think pruning the list is best after reading my comments, I will probably give you my blessings.)
Respectfully yours, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by a redlink being "sourcable." More info on that please. I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia has a policy on redlinks and I'm too lazy to go look it up right now. We should refer to that. I've run into some hardcore Wikipedians that delete redlinks on sight. Here's some thoughts in response to your thoughts:
1. Redlinks are an eyesore. An alternative would be to have nonlinked cave names (in black). But this also brings back the issue of "what's the point?" Lists are generally frowned upon on Wikipedia, because they add nothing to an article. Lists typically are an eyesore as well(I'm guilty of it), and should be dismantled and worked into articles instead of being standalone. Lists typically add nothing to articles and are common fallback strategy in magazines when they run out of workable material.
2. Percentages. I use this percentage based on my experience as a caver. The average person is not aware of all the caves around them. Again, this is partly by design. Cavers operate in secrecy because this is a very effective management policy. The less people that know about a cave, the less likely it is to be vandalized, etc. So that means very few articles will reference a cave. It also means most caves will not have any eligible references for a wikipedia article. There may be references out there, but they are in privately published newsletters for members of clubs only. 99.9% of people don't have access to these resources. There may be a "tiny cave" that is a "monster" as you put it, and is worthy of it's own wikiarticle; but without sources, it too is eligible for deletion.
3. Any redlink may be worked on, that's true. But we're pretty much setting up 98% of cave articles for failure since most will not have suitable references and consequently are eligible for deletion. In most cases, the only caves worthwhile listing are commercial and famous archaeological sites because they will have abundant reference material. Exceptions exist, but they are few (bat hibernaculums, party caves, and accident sites come to mind). Unless cavers want to create wikipedia pages for the more obscure caves, then it's unlikely pages will ever exist for them.
The notability of caves in the world is noted in scientific journals and the newsletters of the National Speleological Society as well as it's counterparts in other nations outside of the U.S.A. So, they are out there, but the material is not in the general publics hands.Leitmotiv (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
1. What I mean is that a redlink can exist if it could potentially be a sourced article. I can't comment on lists within articles, because that's case by case, but there is a vast number of list articles that are essential, from species lists, to gemstones, to prime ministers. Who says they're frowned upon?
2. Good point, but won't the information eventually come out?
3. Personally, I would like more knowledge on details, (or at least the location and number) of caves in any particular area. The fact that the caving community keeps this secret is all the more reason to encourage expansion of this area at Wikipedia. Your statement "worthwhile listing" seems like opinion. To me, even a small cave, like a small species or village, is a notable thing, and merits coverage. I, personally, am not very interested in party or tourist caves. I would like to know about the distribution and characteristics of all caves in all countries. I do trust that you're not trying to keep caves secret. :) I would love to see data from scientific journals and the newsletters of the National Speleological Society become content here at Wikipedia.
As for redlinks being eyesores, I partly agree. I am trying to put myself into the mind of a visitor to this list article. Would that person prefer to see 3 bluelinks, or 3 bluelinks and 12 redlinks? I think the latter. Plus, the table of contents is there to help visitors avoid scolling through a sea of red. I don't know. I'm not at all convinced. Removing the redlinks is like erasing the existence of the items. It will lead visitors to believe that the items listed are the only caves in the region. The redlinks actually show the existence of caves. It shows that they are listed, and on record.
May I ask your opinion on, say, the imaginary List of villages in Cowandrering, India, with 10% bluelinks, and the rest red? Would you prefer the redlinks be deleted in that case? And what of List of Eentzyworm species, with similar percentages?
I'm so sorry to go on about this. I do detest drawn-out discussions. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Anna, no worries on the discussion. 1. In theory, any cave could have the potential to be a sourced article. But we should understand that in most cases the reference material doesn't exist or is very obscure and in limited hands. Which brings me to your point no. 2. The information won't necessarily come out. Remember that secrecy thing? Also, most caves don't get articles written about them. And if they are written about, it's usually just a trip report stating we went to "such and such" cave. Most caver articles aren't scholarly. And finally no. 3:
3. Most people would like details on any cave. But Wikipedia needs sources for these articles otherwise they could be contested and/or deleted. For that 98% of caves, source material doesn't exist! I mentioned the commercial, archaeological, bat, party, and accident caves because these are most likely to be noted in a local newspaper. So at least for those kinds of caves, reference material exists. You may want an article on that tiny cave that turns into a monster (and me too), but without sources, it fails Wikipedia standards and is likely to be deleted.
