Talk:Urban exploration/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Links

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. There are thousands of pages by urban explorers about their explorations, and adding one implies that there should be links to the others as well. The links in the article should be restricted to pages with information on UE, like Infiltration (with the Infilspeak dictionary, tutorials, etc) and not pages just showing UE (like the ones I'm about to delete). —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Point well taken, but uer.ca is one of the former, not one of the latter (see the enormous UE Encyclopedia section). I've re-added it. jdb ❋ 01:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's also a crap site, but ok. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:11, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

What about this beautifully designed and executed site? http://www.simoncornwell.com/urbex/ Dafyddyoung 13:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the photos, but Brockert is right about WP conventions on this. jdb ❋ (talk) 16:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up links and clearified what each link directed to and the primary language(s) it catered to. Seicer 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems as if some users via IP addresses cannot determine whether or not one link stays or goes within the period of one day, and cannot justify a reason for removing a link without discussion, it will be restored. Link in question was the Tunnel Rats, and after some research upon my part, it is a well dedicated group. If you include one major group, then you cannot exclude another based on no discussion. Seicer 03:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There was a user on UER called Big Poppa Mikey (aka BPM) who was somewhat unpopular, and was eventually banned after threatening to sue UER. Av is the owner of UER, so at least most of the vandalism is true, if off topic. If you look at the contribs of the first vandal IP, you can see that they also vandalized Eifel aqueduct (probably because it was on the main page), signing it BPM. I have not actually contacted BPM to see if he's the one doing this, though I'm sure I could dig up some contact info if anyone would like. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

www.uer.ca

I think this link should be reomoved because they are getting away from Urban Exploration on their site and becoming more a a general forum where anything and anyone can be posted. UER is getting away from the meaning of UE'ing and becoming a a group of people who discuss everything. In fact, you could call them a news group or one big bloggish collaboration.

David

Most Internet fora, as they grow sufficiently large, undergo topic drift. It's natural. That aside, I posted the uer.ca link solely on the basis of their encyclopedia, which as far as I know remains on the site. If you think that the encyclopedia isn't useful, let me know; I'm restoring it for now. jdb ❋ 06:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

www.uer.ca Removal

I have removed the link to www.uer.ca because the site is no longer on the internet. If it shall resurface in the future, I will re-add it. At this time, I have been informed that UER is no longer going to be up and running.

John D

Er, the site says "UER IS DOWN until new server is online." We probably should restore it when it comes back up (assuming it hasn't changed for the worse). (If it indeed never comes back up, at least we won't have to deal with all the damned vandalism that the link attracts.) jdb ❋ (talk) 04:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Note: UER is back online and the link has been restored. UER is not a site that showcases UE, it's a site with resources and information about UE, which makes it ideal for wikipedia.

-Av, Apr 26 2005.

One, do not remove other people's comments. Two, make at least a tiny effort to get people's names right. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 22:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The information you are posting is not publically available. Cease immediatly. I have already filed a complaint with sysop Angela. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angela#Problem_with_Ben_Brockert

If only the actual article got this much attention. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I also wonder how the UER site maintainer's personal life is at all relevant to this article? It seems like an attempt at an ad hominem attack on your part. For better or worse UER still has a large membership making topical posts (as well as the Encyclopedia), and should therefore be included in the article if any other such sites are also included. - Robert Stephens 03:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the copyrighted images which have been posted illegally on this site without permission, and I have also removed the completely irrelevant personal details posted without permission by Ben Brockert. Any attemps to return them will result in legal action against this site / Ben Brockert.

History?

I don't know much of the history of urban exploration, but I think some of it belongs on this page. Can anyone help out with this? --Prangton 18:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The closest thing to an authoritative history would probably be the timeline on Infiltration, although its mood is best described as playful rather than serious. I would try to include it but I am not particularly familiar with the Wikipedia way of doing things yet, so perhaps someone better versed than I can try to assimilate it into the article. - Robert Stephens 03:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can explain the Australian history.

The first known drain explorer was Alf Saddlier who was active from the mid 1940s for about ten years.

There was also a group called The Drainiacs.

There has been explorers in France exploring the quaries for hundreds of years.

As far as recent history goes I can tell you this - the first three website involving UE were Cave Clan sites made by local branches. The first was the South Australian branch of the Cave Clan. The second was from Canberra and was called 'Draining Down Under'. The third is what is now www.caveclan.org.

As far as I know the Cave Clan were the first group to travel/spread to other states. We have branches in all capital cities in Australia as well as members around the world.

AH, I could bore you for hours about Cave Clan's part in the history of UE... but I won't :)

Having the name 'cave' in our title confuses people. We spend as much time exploring above ground as we do under it (just added that in case someone says, "draining isn't real UE" :)

Cheers, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DougClan (talk • contribs) 16:42, 12, July 2006 .

