Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue

Geology map

I appreciate the need to show supporting images, especially as any photos of the individuals involved will be very hard to come by, but I'm not sure that the File:Chiang Rai Geological map.pdf will really help the reader understand anything about this event. For one thing it's mostly written in the Thai language, and for another it doesn't seem to show where the caves are? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you are right. I found another one with English and some German on the same website at [1]. It will take some time before I ad some indicator pinpointing the area of the caves. But if you want to do it, please go ahead.--Gciriani (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Your efforts are appreciated, nonetheless. I will defer to your skill in this area. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Gciriani, I'm afraid the image isn't suitable for Wikipedia. The Thai government retains copyright over works created under its employment. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'll have to nominate the images for deletion. Please continue the discussion regarding copyright status on Commons. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Article title

The "2018" isn't totally redundant, since there was a previous search effort in 2016 when a man thought to be a tourist went disappearing.[2] (He later turned out not to be a tourist, and re-appeared of his own accord three months later.)[3] That event's probably not notable enough to warrant an article, though, so dropping the year here should also be fine. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Length of underwater swim?

Seems a possible rescue option might be an "underwater swim" (using "scuba gear"), albeit challenging due to "cave conditions", for each of those to be rescued - is there any "reliable source" noting the length of the swim? (I've not found one at the moment) - if a source is found, might be a worthy addition to the "Tham Luang cave rescue" article I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Would almost certainly depend on how much water is in the system and thus will vary dependent on recent rainfall. Perhaps a cave survey, with predicted water levels, will eventually emerge. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Seems such maps may have emerged - including a related schematic drawing - that seems to show cave areas flooded during the rainy season - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Thank you for your reply - found a possible answer to my question (ie, about a "2.5 km" swim underwater?) - added the following to the article => According to Ben Reymenants, owner and founder of Blue Label Diving of Thailand, and part of the international rescue effort: "[There are three rescue options] One is to teach them to scuba dive. It is at least a 2.5 km (1.6 mi) swim through narrow restrictions of a complex cave system. This is not the easiest solution. They are also trying to pump the cave empty with giant pumps which was working to some extent. But they are expecting heavy rains in the next two days. The last option is sitting it out and waiting. Two medical officers in the Thai navy have volunteered to have themselves locked in with enough food and supplies to sit there for three or four months until the water drops again." - hope the edit is ok - *entirely* ok with me to rv/rm/mv/ce the edit of course - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

References

Hole in ceiling

In the closest chamber to the trapped boys, it would make sense to drill a hole in the ceiling and pull them out the same way they did in the Chile mining incident. Has there been any mention of this on the news? IQ125 (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Mines are very different to caves. Often to widen a solid rock fissure in a cave sufficiently is both difficult and hazardous. But I agree we'd need an RS source. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@IQ125: I also had same question, but after some internet search I have found there is about 1 kilometer high hard rock upon the cave, and the cave passage is very narrow in places to places, less to pass with a full scuba suit. So I am just speculating perhaps the army is not trying this option since common sense tells there are many type of risks, including chances of increased water influx. But I also read in some news that army is trying to dig out an alternate suitable escape route. 2405:204:4398:F86:0:0:15C1:B8AD (talk) 16:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I think "about 1 kilometer high hard rock upon the cave" would be a useful addition, if a suitable source could be found. Essentially there never will be any chance of "a hole in the ceiling". Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

What the article needs a 2D-map of the whole cave complex. Anyone here have the expertize to make one? IQ125 (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

New images possible copyvios

Please check the sources for the first few youtube uploads here. I can't get youtube here but suspect copyvios. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, the images are clearly tagged as YouTube Creative Commons, following the licence specified by the news channel on YouTube. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Paul_012. Understood. Thank you. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Worthy quote to include - or not?

FWIW - seems the following quote re cave diving in the Tham Luang cave complex may be worthy to include in the "Tham Luang cave rescue" article - seems one editor may not agree - and has "reverted the edit" - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Copied from the "Tham Luang cave rescue (17:00, 3 July 2018 version)" article:

Further, Reymenant stated: "This is one of the more extreme cave dives that I have done. It is very far, and very complex. There is current. The visibility can be zero at times. So getting boys through there one by one, and the risk that they will panic is there. They can’t even swim. This has been done before with pulling people out of wrecks alive. So it is not impossible, but the issue is the restrictions - just one person can fit through. So guiding a boy through in front of you could be quite challenging, especially if the rain picks up and there’s a strong flow and the visibility reduces to zero. When it starts raining the flow is so hard you can barely swim against it. It took us four hours just to swim to the point where we had to tie off the lines. It is [a] really long swim. So it is really hard to give an opinion on what is the best solution. I think the weather is going to be the deciding factor."

References

The analysis can of course be paraphrased and included in the article (optimally with comparisons to other opinions). It's just that tgere's no reason here for it to be quoted verbatim. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good and informative to me. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it is worthy of inclusion. It could be modified in the future but as for now I would just include it. I think the first step is just to include it and then see how it looks in the days ahead. We can always revisit this question. Bus stop (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I was the one who removed it. I agree with Paul_012 that the relevant info can be added to the article but using a quote is unnecessary. Additionally, the paragraph above it is also part of this quote; two paragraphs of a quote from one rescuer is not needed. I would argue WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:21, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, if the consensus is to keep the whole quote, the formatting needs to be fixed. Either the quote from the paragraph above needs to be included in this formatting or there needs to be no special formatting, as it doesn’t really make sense to present two parts of one statement with different formatting. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Water pumping near Tham Luang cave.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting statements in the article

• The Intro section says the rock where the team was located is about 4 km away from the cave mouth (citing Reuters).
• The Contact section says the rock is about 2 km away from the cave mouth (citing Guardian).