Same goes for locations. Cavers practice secrecy on locations too! Very few cavers publish cave locations by coordinates. And I may add, any unreferenced location for a cave is also eligible for deletion because that is original research. I personally feel that it's irresponsible to share locations to caves with the general public because you simultaneously jeopardize the life of the would be caver and the inhabitants of the cave. Are these dangerous caves you're sharing locations for? Without proper documentation on the cave you have no clue! Has the person been trained to properly go through a cave and watch out for the local biology and geology? Not likely. Wikipedia's goal is to educate. For that, we need source material to reference.
In response to your redlinks comment. My main point in all of this, is that redlinks don't equate to articles. And because I am a caver and I have knowledge of how the world of caving works, you're basically wasting your time redlinking everything. To summarize, most caves don't have the sources needed to make the articles avoid deletion even if they deserve articles. Hence, my focus on those caves that do have sources (commerical, archaeological, etc.). Any cave that is not known by the public, will not have adequate sources. But yes, as a caver, I do practice cave secrecy. But what's the point in trying to keep publicly known caves secret? That's futile and IMO is counter-productive for those caves. I have created cave articles for notable caves in my local area (complete with references), so rest easy. Examples: Horse Lava Tube System, Redmond Caves, Arnold Lava Tube System, and Skeleton Cave. Like I said, the remaining 485 caves in my county have zero sources and would eventually be deleted so I would be wasting my time.
And in response to your theoretical lists. I have no opinion on those, because I'm not familiar with the subject material. If I had to side one way or the other, based on my experience with Wikipedia, I'd say that I'd only list redlinks if reference material is a high likelihood. For those caves with little to no reference material I'd keep as normal black text. I kind of feel that even a list should have references. I mean, who really knows, if that podunk town in India really exists? There's no sources, no article. John Doe edited it and put it there, but without source material can we be certain that his knowledge is coherent and correct? Is it a tongue in cheek edit that you didn't spot at first? I think unreferenced stuff like that falls into the category of original research which is not permitted to my understanding. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Leitmotiv. You make some good points, and some others I don't agree with. A lot of what you write pertains to articles, and not redlinks.
Just to let you know, I didn't add any of the redlinks. I just formatted the page. So, removal of redlinks won't waste any of the efforts I put in. I just don't want anyone to think I'm having ownership issues. My reluctance to remove the redlinks stems from my reconsideration of the whole thing while looking after lots of Asia school and hospital list articles. I used to think exactly as you do, but then changed my mind. I may need to change my mind again, considering your points, and because guidelines do say: ...rather than using red links in lists, disambiguation pages or templates as an article creation guide, editors are encouraged to write the article first...
And in response to your comment on the theoretical lists, sure, some editors add fake redlinks. I really doubt if any of the redlinks here are fiction. Also, the guidelines do not say "verified". They say "notable and verifiable". You say that you have no opinion because you are "...not familiar with the subject material...", but with caving, you have strong opinions. I am wondering if you have a bias toward secrecy.
I'm just awful with these sorts of matters. I'm easily swayed back and forth. I would make an awful judge. :)
I think we need the community on this one. All we've had so far is a 2009 comment "...I agree to limiting the caves listed, but it's very difficult to stop people from adding to the list...". But that doesn't say much.
I learned a big lesson ages ago, and have made the same mistake again: Engaging in a discussion with one other person, and allowing the thread to become long, is generally a bad idea. It discourages others from weighing in, as that person needs to read up a lot.
I don't always trust myself or any one individual to know what's best. I do trust the community to arrive at the correct decision. A couple of voices either way would really be helpful. I'm sort of "on-the-fenceish" and will accept what others say quite happily. I think I should post below, with a fresh thread, referring to this one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Reset indent. Anna, I never thought you added all the redlinks and I don't frown upon all the redlink contributors. I just think it may be a futile effort for us editors. Anna, I think you and I have plenty in common so I'm happy we had this conversation! One final comment about my bias. I do have bias towards secrecy. I am full aware of it. But I like to think that I try to keep a level head of reason too. Sometimes I fail. But my bias is not willy nilly. It is based on experience with cave management working with local government agencies, private land owners, and the stewards of the caves, us cavers. So hopefully my opinions are worth something! Leitmotiv (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course your opinions are very valuable. And, I think we do have plenty in common. For starters, we are friends, and also we are both on the same side, that is, we are trying to find what's best for the article. I see what's happening here as a form of cooperation.
I have a couple of new observations on the matter which I will post below. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