If you want, you can modify the draining article since it is a redirect to the urban exploration bit. This will help cut down on the length of this page and have a more specific devotion to that entirely different interest. Seicer (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional Links

I have recently added a group mentioned in the articles website, on finding and exploring it I found it to be of worth to this article as it contains numerous explanitory works on urbex, namely a comprehensive FAQ, forum, photo archives and analytical writings on the concept and act of urbex. It is also worth noting that they are the first officially recognised legal entity solely for the purpose of urbex (in Australia, .org.au's can only be registered by a legal organisation / entity), which is highly amusing as it appears that urbex is slowly getting recognised as a legal sport/hobby! ;)

Perhaps for future clarity, other authors adding links to this article might want to throw their reasoning under mine, so we don't get pointless advertising of random sub-cultures.

Jachin 1 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)

List of Abandonments

Is the list of abandonments really necessary? Any building can eventually become abandoned, regardless of its prior use. Plus, if people just keep adding to the list, eventually it'll take up half the page.

I didn't want to straight up remove it, since it's been edited a lot, and it does link to other pages. But is it useful to the content of the page? If it isn't, maybe someone should snip it. --Prangton 17:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - I read the list thinking "huh, why would any building not be in this list?". StephenHildrey 20:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, cool. This question's been sitting around for a while so I'll take that an ok to remove it. If anyone wants it back, they can just revert the change. --Prangton 02:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I realized that there were a lot of wiki links in the list, so I tried to preserve those by integrating them into the leading paragraph. --Prangton 02:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Popularity

I would enjoy reading other opinions about the 'popularity' of urban exploration. There have been numerous threads posted about this on multiple forums, albeit they are on restricted systems. I made my opinion known in the article that is hyperlinked. Since it is a hot topic and others will probably contribute to that new section, you may wish to break the 'popularity' section with links to respective opinions. Seicer 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference btwn. movies and short films

Please keep major movie releases to the movie section of the urban exploration page. Short films (under one hour typically) and documentaries that do not have major backing, please keep it regulated under short films and documentaries. Seicer 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggest adding Parkour for see also list

Makes sense to me - another "guerilla" sport based on the urban environment Bwithh 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

added Urban exploration to the Parkour see also list Bwithh 21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Any further attempts without discussion will be considered vandalism. I'm tired of seeing this come and go, come and go, come and go with no word or even an edit summary. Everyone was given ample time to discuss. So if you really want to remove it, discuss it first. Seicer (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what do you mean? Are you talking about Parkour or something else? Bwithh 03:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I confused this with an edit war over Parkour in another article. Sorry. Seicer (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Links based on "size"

This is a discussion on the External Links section which a user has reverted based on "size". It is a relative term, to which it can be argued to a great extent. An urban exploration site does not have to be based on the amount of "members" or the amount of photographs. As per Wiki standards, alphabetized links are the preferred way to go. If there are any arguments against the standard, discuss it here. Seicer 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, having links ordered by popularity or contributions (or even date added) makes much more sense than simply ordering alphabetically. Why should 'Drainfreaks' be listed above 'Infiltration'? Infiltration is one of the oldest sites on the net on this topic; it definetly deserves to be listed first. -- JamesBuegleFarmer, July 7, 2006.

And what makes 'Infiltration' much more enticing (in my opinion) than 'Urban Explorers'? I find the latter to be much more satisfying and something I can relate to. Using this methodology of organizing gives preference based on your relative thinking of a site's popularity. Wikipedia is a site conforming to a NPOV, and precedence must be given to that over a site's "popularity" based on a user's beliefs. To add further, Infiltration is one of the oldest sites, but others are just as old and just as popular. The forum on Infiltration, for instance, cannot be used to gauge its popularity since it is linked to uer.ca's forum. Seicer 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To further bring the links to a NPOV, I removed the descriptions. This should also resolve any disputes. As it stands, do not add any links that cater to a foreign language, are blogs, or social networking sites. Any site that "contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" should also not be considered for addition. Seicer 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll give this discussion one week to come to a conclusion on the ordering of the links. During this time, do not go in and add descriptions or swap orders as this will be reverted until a compromise can be reached. But based upon articles that I have read, and general list standards, I am going to state that it should be alphabetized to remove further bias towards anyones relative opinion on a link or subject. Seicer 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to give orders on how this page is to proceed, or to decide how much time a discussion should take? I don't recall any election in which you were placed in charge of this particular page. It predates your arrival on the Wikipedia by a considerable margin. The solution to this problem should be arrived at through discussion and not ultimatums.

With that said, I think the links should be ordered by the date upon which the site appeared on the internet. A quick and easy way to do this is to check the site www.archive.org. Why does this make more sense than alphabetically? Well, if the rule was Alphabetically, "Aaron's Craptacular UE site" (example) would appear at the top of the list, while the revolutionary Infiltration website would be lost somewhere in the middle. -- JamesBuegleFarmer, July 10, 2006.

No, you edited the links to which I had cleaned up and had conformed (at the time to my knowledge) to Wikipedia's standards for links. I then further revised them by revising them to Wikipedia's standards for lists and removed the descriptions to rid the discrimination between any sites via bias. With your last statement there, you are introducing your own personal bias, by stating Infilitration as "revolutionary" when that is your own personal opinion, not a factual statement. There is a big difference. A links page (and the page as a whole) should be as free from any personal bias as possible. See the [neutral point of view] page for guidelines.

