Jump to content

Talk:Tham Luang cave rescue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Danrok (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 9 July 2018 (→‎Air not oxygen). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@IQ125: In this article, part way down, a drilling expert is quoted talking about this subject. Murdomck (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Except that may not be so clear cut, according to this report in the Finnish press, which says that the boys have heard the sound of dogs barking. This in itself seems to be notable and could be added. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Martinevans123: One mention is in the BBC Graphics https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/F8DC/production/_102380736_thai_cave_rescue_v3_inf640-nc.png Published in BBC page https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44695232, The same BBC page contains several good diagrams. 2405:204:421B:1C2B:783F:AAFE:EBF0:489F (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it says: "There have also been suggestions that drilling could be another way to get to the boys and airlift them out." And goes on to explain how difficult that is. But I was just proposing a mention of what the boys say they have heard, suggesting that ether was already some connection with the surface from where they are. After even hours of sensory deprivation when in a deep cave, however, it is very easy for someone to imagine sounds that are in fact just the sound of flowing water. Anyone who has been caving will recognize this. The effects after 11 days must be very much more pronounced. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This Gizmodo news-article https://gizmodo.com/a-daring-plan-to-rescue-boys-trapped-in-thai-cave-is-st-1827345522 says :
"Using mining equipment to dig a passageway to the boys is not being considered, given they’re located about 3,000 feet (1,000 meters) below the top of the mountain. That said, teams are currently scouring the mountain looking for alternative ways into the cave."
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:421B:1C2B:783F:AAFE:EBF0:489F (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No, actually, the current title violates policy. See above... Firebrace (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Present title is fine, new title offers no advantage over it, redirect exists. -- The Anome (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Support. Tham Luang cave rescue is tautologous. Khiikiat (talk) 23:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It has been referred to as the "Pennsylvania mine rescue", and if the incident had global attention, I would go with "2002 Pennsylvania mine rescue". But the story failed to gain traction outside the US because the miners were trapped for just over 3 days. This is different. Firebrace (talk) 16:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this "Thailand cave rescue" is unprofessional and inaccurate. I think this proposal shows that Wikipedia tends to be written from a European and American point of view, instead of a worldwide point of view. Naming this article the 2018 Thailand cave rescue would be like saying: "Yeah, it's that cave rescue from Thailand. We don't know where in Thailand, because we, Western people, actually don't know shit about Thailand. But it's from Thailand, and it's a juicy and dramatic event the whole world talks about, with no one knowing the actual name of the cave where it takes place." Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to bet that few people in Thailand itself have ever heard of Tham Luang. Or English-speaking people in South America, Africa, or the rest of Asia, so let's not pretend only North Americans and Europeans have a poor understanding of Thai geography... Firebrace (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, compare the Riesending cave rescue. 183.83.222.113 (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(facetious) Why not name it Some place on the other side of the world cave rescue? Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Precedence has these sorts of situations list the specific location, as they should. Spengouli (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Manifestation. AIRcorn (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Putting the name of the cave in article name is highly encyclopedic, as it immediately tells readers of the location of the incident and the significance of understanding the location. Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 02:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The Common Name policy states: "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred". In the references as of today for this article, the phrase "Thailand cave rescue" or "Thai cave rescue" appears eight times in the titles of news articles about this event published by reliable sources. "Tham Luang cave rescue" does not appear at all in the references thus far. I believe WP titles should be very close, or identical to, the commonly-used expression for the topic. I support the proposal, but I think the year "2018" could be omitted. Disclosure: I created the "Thai cave rescue" redirect. DonFB (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Policy says that we use "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) . . ." A Google News search for "cave rescue" shows that the majority of reliable English language sources use the name "Thailand cave rescue" with a minority using "Thai cave rescue". None that I could find used "Tham Luang cave rescue". Of course, Tham Luang should be mentioned in the lead, but not the title. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The question here is one of perspective. If the article were being written from the Moon or Jupiter we might title it "Planet Earth cave rescue". Such considerations as prevalence in reliable sources are largely irrelevant considerations because once a reader gets here by a redirect referencing "Thailand" or "Thai" they will know immediately that this is the article that they were looking for—even if they did not know the name of the cave system. Policy is written for most situations but not all. There is no harm done in providing information right from the start, and we shouldn't allow policy language to prevent us from giving the article the best possible title. Bus stop (talk) 12:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, more readers will know what Thailand is than will know what the Tham Luang cave is, but what difference does that make? Other than a slavish adherence to the "recognizability" clause in policy, how does your point have any bearing on anything that matters? How long do you think it would take for a reader to figure out that "Tham Luang" is the name of the cave—about a half of one second? Bus stop (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To the reader, both names would have about the same effect, certainly, but one of them obeys policy better. If both are functionally the same but one is more right by definition, that one is the better choice. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point in having policies if editors can just ignore them at will? If we are keeping this title because some don't personally agree with WP:TITLE then it may as well be demoted to a guideline... Firebrace (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. We are not expected adhere to policy if policy prevents us from improving an article. The name of the cave has the appropriate level of specificity, even if it is not recognized. There is a learning curve which can begin with the title rather than the lede. We would be squandering an opportunity to get the reader immediately up to speed if we "dumbed down" the title to a more general level of specificity. I don't know if you still maintain your argument concerning WP:COMMONNAME but I don't think it is applicable because the real crux of this question is one of perspective rather than one of the most generally recognized name. Within Thailand they would not refer to it as the Thailand cave rescue and from the perspective of the planet Jupiter they would probably refer to it as the "Planet Earth cave rescue". But as inhabitants of planet Earth I think the appropriate level of specificity is the name of the cave system. There is nothing wrong with the policies and guidelines that are in place but we can question them in those instances in which we don't think they are especially applicable, and we can deviate from those policies and guidelines, and we can still defend the general applicability of those policies and guidelines. Bus stop (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per others. Seems fine as it is and there's no advantage to the change. This is Paul (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:PRECISION. Titles should be precise enough to be unambiguous, but no more so than that. I don't believe there other equally significant cave-ins in Thailand, so the current article title is overly precise. As for WP:COMMONNAME, I do note that the majority of sources refer to this event as "Thai Cave Rescue" simply because they are international news sites; however, local Thai sites use the Thai language and this is English Wikipedia. Since far more sources use "Thai cave rescue", that should be the name of the wiki page. — Reatlas (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning you are presenting serves no purpose—other than strict adherence to the letter of policy. Whereas a deviation from that reasoning does serve a purpose. I also want to point out that this is not a cave-in, which is "a collapse of a geologic formation". Bus stop (talk) 01:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't believe there other equally significant cave-ins in Thailand"
Actually, Thailand has many, many caves. - Manifestation (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
None of these links describe cave-ins in Thailand. FallingGravity 14:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he/she meant caves, not cave-ins. Cave-ins have nothing to do with this. :-) Manifestation (talk) 15:17, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So 2018 Thailand cave rescue wins 3-1. There is a good argument for Thailand cave rescue, which wins on conciseness, so arguably scores 4-0. Cimbalom (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "Thailand cave rescue" will be too vague in the long run. It may lack precision already; the claim that there have be no other notable cave rescues in Thai history seems suspicious. And presently, "2018 Thailand cave rescue" is not a common name yet.--MWAK (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:ENGLISH: The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources. FallingGravity 05:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for all the reasons already given. It's simple and clear. Some of those opposing seem to favour obfuscation, a disturbing trend I see increasing in Wikipedia articles. I add that those who hope that English Wikipedia articles should be written from a language- or ethnicity-neutral perspective are naive and seem to be ignoring that most Wikipedia articles appear in more languages than English. For example, the current article currently has 16 versions in other languages, including Thai, where Google Translate gives its title as "The search and rescue operation of the Royal cave".Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Some of those opposing seem to favour obfuscation, a disturbing trend I see increasing in Wikipedia articles."
Really? That would indeed be a disturbing trend, since this is usually advised against.
"I add that those who hope that English Wikipedia articles should be written from a language- or ethnicity-neutral perspective are naive and seem to be ignoring that most Wikipedia articles appear in more languages than English."