New Additions[edit]

Hi guys. I just joined WikiProject Caves. I made sure I made my mark... I added three sets of caves: The Chipmunk Caves along the Chilliwack River below the lake, the Slesse Creek Caves & the Gumdrop Caves near Sechelt. Anyhow, that's it for today; its almost midnight & I'm real tired. Goodnight AndrewEnns (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Standard table for "List of caves in XXX" articles[edit]

We're trying to hash something out to use in other articles before the whole thing gets developed and it's too late. Enter here and shed some light. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

What to do with list, when main article is created[edit]

Should we remove the list, leaving only the { { main } }? This will eventually leave this article as nothing more than a collection of mains.

Should we leave the list? This may cause duplicate info.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a main article being worked on? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
WP guidance says that once a main article exists for a section, nothing more should be added to the list, only to the main article (i.e. the list by country). ► Philg88 ◄ talk 20:59, Saturday February 26, 2011 (UTC)
Leitmotiv: Yes. Please see my contribs.
Philg88: But do we zap the list, or just let it remain in its partial state indefinitely? (Because that would look strange and in need of cleanup in 10 years.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi Anna, I'm not sure. I've asked for guidance here as to what to do. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 23:51, Saturday February 26, 2011 (UTC)
Anna, did you mean to give a different link to your contributions. Could you be more specific with examples? Leitmotiv (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
A thousand pardons. Here is the link. And here are the main articles either newly created or recently worked on.
List of caves in Romania * List of caves in Portugal * List of caves in Jamaica * List of caves in Venezuela * List of caves in Ireland * List of caves in Hungary * List of caves in Indonesia * List of caves in Iceland * List of caves in the Czech Republic * List of caves in China * List of caves in Brazil * List of caves in Philippines * List of caves in Saudi Arabia * List of caves in Malta
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


Here's a suggestion: When an article has a { { main } }, move the list to there. For smaller lists, not ready for a main, add the table here. When it gets developed enough, ship it out to a main. This can ensure new main article will have the table format consistent with other mains. What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Another advantage of this is that this article will become useful. It actually will provide onsite info about caves. Visitors will be able to compare countries to see which has the deepest, contains archeological findings, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Further, this might actually warrant the return of the tables I've started as main articles. Only US and UK and a few others really deserve their own articles. Keeping as many countries as possible here would serve visitors well. It would be easy to return the already-made tables here, no energy lost (most effort was spent was making the tables), and then speedy delete the mains. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. That's what I suggested at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(lists)#Guidance_on_list ► Philg88 ◄ talk 20:34, Sunday February 27, 2011 (UTC)
Ahhh, you did. I missed the "...(with content)...". I'll tell you what. It's such an awesome idea that, we, both, us, the two of us, we two, thought up, cleverly, and considering that the only other editor who has weighed in seems to approve of what we are doing, why not just be bold and go ahead with it? I am very happy to return the lists here. Actually, what the heck. I'm going to boldly start on it now. Good job thinking up the plan that I also thought up an extremely short time later. Cognac all around. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Update[edit]

  • I added all lists to tables that do not have a { { main } } article.
  • I returned the tables and speedied the dozen { { main } } articles I created.
  • All invisible comments have been removed.
  • All redlink {{ main} }s have been removed.