To add, just because the page predates my arrival in a time frame, doesn't mean that no one can improve on an article. When I first began editing this article, it was full of blantant bias, not only to several web-sites, but to many other aspects. It had a lot of categorization issues, and was partial in that it presented one set of viewpoints. I corrected and amended the article, and expanded upon it. Wikipedia is a site that anyone can edit it. I am not giving orders, but since you gave no logical reason to why you reverted the links to a standard against Wikipedia's policies, I am opening the discussion into reverting it to a non-biased state. I suggest you read the NPOV article I cited, along with the standard for lists and links. Seicer 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there is a dispute about which link is "best, more reliable, more revolutionary" etc. and since the links are only separated by 5mm each anyway, an alphabetic list is the best solution. Additionally, most readers will realize the links are alphabetized, so (for example) "Aaron's Craptacular UE site" being at the top would impart no special significance. LuckyLouie 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The discussion was originally centered around its unordered list. Then it was about its "size." Then "popularity." And now its original inclusion date into Archive.org. Let's keep it uniform by applying one set of standards - by arranging them alphabetically. It's easy. Seicer 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:EL, Lists (stand-alone lists), WP:MOS-L Seicer (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Following the official guideline on reliable sources for external links, I think that it would be best if every external reference and link be checked for consistancy. Furthermore, a guideline should be set up to determine what constitutes an "external link" and if blantant violations of several Wiki policies (such as WP:RS) would constitute its removal. Discuss. Seicer 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

UE Zines

Forgive me as I know what I do :) In regards to... Magazines The following is a comment embedded within the urban exploration article. (amended by Seicer for readability and to prevent page break.

(seicer 05.28.06) Please do not add magazines that are not published regularly or on a basis that can not be considered consistant (e.g. 'once in a while as I see fit' is not a valid excuse). Magazines can be either online or offline but must fall under the defination of a magazine and must be wide enough to cater to a large audience. This is to be as specific as possible and not include every web-site that may publish a UE related article and consider itself to be a blog or a zine.

I produce The Cave Clan Magazine (there is no link). It somes out regularly.

I also produce Il Draino although it now only comes out 6 months a year (it used to be every 2 months).http://caveclan.org/ildraino.html

There is also The Explorer's Digest which is now the Cave Clan Newsletter.

I was wondering, and not meaning any disrespect, but maybe you should mention that Infiltration is no longer produced as it's hard to call it regular.

Cheers,

PS. Sorry, I know I've done this the wrong way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DougClan (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12, July 2006.

Thanks for the information regarding that. I'll amend it to reflect the changes. Also, see your talk page as I've included osme useful information :) Seicer (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Jeff Chapman

Is Chapman (Ninjalicious) worth noting?--Monkeypillow 08:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Focusing on one explorer would open the doors to mentioning many others who have made similar contributions. To remove as much bias, I would think it would be best to leave any mention of any specific explorer out unless we want to go through and mention hundreds of others who have photographed/explored/written about just as much. Seicer (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What is this MTV show

a MTV special where they investigate a 'haunted' location. Does anyone know the name of this special? It'd be nice to include that. Twelvethirteen 18:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fear_on_MTV Since urban exploration does not relate directly to ghost hunting, and since Fear was very much fake, it would not be a good canadiate for this article IMO. Seicer (talk) 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hey. I'm doing some cleanup on this article. If you see anything disappear that you were really attatched to, feel free to revert part or all of what I do. If I remove, move, or change anything, it's probably due to readability problems rather than an objection to the content. There is some POV writing in here, which is a bit troublesome, so I may change some stuff like that. Twelvethirteen 20:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I experimented with the references, check the links I cited in the article history to see the two if you want to cite any later. Anyone want to help partake in the link cleanup? Seicer (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I've got a question about this:

The discussion revolves around two feuding web-sites, Urban Exploration Resource and Deggi5, to which the argument revolves around the online presence and the shopping cart structure of many online sites.

I don't really understand what this means. If you know, could you rewrite this? Otherwise, I'm tempted to delete it.

I'm also concerned about the POV and notibility of the blog column. What does this have to do with the popularity of UE? Right now portions of the Popularity section seem more like a "see also" section Twelvethirteen 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That stemmed from the article which critised one web-site for its "shopping cart" database of locations. There have been many heated arguments on many sites about such a database and to its long-range effects. Several claim that the "shopping cart" method leads to increased vandalism at popular urban exploration sites, such as state hospitals, while others claim that it provides easier access for "newbs." You could also make the point that it can undermine the secrecy or the "underground" nature that urban exploration once had before the advant of popularized urban exploration web-sites. I could go on further, but lets hold off on deletion until an agreement can be reached on this, because it is a topic that is quite vocal on many forums and is only increasing with mainstream media coverage. Seicer (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading over the paragraphs under Popularity, it could be greatly elaborated with many differing viewpoints inserted to retain a neutral point of view. I asked for other inputs via another forum since many were engaged in discussions relating to this, so they may be able to shed some more insight onto this. Seicer (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind, wikipedia has a policy against original research, which kind of sounds like your idea, and web forum users are not exactly reliable sources anyway. Can you confirm that this blog column is notable? Just say the word and I'll leave it in.