--Miwako Sato (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Based on the map provided by the Thai press, it seems like Reuters is more reliable (?) --Miwako Sato (talk) 04:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• There is a very detailed map in the Thai Wikipedia article on the rescue. Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 July 2018

Tham Luang cave rescue → 2018 Thailand cave rescue – Per WP:COMMONNAME, English sources call it the "Thailand cave rescue" or "Thai cave rescue". No other notable cave rescues have happened in Thailand so far this year so there is no ambiguity. Firebrace (talk) 11:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

But, as per "Article title" above, there have never been any other notable "Thailand cave rescues" at all. So is the year necessary? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for the change of title. 2018 Thailand cave rescue, Thailand cave rescue, and Thai cave rescue, all bring us to the same article. Redirects work fine therefore I don't understand why the change is called for. Bus stop (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is largely irrelevant. The distinction between the name of the cave and the name of the country is a function of a reader's familiarity with the region. It is largely not a function of which of the choices represent the most common name encountered. I prefer the specificity of the cave system's name largely for its educational value. A title provides prominence of place for the terms included in it. I simply see nothing wrong with the present title. The main thing is that this is not an instance of WP:COMMONNAME. Other arguments might apply but I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies. Bus stop (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

We're not here to educate people by using terms they don't recognize in article titles. In fact, WP:TITLE prohibits it. According to the policy, article titles should be:

• Recognizable – "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize"
• Natural – "one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles"
• Precise – "enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that"

Firebrace (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Redirect works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.146.174 (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose probably violates MOS. SYSS Mouse (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, actually, the current title violates policy. See above... Firebrace (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Present title is fine, new title offers no advantage over it, redirect exists. -- The Anome (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose As per The Anome. IQ125 (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Favor the change as per WP:COMMONNAME. Loraof (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. It's immediately recognizable without needing any more knowledge than that a cave rescue is being undertaken in Thailand. Indeed I created the redirect because I typed "2018 Thailand cave rescue" in the search bar and was met with a red link. It is implausible to assume that a majority of people unfamiliar with Thai geography would be searching exactly for "Tham Luang cave". We need not be overly specific, nor use official names (hence North Korea, not Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea), nor is it the purpose of titles to educate readers on the name of the cave: the first sentence of the lead section covers that ("Article titles should be neither vulgar... nor pedantic.) If the majority of reliable, worldwide English-language souces refer to this as the "Thailand cave rescue" or similar, then so should we, until the point when that title becomes ambiguous. A cursory (but non-scientific) search of news articles shows "Thailand cave rescue" to predominate in news article titles, with the cave appropriately named in the body. I see no harm in including the year for now, which might satisfy pedants in the future. I note that most of the Oppose comments here outright ignore the Policies of Wikipedia:Article titles or arbitrarily claim they don't apply for personal opinions. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is not even applicable. The title can be discussed via other factors applicable to it. But there is no "common name" for that which is transpiring. We have "common names" for those things with some degree of history to them:

People

Bill Clinton (not: William Jefferson Clinton)

Bono (not: Paul Hewson)

Places

The Hague (not: 's-Gravenhage)

United Kingdom (not: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland)

Science and nature topics

Caffeine (not: 1,3,7-Trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione)

Down syndrome (not: Trisomy 21)

Fuchsia (not: Lady's ear drops)

Guinea pig (not: Cavia porcellus)

Other topics

FIFA (not: Fédération Internationale de Football Association or International Federation of Association Football)

Seven Samurai (not: Shichinin no Samurai)

Please present your arguments in opposition to the present name. But you cannot realistically say there is a "common name" for what is transpiring. As long as redirects work I can't imagine what motivates anyone to prefer the name of the country to the more specific name of the cave. Would any reader realistically become confused if a redirect brought them to this article? In an immediate glance they would see that indeed it was the article they were looking for. Bus stop (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Tham Luang cave rescue is tautologous. Khiikiat (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC).

• Oppose. That's a weird name. If people would get trapped in an American mine, would we call it 2018 United States mine rescue? (case in point: Quecreek Mine rescue) - Manifestation (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
  • We would (or should) if the vast majority of sources referred to it as the "United States mine rescue". That hypothetical situation however, is improbable, and irrelevant to this discussion. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Bus stop:. Nice4What (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Precedence has these sorts of situations list the specific location, as they should. Spengouli (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Manifestation. AIRcorn (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Kindly add a 3 dimensional movable image of the Lumen of the cave.

Kindly add a 3- dimensional, clickable and movable diagram of the lumen of the cave. Nowadays 3-dimensional images are common in facebook and Google Earth, which are clickable and moves 360 degrees. I have also seen 3 dimensional images of spores, pollens, molecules, crystal lattices etc that can be mooved. Just like that, kindly make a 3 dimensional structure of the cave, because some of the news channels publishes a 2D vertical section that does not reveal the intricacy of the cave path, and some vertical sections although show some up-down bumps,it does not reveal the left right turns. Also the aerial maps (Top view/ horizontal plane) although reveal some left/ right turns, it does not reveal the up- down bumps. So to simultneously reveal the up down bumps (and dips) along with left right turns, and all other intricacies, a 3 D and detail, movable reconstruction of cave is extremely necessary. 2405:204:4398:F86:0:0:15C1:B8AD (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. I suspect this would be a first for Wikipedia, unless you know otherwise. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia won't even use some of its $91 million revenue to create a 2D map... Firebrace (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has such a detailed map of this cave. Any diagrams you've seen won't be accurate. Danrok (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2018 (UTC)