Issues:

  • There is a huge white space at the top.
  • Articles with mains have a different format.
  • The partial/messy lists remain for countries with blue link { { main } }s.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment:

  • One huge table might have worth if a country column were added. This would allow global sorting to group all geologically similar caves, or show longest in the world, etc. This could be done with a macro, but doing so might be insane.
  • I'm done here, I think. Please let me know if the current state is okay.
  • Please give the page a once-over to be sure I haven't done anything really stupid. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Community opinion needed on red links[edit]

See discussion above: Talk:List of caves#Limit the scope


A. All the red links should be removed

B. All the red links should not be removed


What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. I think Leitmotiv is basically right. As it is, this list is not very useful and is full of links for caves which are not notable and will never have an article. I believe the list should only include truely notable caves. The easiest way to determine that is to limit the list to only those that have articles that have survived a notability assessment. Trim the list and keep it trimmed is my point of view. Though a lot of people consider caves to be rare, they are not rare and most State and local archives list thousands, each. The last time I checked, San Saba County, TX listed 641 caves, for example and it is mostly private land with little effort to make a complete survey. Most caves are simply not notable and have no reliable sources from which an article would ever be developed, yet they tend to get listed here because someone knows their name. I would like to see the article only list caves for which an article exists; in other words, no red or black links. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. What about redlinks with refs? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
A ref just means that the cave exists, not that it is sufficiently notable to include in this list. I would delete *all* redlinks. If a redlinked cave with a ref is notable then it shouldn't be too hard to at least create a stub for it. BabelStone (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Redlinks are good. It's how the project grows. Without redlinks a list is just a (possibly) prettier category. If you like to create stubs, do so. And when the next batch of redlinks gets added, you will have work again. Different strokes and all. Any non-notable caves should be removed for being non-notable (or unreference-able), not because they are redlinks. Rmhermen (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes! That makes sense too. Having only bluelinks means impairment of growth. I did some cave articles. If it were not for the redlinks, I never would have made them. Plus, people who come to the page looking for caves in Albania would probably prefer the redlinks. Only 2 bluelinks would give them an "are those all there are?" kind of feeling. Boy oh boy. I don't know what to think. It seems like there are good reasons for both A and B. Maybe we need a C. A nice warm C. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
If you have reason to believe that a red link is notable (because it has significant coverage in a reliable source), leave it in. This will encourage someone to actually create the article; but, too many times, a cave gets listed here simply because it was mentioned, or worse, simply because it exists. I would err on the side of trim. WTucker (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I fall into category C with a heavy dose of Category A. Category C would be to leave some redlinks knowing full well sources exists for these caves. Another thing occurred to me about redlinks with no references: Like WTucker said, some people add caves to the list just because they know a name. But many caves have many different names, some used locally, some used by cavers, and some used by government. Which one is correct? Without proper references none are. With some references, perhaps all are. I think having unsourced redlinks could also create plenty of duplicates in the list. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I read up on the purpose of list articles, and revisited the article as though I were a normal visitor. Instead of focusing on a particular item, take List of caves#Poland, for example. Almost all entries are redlinks, but the table contains information that is useful. It tells me that Poland has caves, something about the composition, depths, locations, etc. Imagine that table having no links. Just black text. Isn't that valuable? Sure, it could be fiction. But, probably not. Maybe it just needs sourcing, and not removing. My point is that items in such a table needn't ever become articles. Each item may in itself not be notable enough for an article. But the collection of items produces a table that has value. So, if it were black, would you want to remove it? Or, is it the colour red that is unsightly? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Your warm C has already been suggested Anna. Some of the names used in the list like Caverna da Tapagem (Devil's Cave) are listed under other names somewhere in the main space. That's what happens when we begin to translate them into something like: Hurdle's Cave. So, the best would be to leave these "referenced red links" in place to be gradually corrected or expanded. "Non-notable red links", poderiam sim ser excluidos da lista aos poucos como mencionado. Krenakarore TK 14:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah Anna, that's what I suggested just above you with Category C. I would have no problem with redlinks for caves with sources, such as the Poland ones. Clearly, most of those caves could at least have their own stub. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
This sounds great. So can we put any mass delete on hold for now? We need time to source. If, after a reasonable period of time, items remain unsourced, we can zap them. Does this sound fair?
Leitmotiv: If you know of caves that will never in a billion years be turned into articles, please feel free to blacklink them.
Now, what about all those {{main}} articles? :( Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I doubt I will ever know if a cave should be blacklinked. Only local cavers will know. My suggestion is to delete redlinks unless you see something that is noteworthy or know of something in particular that will someday probably be at the very least a stub. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean 'turn black' or 'remove entirely'? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, red links should remain in the article, but this list should contain only those caves that has something special/notable in the given country (e.g. largest, deepest, many floors, biggest underground lake, has paintigs or other atractions, etc. — like I was trying to do it here), which should be noted in 'Notes' column (caves without this column filled should be removed). Also number of entries for each country should be limited to, for example, 10 (maybe little more in some cases). Each cave should have at least one reference. I'm sure that such caves will have its own articles rather fast - few years max, not billion years ;-) Danim (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I like this a lot. It prevents the wholesale removal of redlinks which are potentially good, sets in motion vetting to prune out non-notables, encourages sourcing, encourages new article creation (as remaining items would all be good candidates). Nice. I referenced some from http://www-sop.inria.fr/agos/sis/DB/countries.html. They accept only "...contributions deeper than 300m (total height) or longer than 3kms...". Are these all okay? Is there some source we can use to show which should remain and which should be zapped? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Anna, I guess blacklink is a misnomer! I imagine that blacklinks and redlinks are the highest priority in the list for needing references since they will not have their own pages. Anyone could edit in a bogus cave into the list and it's hard to know if it's real, because caves can have weird names (in my county, we have a cave named A.S. Hole and no, it's not significant enough to be on the list and has no existing references). All other regular links will have their corresponding references on their own page and consequently, don't need them on the cave list. So I do favor removal of blacklinks when no reference exists as well as redlinks with no references. So in other words, I'm agreeing with Danim above me, by clarifying that "special/notable" are the referenced caves. So it appears to me that the majority of us are in agreement? By the way. I'm guessing with a outline such as this, there will be very few blacklinks, since anything with a source could conceivably have it's own page and be a redlink at the very least. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
That makes sense. I think we have a good plan here. Any guidance for me on sourcing? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
None at the moment. You may be more experienced than I am. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Me? Experienced at cave sources? I'm afraid that's your area. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I just meant sourcing in general. I see you use some programs to help you. I've never gotten that far! Leitmotiv (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't do anything special. My google searches are often:
  • example -com
  • example site:edu
  • example site:org
  • example site:net
  • example site:gov
I add the ref to the article in the usual way: <ref>http://www.example.com</ref>, and then run http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/view/Reflinks with "interactive" option. That's it. Easy peasy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I could use a bit more time sourcing the redlinks. I've been a bit distracted. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