Also, now that you've explained that awkward sentence I quoted above, I think I can rewrite it to be more understandable. Thanks. Twelvethirteen 21:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it original research since those statements (regarding popularity) are not previously unpublished statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas. This debate has been revolving for over two years with many inputs with many different viewpoints, and is only much more widespread now with the advent of shows such as Fear and the sub-relevant show, Ghost Hunters. Even movies such as Session 9 and Death Tunnel raise the popularity of this hobby. The blog was written by myself, however, it is pretty much a much longer rehash of my previous statement and could be used as a counterpoint for many arguments if the Popularity section is expanded upon - granted that there are arguments for the other side. Seicer (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Popularity subsection to a more neutral point of view, but I need to add more citations which I will add fairly soon. I've got several forum leads that will add approperiate citations to the viewpoints from both ends, to give it a balanced approach. It may need to expanded upon, however. Seicer (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I need to go and revise the link to the video for Hallmark under Popularity. I'm thinking of switching out from the citation templates (they are no longer recommended for use) and go to just the MLA format. Seicer (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I readded the "Shiroi" comment since it involved vandalism and partying, among other things that very much stretch the defination of "urban exploration" and should be more along the lines of vandalism, trespassing, breaking/entering, etc. from the threads I have read on the event. I asked for help from various members from several UE forums to see if more information can be added. Seicer (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I read the reference about the Shiroi meet, and I missed the sections that indicated there was vandalism and partying at the event. It doesn't really support the assertions as far as I can see. Do you have another reference that does support this? I don't agree with what he does, but that doesn't mean he should be accused of things he doesn't do. Oherian 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a couple of sentences in the Popularity subsection I'm having difficulty understanding. One of them is: Recent television shows, such as "Urban Explorers" on the Discovery Channel, MTV's Fear, and the The Atlantic Paranormal Society have mentioned or featured the hobby as a whole as one; interviews, such as on "New Morning" on the Hallmark Channel pose a different view. This doesn't clearly explain what the different views are. Is one in favor, and the other opposed? I think I know what you mean—enough that I was tempted to change it—but I think it would be better for you to edit to to be certain.

The other sentence that is confusing is: Posting specific details on entry points and how "easy" it was to gain entry to the disused facility, there was much discussion regarding the media coverage and the presence of urban exploration on the Internet. Those two clauses don't seem to go together, and I'm not certain what you mean. Oherian 14:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Popularity (cont.)

It was brought to my attention that instead of contributing to the discussion here at Wikipedia, user Shiroi (at UER) brought it upon her self to clearify her statements (and add ad homem attacks) at her own post. To clearify, there was much discussion regarding the meet that was added after I had edited the article (it's a site I no longer frequent and check) and points were clearified. I am still waiting verification that the meet was not related to urban exploration but rather it was a gathering of people who partied or did whatever that excludes it from the interest of urban exploration.

To continue, Oherian did not "stand up" against me in any way; he just read up on the later posts that clearified some of the more obsecured points. I asked him for assitance with the article so that any non-neutral point of view statements could be removed. It's certaintly hard to edit an article you are deeply involved with and not have a slant to it, but since I am one of the only ones that edits this article (and related articles) on a frequent basis, I am the one whose face is out there the most. Go figure.

So if you could please discuss the article here instead of on UER and contribute to what the theme and point of the meet is, so that I can properly label it (or remove it if it is not related to urban exploration), that would be much appreciated. Also note that the Shiroi meet was removed a while back at my edit due to its unverifiability, but was readded after the new crop of posts appeared. Thanks! Seicer (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As a rebuttal to secier's current discussion here, I would like to say that Shiroi first is a male and his meets are not overrun by non-urban explorers and do not have vandalism or drinking. Its however a more relaxed UE meet and has been known as one of the more fun meets in Toronto, but its not exactly partying. However it is in fact a UE meet and not what secier has described it. I know this for a fact because I know the Toronto explorers pretty well and know what goes on there pretty accuratly. Agentskelly 16:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To add, Shiroi, if you have AIM or some way I can contact you, let's discuss this further. And to add from your comment on UER under the same thread cited above, do not go and add the Shiroi meet to its own page or as a seperate subheader, as that will require as a result, pages for every meet. That will be a pain to do and will not be much of an encylopedic entry. Seicer (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've signed up an account and made a change to the entry about my meet to clarify what it really is. Thanks for the support Skelly. And I don't have anything against you Seicer, all of that just sort of jumped at me when I started recieving negative messages from people who started thinking I'm a vandal because of this page. I did not make a page for the meet because you know more about how Wikipedia works than I do, Seicer, so I'll go by your suggestion. Shiroi kuro 17:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No worries. It's best that it is taken care of now rather than have it devolve (both here and on UER) into a flame war. Seicer (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the edits made by 67.188.126.200, I have not done a third revert based on my policy of a two-revert rule for one day. Feel free to remove the offending content and see Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes if you have any questions. Seicer (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed this morning that he added the information back in. I agree that it isn't NPOV. I'm going to do a revert, but we made need to take this further. Oherian 11:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

After closer examination, 67.188.126.200 is in violation of the three revert rule. Additionally, it appears we have another link spammer, 83.182.129.252, who repeatedly changes a link in the Further Reading subsection. I think this should be taken further. Seicer, you know the procedure far better than I. Is it proper to do so? Oherian 11:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Gave him a warning, further reverts will spawn another warning, then I will seek moderator request. Seicer (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Not link spamming

Both of you seem to have problems seeing that this is factual information. I am trying to bring to light the difference between the two sites and you both refuse to see this. It is a NPOV, one person steals, the other does not. What is the problem? People who are in this hobby need to know what they face if they associate with certain groups. Would you not want to know? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.188.126.200 (talk • contribs) .

I took this to your talk page, to which you refused to answer the latter question to which I posed to you. You then made essentially a revert of the content that was disputed. Let me cite to you what was incorrect in your content --

WP:NPOV states: Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias.
This means that the text you entered, in which you put UER on a high pedistal and bash Deggi5, introduces bias into the article. Both sites have many members, who may or may not engage in vandalism, tagging, or any unwarranted behaviour. This cannot be proven or disproven. As such, they are not verifiable unless you plan on interviewing each member of each respective web-site.
Your content also contained no citations or footnotes to back up your assertations.
Adding content about Mike from Deggi5 (the founder) will only introduce bias and violate the neutral stance that the article is taking. What goes on with his personal life is not representative as a whole to Deggi5, UER, or any other web community. Although he was charged with the crime, introducing it into the body of the text will only serve to further the bias against Deggi5 and only further put UER on your claimed pedistal.
The "difference" you state in these two sites is not verifiable on the whole, and you offer only bias. "One person steals" does not represent an entire web community, mind you. Members of both sites have claimed to have taken items from abandonments, but of course, this is all based on what you believe in and what your ethics are. Not all explorers are the same.
Based on your Shiroi "vandalism" comments, I went in and changed it, along with other contributors, to one based on new and now factual information. No vandalism had occured - this is all covered in this discussion page.
And I reverted not just because of the disregard for WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CITE, but also because of WP:EL. Seicer (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Link Reverts

Let's stop deleting, moving, and adding links. It's getting very tiring to see the only thing anonymous users will contribute is the "Further reading" section. Rather, you should be editing the content of the article itself.

With that, I think it is time we go through and cull articles that fail policy. This will be a discussion that will end Friday, August 18, 2006, which allows for adequate input from all parties involved.

Abandoned: Contains accurate and neutral information, and contains relevant and approperiate content for the urban exploration article.
Dark Places: ?
Infiltration Zine: Features much relevant information regarding urban exploring as a whole. The forum, however, it linked to UER.
Urban Adventure: Contains neutral information regarding safety and exploration as a while, relevant and approperiate for the urban exploration article.
Urban exploration & draining web-ring: Web-ring that is not as updated or contains too many sites. This is great because it keeps many from linking on Wikipedia :)
Urban Exploration Resource: Contains an encylopedia which does not duplicate any information within this article. It does feature, however, a "two-tiered" system which restricts many people from viewing a lot of content on the site, which is listed as a "avoidance" on WP:EL. Due to its large user-contribution presence, it contains some unverified research/inaccurate materials and copyrighted images, however, it is a low percentage.
UK Urban Exploration Forums: This should not be included because it is just a forum.
Urban Explorers: Features "popular" topics such as "What to bring" and other relevant information that may or may not be covered in other sites.
Urbex Forum: Large foreign site (in English) with a large forum. It features content that is relevant to the article. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good discussion for us to have, but I'm a little unsure of why these particular links were chosen in the first place. Does anyone know what criteria was used to chose these? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oherian (talk • contribs) .

There wasn't any at the time. There was a heated discussion a long time ago, in which some people from UER got heated because their link was removed. That was when the policy of "no link spamming" was put in place, but it is vague at best. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the webring should definitely be on there. UER as well, because no matter what someone may feel about it, it may be the largest forum on this topic on the web, both in number of members and volume of posts. Infiltration has been fairly significant I think, but that's completely personal opinion. Actually, after rereading your comments, I find myself agreeing with most of them. However, rather than looking at sites and deciding if they fit, should we perhaps attempt to establish criteria for this section and then include links that meet that criteria? This might be better long term, if people want to add sites in the future. Oherian 17:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As for criteria, I was just going by WP:EL, however, a more localised case could come here. Also see this [1] for more information on prior discussions. I made it easier to also reference by the numbers in the future. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Urban adventure is an old website without any interest: crappy pics, boring-close-to-tourism-activities, banalities, why do you want this one, is it a friends of yours? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.94.95.82 (talk • contribs) .