WP:GNG is an obvious criterion. But what about length and depth? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been shopping for sources. I keep coming back to http://www-sop.inria.fr/agos/sis/DB/database.html. Caves can be searched by depth and length. I (and hopefully others) will look for the longest and deepest on the list and use this site to reference those items. Is this okay with everyone? If it is, how deep and how long makes the cut? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.. lost my edit. Yeah GNG is needed of course. Length and depth are very important to have sourced, since many caves lay claim to the same fame. Even two different surveys of the same cave will turn up different lengths. As for your last comment, you will never have consensus (even amongst cavers) for what constitutes a cave, let alone, how long or deep one should be in order to have it fit certain criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leitmotiv (talkcontribs)
Sorry about the {{inuse}}. I haven't touched it. So, please make the edit (unless it's mass removal). :)
For inclusion into this list article, could you give a number for depth or length? How about at least 500 m deep and/or 10,000 m long? -- 23:51, 8 December 2011‎ Anna Frodesiak
I don't think I can. Any number I'd give you would be arbitrary. My experience would be to list any depth or length at all (small, long, deep, shallow) as long as a reference for it exists. Also Pigsonthewing has re-added the UK caves stating plenty of sources. Anna, since Pigs hasn't cited anything, you can tackle UK if you want. I don't have the time or energy to do such a thing. But if so much time passes without references, I will take those back down. Because if there's no interest in citing references, then there's probably no use in having them on the list. That's up to you guys though. I think the list is so big, with the potential to get bigger, that my focus will be on the U.S. much like Pigsonthewing's is on the U.K. I personally don't have time for the whole world. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I will try to slowly add refs here and there. Hopefully others will too.
Numbers
Some super-rough ballpark figures from the cave dBase mentioned above:
  • About 1,600 items in the list when sorted by length
  • About 1,100 items in the list when sorted by depth
  • (This may mean no depth figures available for about 500, but I don't know.)
  • Median length is about 6,000 m
  • Top 20% (about 350 caves) is 10,000+ m long
  • Median depth is about 500 m
  • Top 20% (about 220 caves) is 700+ m deep
I'm guessing that lots of long caves are also deep, and vice versa. So, a wild guess is that if we call notable (for the purpose of this list) anything over 10,000 long and/or 700 m deep, the list shouldn't get too long, and will contain caves that are, in my humble opinion, worth the mention, and could reasonably be redlinked as "article-worthy". What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, looking at several {{main}} articles, I can see that these numbers are pretty high. Feel free to suggest a much lower bar. Is a 10k long 700 m deep cave considered big? I don't know. I know nothing about caves. But, the ones in the main articles seem awfully puney. Anyway, we've got some numbers down, and that's a start. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. You want to add depths and lengths for all the caves on the list of caves? And then start leaving out those that don't have record of depth or length? Notability for a cave doesn't lie in depth/length alone. Plenty of other things can make a cave notable. Some examples: bat hibernaculums, archaeology, hydrology, speleothems, accidents, and so on. Anyone remember Nutty Putty Cave from Utah a couple Thanksgivings ago? Such a sad story. Honestly, I have no numbers to give you on what is notable for a cave being long or deep. It's all based on human perception of what is important. For me, depth and length matter little, but are interesting to note when that information is present. Surpassing the mile marker for U.S. caves always seems like a neat goal but again is arbitrary. Plenty of 100-foot long caves or less are far more notable than some of the longer or deeper caves in the world, for various reasons. To paraphrase what I've said: Length and depth should not be the defining characteristic for what caves make the list. I thought the list was for any caves appearing on Wikipedia with their own articles. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we've agreed above that the criteria for inclusion in this list is not limited to having an existing article. A redlink/blacklink is fine, provided that it could feasibly become an article, and has at least one good reference.
So, we must decide on criteria that would satisfy inclusion as a redlink/blacklink. I must have deleted a bit of my text before clicking save in my last post. I meant to add something like "If a cave is notable for a reason other than length or depth, then it should remain. If it is not, then maybe we could agree upon a minimum length or depth as criteria for inclusion."
To also paraphrase: Criteria for inclusion should include a minimum depth or length or other particularly notable characteristic.