Incorrect on your generalized speculations. I visited Urban Adventure perhaps a handful of times years ago, but have not in quite a long time except for this vote. The site contains relevant general UE information and safety information not covered in this article. Therefore, the site abides by the policies set forth by WP:EL. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Moved voting end date to Friday, August 20, 2006 since I will be out of town beginning Sunday, August 13, 2006 to Wednesday, August 15, 2006. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's also use this time to discuss whether or not we should allow a voting process for any new links that are added. If the link added to the article page is not listed on here (when the vote is complete), then I feel it should be left on the article page until a vote is reached whether or not it should be kept. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that you need to make a policy or decision on what type of sites should be included in the link list. Here are the types of UE sites that I see on the net:

Personal or group UE sites with photos and stories (example: UEC, Cave Clan, many more)
Community websites with public forums (Abandoned, UER, etc)
Community websites for a smaller or local communities with private forums (Deggi5, wraiths, etc)

If you have one type, you should not disallow the other type, unless there is a specific reason for it. If "Urban Adventure" is listed, so should all other UE sites of type #1. Does this make sense to you? Avatar-X 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

^^ Makes sense to me. Where does this "votingh" happen? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.94.95.82 (talk • contribs) .

I think it does make sense, but I'm still debating the usefulness of most of these links. Even if they do contain valuable information, it seems to be buried in menus. Perhaps the links would be better served linking completely to the sections that are pertinent?

The more I think about these sites and WP:EL, I'm not certain if any of them actually meet the qualifications. Specifically bothering me are the 1,2, and 3rd provisions of Links Normally to be Avoided. Do these links really present a unique resource that goes beyond the scope of what this article would be if it were a featured article? Are they in fact original research? I think some of them must be -- the Encyclopedia on UER and the listings of items to bring certainly are. And Abandoned being your site is disqualified as well, unless someone neutral decides to add it.

In addition, I see our anonymous "friends" keep link spamming. Reverting... Oherian 17:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There are not many sites that contain relevant information. The sites cited above contain information that go beyond the scope of this article. If in the future, this article is expanded to include safety information, for instance, then those then-relevant links shall be removed since they then duplicate whats on here. Of course, proper citations in the references would be issued. I don't think that we have come to a clear consensus here and IMO, without enough votes, we should just take any new links on a case-by-case basis under a new talk heading. Does that make any sense? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Since there was no formal agreement and since there were not enough votes to contribute worthwhile to this discussion, all links in the future will be taken on a case-by-case basis and will undergo a vote for a period of two weeks. That should be sufficent time for any input to be garnered. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Spammers

Is there a way we can keep that spammer who keeps on trying to post a link to their russian UE forum from posting? I mean this is getting a little bit annoying and also rude. We've told them time in and time out that their link is not acceptiable for the entry, yet they continue to try to get it included in the entry so as to increase their traffic. Now it is even a closed forum which means you need to sign up to see the content, yet that is also another way to generate more traffic for the link. Brothejr (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Movies

I wanted to ask this question. I can completely understand and agree with removing those movies from the entry as they do not pertain to Urban Exploring, but would it be worth it to start a new entry for movies either based fully in or partially in abandoned buildings? Brothejr (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Link additions

www.uepedia.org will happily accept UE related web page links. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.192.47 (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note: You (the members who "vote" here) do not represent Wikipedia and the Urban Exploring community as a whole. Some of links that you have agreed upon as representative of the community are considered External links and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam and have been removed. As you have mentioned before Wikipedia is not a web site advertising service. Also, please note that you do not have the power to arbitrarily vote on any link as you are not an authorized moderator/administrator and do not have the power to speak for Wikipedia as a company or the Urban Explorer community at large.

For those who want to add their link: you do not need to discuss it first here before adding the link. However, you must make sure that the link adds to the content of the article and is not just there for advertising purposes. For more information about adding a link please read: External links and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Old voting system

Since there was no formal agreement and since there were not enough votes to contribute to a worthwhile deciding process, all links will be taken on a case-by-ase basis and will undergo a vote and discussion for a period of two weeks. Any input will be considered. To consider your link for inclusion, add in a subheading using this template:

=== LINK TITLE ===

URL

REASON ~~~~

Link title should be a subheading under this header. The URL should follow policy. The reason should adequately explain why you want the link to be included.

This will provide a neutral standpoint for new link inclusions and will ensure that there will be little disruptions on the main page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Exploration-Nation

http://exploration-nation.fotopic.net/

Urban Exploration website created by Explorette. UEing around the UK and Europe trying to document as many places as possible before they are gone forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.81.240 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

SKYFI

http://skyfi.org.ru

Site of russian urban explorer and digger. a lot of photos, some text on russian. Moscow side exploration. Please add —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.195.55.130 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

UPD!!! So what? Pls, add my site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.195.55.130 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Derelict Places

http://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/

Uk UE site, quite mature now, active, see no reason why it should not be added :)

Like to see some comment on this site. Do we need another forum, one primarily limited to a particular geographic location? I would say no, but I don't want to be the sole arbiter on the subject. Oherian 12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It is similar to 28 days later in age and content, just not as popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.9.21 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Urb-x

http://urbx.org.au

An Australian website that features a forum and photo gallery. Is easy to participate in and is expanding. Camro77 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This hasn't undergone the review it should. Would some people like to look at it and offer their opinions? Oherian 12:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree - looks good. Genuine urbex page with what looks like a growing list of photos, plus detailed reports of all the locations they have been. Photos aren't amazing, but I'm sure that will improve as the member list grows.Winkie (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - looks bad. Contains 5-10 drain stories and about 10 crappy drain photos. The front page "under construction" summarizes it pretty well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.174.186.80 (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Quite detailed. Included a write up about urban exploration, defines it, explains it and links to this article. Includes links to other urbex groups. Seems like a pretty comprehensive resource with photos, forum, galleries, write ups and open to public. I can't see the "under construction" note anywhere. So please explain where that is. Counted 17 drain photos, not 5 - 10. Also note that includes photos of sewers, bunkers and above ground locations and factories.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.141.205 (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree- While site is under construction and still growing it clearly has a stong user base already. Photos are not of greatest quality, although it should be recognised that the photographer is probably not a hobbiest photographer rather an explorer with a photographic journal of visited places. Furthermore it should be noted that the site seems to be all original content with no plagarism or copied photos. To eradicate this link based on lack of picture quality or age of site would be not only unwarranted but also prejudiced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D3vilish (talk • contribs) 12:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - This site is a pure joke. "The elite of UE" on the front page. Probably set up by angry teenagers. :-) There is not 'under construction' sign , but if this means that the site is finished, omg! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.174.182.85 (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree - With the above sentiment. The site appears complete, and there seems to be what looks like a user submitted gallery with a lot of good images. The site is original, seems to have a lot of original content and covers quite a vast area in terms of exploration. And from what I see the site's size is growing all the time with an influx of newer explorers. It's one of the few Australian UE group sites that has an open mind to new explorers, and provides a lot of free and useful information by many members from different locations and of different explorers.

It does not alienate others with this elitism prevalent above.

Apparently there is also a 'two week evaluation period' for this site to be added to the UE article, however this seems to have lasted upwards of five months. Fruition eta?

urban-bolton

http://www.urban-bolton.co.uk -- a new site with pictures and also a new forum, join now the community is growing every day

Disagree -- very geographically limited, and basically a personal photo site. Oherian 12:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree this site does not add anything to the article and it also is a geographically limited forum that is more of a personal nature. Brothejr (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

datamonkeys

http://www.datamonkeys.co.uk -- although its a small community it is growing by the day so please get on and register —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.7.121 (talk) 10:38, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

DegGi 5

www.DegGi5.com It seems that a wiki that mentions the website in its discussion should also include the website in its links to remain neutral. Nickinglis 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree. Deggi5 (not Dijital Photography) is just a forum that violates two principles:

* 1.3.5: "Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser." With Deggi5, you have to know the site owner or be a trusted member of the community to gain entry to the most basic elements of the forum.

* 1.3.1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article." While it may provide information on the forum, it is inaccessable to most viewers.

Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Seicer on this one. I considered adding DegGi5 myself, until I realized it violates the principles, specifically 1.3.5. This doesn't reflect on the quality of the site itself. As a nonmember, I couldn't tell you what sort of resource it does or does not represent.

I also have to wonder if Mike Dijital would appreciate having his site as an external link on this article. I don't know him personally, but according to my understanding the purpose of DegGi5 is to keep information among a tight-knit community. I would think drawing more attention to the site through Wiki would be counterproductive to that purpose. You'll notice that DegGi5 is linked within the content of the article, I wonder whether Mike would even like that much? Oherian 11:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not relevant to its inclusion in this article. The purpose of this article is to document notable facts about Urban Exploration. The only factors you should consider when including a link are whether the link aids that purpose.

As pertains to the ethics of linking, the internet is massively connected. If he didn't want people to access his site, he shouldn't have included it on the internet. Twelvethirteen 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It is still inaccessible to the majority of the "urban exploration" community and to readers of Wikipedia. It fails WP:EL 1.3.5 and as a result, it should be excluded as an external link. As a source, it is relevant because it validates a statement of fact. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Result (09.12.06 tabulation)

1 agree, 2 disagree, 1 did not state.
Result: No consensus, no action taken.
This vote may continue based on new discussion. Votes may be struck given approperiate reasoning, and a new tabulation will result. A majority, just as a reminder, does not equal not consensus.

alt.college.tunnels

news://alt.college.tunnels While like much of usenet these days it's probably just a spam trough, the articles from its first year or two are significant, at the very least for being probably the oldest internet discussions of the topic which are still publically available. Akb4 21:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Could a specific link via Google Groups Beta be found for this? I would be interested in finding more about it. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

here is the start of the group (1994). But that link will change over time. I think pointing to the newsgroup, with perhaps a secondary pointer to google, is the way to go. Akb4 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. Perhaps a link to the beginning would supplement a link to the current state. Let's get some more input on this. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree on the inclusion of this link with a condition, in that the beginning of the group be listed per the link given above due to Akb4's request. In the future, if more discussion comes along about this link, then this process can begin again. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Result (09.28.06 tabulation)

2 agree.
Result: Link will be added per condition above.
This discussion may continue, but due to a compromise listed above, the link should be added until additional comments can be inputted.