What do you think? We could set the bar very high in terms of depth or length. If we don't do this, then caves that are extraordinarily deep or long, but otherwise have no notable characteristics, will not be allowed to remain in this list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Ah, ok. So we're still only talking about red/blacklinks. Yeah it's still agreed that those can stay in the list if they have sources. Nothing regarding that has changed. I just meant generally speaking, regarding my earlier statement about caves appearing on Wikipedia with their own articles. Ok, so moving forward... anything that makes the cave notable for a redlink or blacklink can include interesting or important archaeological value, interesting or famous speleothems (like stalactites, rimstone dams), accident sites, dangerous caves noted for instability or other hazardous features (like dead air), caves with significant amounts of water (hydrology), surveyed caves with substantial and reliable references, caves with important bat colonies or hibernaculums or other important biology (e.g. cave adapted invertebrates), caves of scientific interest (e.g. glacier caves, temperature records, special deposits, ice cores, ancient cultural art, minerals, etc.), famously explored caves, and so on. Really, anything can make a cave notable, including the number of people that visit a cave per year. Even a party cave could be considered notable if for nothing else than it's notoriety in a newspaper or police logs. If a cave has a notable reference then it can make the list. If it's a solitary blurb or very little information can be found on the cave, then chances are it's insignificant for the purposes of this list. Perhaps an easier definition would be to define what doesn't make the list. How about caves without sources or reliable sources. Caves without substantiative sources (e.g. that blurb I was talking about earlier). Caves referred to or mentioned only in passing or when in the context of other caves. Duplicate cave names don't make the list (only the most commonly used name, or the name with adequate sources should be listed). That's all I can think of right now. The list can grow quite a bit under these restrictions (I feel it could grow a LOT!). But it really depends on people having a desire to add them to the list and cite them. I don't feel that a cave should remain on the list if sources are available, but no one wants to take the effort to cite them. If there is no interest to do that, then there is no interest in keeping these uninspiring caves on the list. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Splendid. We're making good progress. I sense that we're almost resolved here. The last thing is the depth/length as criteria matter. Extremes in magnitude when it comes to mouth size makes a cave notable, so why not length and depth? This concept jumped out at me when looking at the list at the French dBase. There are lots of very long and deep caves there that appear in our article. So, if they're not otherwise notable, can we allow them to remain? What of the criteria? Top 100 on the list? Over x metres? This seems to be the final issue to resolve. Then we can get started adding refs. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
hehe... okay... you're really twisting my arm to get some firm criteria on depth and length. There just isn't any criteria that exists. It's up to us to decide for the purposes of this list. As for entrances, well... yeah a big entrance is pretty and all, but it means very little. Some of the coolest caves I've been in, have very small entrances! In fact, it seems like a lot of the coolest caves I've been in, have very small and unassuming entrances. But that's just my experience. I would say that any red/blacklink cave that doesn't have reliable sources to cite claims of long lengths or deep depths, is not to be trusted in the first place. Even if a source makes it notable in another way (like the number of bats it harbors), any unsourced claims on it's length shouldn't be added. If there just ain't any sources period for that red/blacklink cave, even if it's one you've personally been in and know it to be 3 miles long, it still doesn't cut the mustard. No sources, no reason to bother. What is dBase? A specific database of some kind? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
That was some fine twistin'. :) Some of my best work. :) Yet you remain untwisted. :) Consider yoga lessons. :) Seriously, we can, for this list, make up the criteria however we like. Does this sound like where we are:
  • We agree that a bluelink obviously stays.
  • We agree that no reference provided in a reasonable time means the item can be removed.
  • We agree that a referenced item that is notable for some cool characteristic stays.
  • Can we agree that a cave (currently on the list or not yet on the list), with a good reference, with a minimum depth or length, and not notable in any other way, can be included? This database can display caves by depth and by length. My view is that the deepest and longest caves listed at that database should appear in this list article. The question is how deep or how long is enough to merit inclusion. It's okay if you disagree, please say. If you agree, please give a number or two. You can pick. You know better than I. This plan seems good to me because it will help us control what's allowed in the article. If we get consensus here, then we can cite that, and boot non-notable items. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, yeah it looks we are in complete agreement. That link is pretty crazy. I'm guessing there are similar lists like this compiled by other people (I've seen one specifically on lava tubes). Depending on the connections these list compilers have, the items on the list may differ from other lists. However, I'm willing to bet the top 10 of any of those lists doesn't shift around much. Take Mammoth Cave System for instance. It outpaces the next cave in length by nearly double. It will be a long time if ever when Mammoth Cave's length is surpassed. The depth category is likely to change in the future though. Here's my rough guess as to what can be included off that list. Since it's a list based solely on measurements of depth and length, the Top 10 would be a good place to start for inclusion. With lengths, I might even include up to no. 15 (the 100,000 meter mark). Heck, no. 14 on the depth list looks good too (the 1,400 meter mark). The trouble with a list from that link, is that you could include the whole list, but what's the point when you could just link to it? It will be more up to date than any list on Wikipedia. As long as that link is reliable, we should be okay here. I don't think this Wikipedia list is trying to compete for attention, so the most notable (as you previously put it) from both lists of that link would suffice for Wikipedia. So that's up for us to decide... Top 5? Top 10? Top 15? It's your call. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. I missed it on my watchlist. There are other lists, but this one seems to be by far the best, and really the only decent international one I could find.
Top 5 or 10? I'm thinking more like top 50 or more. Top 5 or 10 would mean this list article would shrink down to nothing. Would you consider the following notable based solely on magnitude?
  • 50th in depth: Abisso Saragato - Buca dell´Aria Ghiaccia Italy - 1,125m, 14,000m
  • 50th length: Cumberland Caverns USA - 61m, 44,444m
Can we compromise with a somewhat lower bar? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
If you feel Top 50 is needed go for it. But I disagree if you feel length and depth are the only things that will get caves on to this list. It's just one thing that makes a cave notable. I've already outlined other notable things about caves above. There's no need to be afraid that the list will be permanently shrunk because they aren't notable for length or depth. Plenty of other caves have information on them in other manners that could be sourced. It just takes someone with some interest, initiative, and time. Leitmotiv (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Sorry. Maybe I wasn't clear in my last post. But I've written a number of times that characteristics other than length or depth can make a cave notable:
  • "...WP:GNG is an obvious criterion. But what about length and depth?..."
  • "...If we don't do this, then caves that are extraordinarily deep or long, but otherwise have no notable characteristics, will not be allowed to remain in this list..."
  • "...So, if they're not otherwise notable, can we allow them to remain?"
  • "...If a cave is notable for a reason other than length or depth, then it should remain..."
  • "...Criteria for inclusion should include a minimum depth or length or other particularly notable characteristic."
  • "...We agree that a referenced item that is notable for some cool characteristic stays..."
So, yes, notable characteristic stays, top 50 in length stays, top 50 in depth stays. I think we're set. :). Now, I do have a concern that you've just removed a few hundred without checking whether or not the meet these criteria, and before the discussion was finished, and consensus reached. What can we do about that? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
(: I remember. But why do you think the list will be short just because they don't have a notable length or depth? Leitmotiv (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Well that's why I'm confused too. You mentioned that the list is going to be super short if we don't at very least source up to 50 caves from the depth/length list. But as you have stated previously, there are plenty of other notable reasons for a cave to get on the list. There's no fear of the list becoming short just because it's not on the depth/length list. I'm not sure where this reasoning comes from. As I said before, why do we need to duplicate that list here on Wikipedia? Especially when that source will be more up to date than this Wikipedia list. I don't understand why we need to duplicate someone else's work, when a link will suffice. If you think top 50 is needed go for it, but let's not get too excessive. When your reasoning for adding them to the Wikipedia list is for fear of the wikipedia list being short and I just don't see that being the case. Leitmotiv (talk)
I guess I didn't realize how many caves are out there that are notable without having exceptional magnitude. As for duplication, I think duplicating the top 50 has the benefit of them becoming article by being redlinked here. I gather 50 is a bit high. I trust your judgement. How's 40? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Sure. That length/depth list makes it easy to source caves with notable lengths/depths. There are plenty of other notable caves though, it's just gonna be a little harder and more time consuming to source them since they don't make a list like that. There's not a list like "Top 100 archaeological cave sites" in the world. But there are more than 100 noteworthy archaeological caves in the world that have made the news. And we have plenty of other notable criteria for inclusion as well. It comes down to time and energy. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
So are we good to go? Leitmotiv (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Please wait[edit]