Dark Explorer

Dark Explorer This site publishes new urban exploration stories frequently with pictures. Seems like it would be a good fit for this. Should we add this to the links section?

Disagree per WP:EL 1.3.9, blogs should not be listed. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Result (10.17.06 tabulation)

1 agree, 1 disagree.
Result: No consensus, no action taken.
This vote may continue based on new discussion. Votes may be struck given approperiate reasoning, and a new tabulation will result. A majority, just as a reminder, does not equal not consensus.

Forbidden Places

Forbidden Places: This site publishes urban exploration documentaries, worldwide. Tackles with all UE aspects, from underground to rooftops, from active to abandoned locations. Contains also some ethical writings. Seems like it would be a good fit for this. Should we add this to the links section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.48.72.25 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2006.

I don't see the writings? Is it under a specific location? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an about page (talk)

Complete bilingual site, not only pics as most UE sites around. Vote: "to be included!" ~~Paul

Result (12.16.06 tabulation)

2 agree.
Result: added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slyv (talk • contribs) 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Boreally

Boreally: This site present the work of an urban explorer with underground (quarrie, mine, technical gallery), ruins and abandonned factory or casttle, rooftops. This site is like a daily photoblog on the first page and a real site with albums, presentation, documentaries, ... In one ou two month the site will be in english too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwallace (talk • contribs) Can I add this site?

Disagree per WP:EL 1.3.9, blogs should not be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by zipi (talk • contribs)

Only the first page is like a photoblog (one photo per day), the entire site behind the home page is an normal photo website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djwallace (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Anybody vote for my site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.250.211.180 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Disagree per the basis of a pure photo site. Needs breadth. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

28 Days Later

28 Days Later is the UK's (if not the world's) largest UE forum with well over 3,000 members and over 80,000 posts. I believe this forum should take precedence over the other "urbex forum" which is less than a quarter the size of 28 Days Later. GrimGary 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the other forum? The site is quite nice and stands as an example of what should be exemplified as a Wikipedia link. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Urbex Forum" is linked in the External Links. GrimGary 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree: Since we have UER, which is similar to 28 Days Later, it would only make sense to add. Plus it has received some publicity lately (some good, some bad), but it would make for an overall nice contribution. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree: Very active, very UE related Slyv

Agree: 28 Days later is the busiest UE forum in Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.134.162 (talk • contribs)

Disagree: very unfriendly towards new people and all users suck up to the admin

Agree: The above comment is a personal experience, not a fact. 28DL is probably the biggest UE website in the world and has massively influenced UE trends and been partially responsible for such increasing popularity within the UK. BenFairless (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Disagree:Recent video posted on the site shows one of the admins kicking down a door at lancaster moore hospital. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.38.32.28 (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Result (03.05.07 tabulation)

3 agree, 0 disagree.
Result: Agreement to add link.
This vote may continue based on new discussion. Votes may be struck given appropriate reasoning, and a new tabulation will result. A majority, just as a reminder, does not equal not consensus.

DenverDrainers.org

DenverDrainers.org is a relevant, quickly emerging UE website for the Denver & Colorado area. It also has information on draining not limited to the Denver/Colorado area. Funker joe 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree: This site is very empty and local Slyv

Disagree: Geographically, its very limited. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

East Ghost

eastghost.com combines History, Hauntings, Urban Exploration and Photography. The forums are organized and searchable, there's an integrated picture viewer and google map, and the database (though named Haunts) actually contains full, organized info on all sites, "haunted" or not. Numerous investigations and explorations include Maryland and nearby locations such as Tome School, Glenn Dale Hospital, Henryton, "Fuller State", and various military forts and battlefields. Most locations are fully addressed and/or mapped, and everything is searchable by zipcode proximity, text, or location such as zip, county, city, etc. It's much more than just another haunted site. Membership is free.

Almost forgot to mention the database is nationwide, contains thousands of entries and is growing. For instance, it includes extensive coverage of Pennsylvania historical locations, battlefields, haunts, and other sites such as Byberry, Eastern State Penn and others. The site offers a warm community and a nice, broad bridge to the paranormal side as well as to those with an interest in photography and history. SolarAngel 12:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, not fully UE related, mostly paranormal and ghostly activities, moreover lot of sections require to have a registred account to be viewed Slyv

Disagree per statement above. WP:EL states that it must be publically viewable or not as restrictive. Plus, it isn't pertaining to abandonments or urban exploration. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

UE death in Buenos Aires

4 explorers died last Dec 16 2006 in Buenos Aires while being caught by the rain during a drains exploration, the storm was announced by local meteorology services, so they should have een able to avoid the exploration. (http://www.clarin.com/diario/2006/12/19/laciudad/h-04815.htm) 200.47.22.84 11:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Alejandro Dec-19-2006

Is there an English version of this? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)