Please wait until the discussion about inclusion criteria is complete before pruning the list. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Mixed formatting[edit]

So the list of Caves has some countries with a table format, and others with just the normal wiki look. Is this going to be resolved and become one homogeneous look? What's the status? Leitmotiv (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained revert[edit]

Leitmotiv, why did you re ad the caves in the West bank and Golan heights to the Israel section? [1] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

For the same reason that you noted in the Syrian conflict talk page concerning Israeli occupation. Because worldwide, Israel is recognized there and not some other entity. I recognize the area is in dispute, but this has been done before in the past on this article and it's been reverted. When Palestine is recognized worldwide this will be a quick change, have no worries. Until then, let's keep the POV to that which is held worldwide. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The West bank and Golan heights are not reckognized as part of Israel by anyone, so what exactly are you talking about? What do you mean by "let's keep the POV to that which is held worldwide." ? Your edits are in straight violation of that.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
That's an exaggeration of reality. Many mapmakers show Israel as being sovereign there. That's not to say it's politically correct, but nevertheless it still has some weight. You can change it around if you wish since I'm not too knowledgeable about caves in the region. Re-add the West Bank with the caves that exist there. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Also, don't add Hezekiah's Tunnel. It's man-made and not a true cave. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
If a mapmaker shows Israel as being sovereign in WB and Golan, then it doesn't mean anything as the mapmaker is incorrect.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)