You do know that neutrality is one of Wikipedia's core pillars, right? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Tham Luang cave" an obfuscation of "Thailand"? Is "Thailand" more ethnicity-neutral than "Tham Luang cave"? Bus stop (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 'Thailand' might adhere to policy better, but it's not worth changing on the balance of things, and seems to come from...well, the idea that Thai geography isn't important enough for the English Wikipedia. 183.83.222.113 (talk) 07:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For precision TarkusABtalk 10:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Massive Oppose Bunch of Caves out there on thailand, so changing it into a proposed title is a mess. IPUser (Talk | Contributions) 8:21 PM, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
    • The article is about a notable event taking place inside a cave, not about the cave itself. Firebrace (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. Although it is indeed described by major English media as the "Thai cave rescue", it can be an WP:IAR ovverride as it is educational in the long run to know where it is. For example, the article about the Chile mining accident in 2010 is named 2010 Copiapó mining accident even though it violates WP:COMMONNAME. Although it is widely reported as "the mining accident in Chile", in the long term it would be educational if they immediately knew where it is, whereas if it is mentioned as the "2010 Chile mining accident", it will require further reading to learn where exactly it is in Chile. - @gacelperfinian (talk in - error? Start a new topic) 15:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Better fit, both based on our own naming conventions and how other sources refer to the event. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support, while I see the benefit to simply having a redirect, the majority of media outlets are referring to this as the 'Thailand Cave Rescue'. Therefore, WP:COMMONNAME takes precedence Hemi9 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think WP:TITLE is very clear on this point. The vast majority of readers would not know what Tham Luang cave is. Air♠CombatTalk! 01:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, of course [t]he vast majority of readers would not know what Tham Luang cave is. That is why an encyclopedia exists. The question is, would a title "Tham Luang cave rescue" hinder a reader's use of the encyclopedia in any way? Our raison d'être is not to see how closely we can adhere to policy. Any reader arriving at this article via any of the several redirects would instantly know that they were at the right article. So, what would be accomplished by the blind adherence to policy? A title such as "Thailand cave rescue " is more dumb than "Tham Luang cave rescue". It is stupid because it contains less information. It is slightly parochial to cite only the name of the country in the title because we should at least be aspiring to know the world on a more detailed level. Tham Luang cave is within the country of Thailand; the country of Thailand is not within Tham Luang cave. The level of specificity in our title matters. And it is preferable to be appropriately specific—regardless of anything that policy might say. We don't exist to adhere to policy. Bus stop (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you take a stance that goes distinct against policy there is absolutely nothing backing up what you're saying here. We don't exist to adhere to policy, but that's not a reason not to follow it most of the time. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
most of the time The exception being those times that If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Bus stop (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think rules are for other people and are confusing precision and accuracy. "2018 Thailand cave rescue" contains all the information an English-speaking visitor (the target audience of English Wikipedia) needs to identify the subject. It is also accurate; titles should only be precise insofar as avoiding ambiguity. Firebrace (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are not just trying to arrive at the title that removes ambiguity. We should go beyond merely removing ambiguity in this case because Thailand is familiar to all people. We should be more precise. We should introduce unfamiliarity (in this case). We should introduce as much unfamiliarity as is tolerable. By "tolerable" I mean without introducing confusion. On a pragmatic level no clarity is lost in using the title "Tham Luang cave rescue". There are redirects from titles that only use the country's name in the title and any reader would know that they were at the article they were looking for immediately upon arriving at this article. Your reasons for preferring "Thailand cave rescue" have everything to do with adherence to policy and nothing to do with this specific article. Let us say there were no policies and guidelines. Can you tell me in your own words how this article would benefit from being titled "Thailand cave rescue" or any other title using "Thailand" in the title instead of "Tham Luang cave" in the title? Bus stop (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be called "2018 Thailand cave rescue" not only because the policy dictates that's the course of action to take, but because I think that policy makes sense: an aim for recognizability. The point of the title is to label, is it the job of the article to teach. The label should be something the reader sees and recognizes, something they read and say "oh, that's what this is about". Not something that they look at and are confused about, something they need to the article to explain. Regarding your example of "they'll just be redirected", what about an appearance on the main page as a DYK or a featured article? There's also google results to consider, this name will be what gets displayed to people looking in from outside. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what about an appearance on the main page as a DYK or a featured article? Wouldn't there be accompanying text? There's also google results to consider, this name will be what gets displayed to people looking in from outside. The Google search algorithm is smart enough to to treat varying search terms similarly, and there too there would be accompanying text. In all cases, including the article itself, accompanying text obviates the need for the term more familiar to the widest number of people, namely the country, "Thailand". Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and Cullen328's arguments.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 04:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nobody knows what Tham Luang is. Headlines specifically say Thailand because it's common. Also WP:COMMONNAME Ottoshade (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If you can recognize "Thailand" and remember (at least vaguely) where it is and what it's all about, you can learn "Tham Luang" to a similar familiarity with the same effort. Don't sell yourselves short! And if you would, at least don't insist on holding more eager students back with you. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, July 7, 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:AT, which requires titles to be "precise". A reference to Thailand alone would be vague. Edge3 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Invalid argument, see WP:PRECISE: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Firebrace (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      It is possible for more than one cave rescue to have occurred in Thailand in 2018. Thailand is huge, and not every incident is reported in the news. Therefore, the proposed title may require disambiguation that could be avoided by choosing a more precise title. Also see 2010 Copiapó mining accident for another rescue that similarly garnered international attention, so WP:CONSISTENCY applies.
      Furthermore, even if the proposed title meets the precision criteria, note that WP:PRECISE also states, "Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria." The relevant naming criteria is WP:NCE, which does not appear to support using an entire country (Thailand) to describe the location of an event. Edge3 (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      On your first point, Wikipedia only covers notable events; if an incident wasn't reported in the news, then it wasn't notable by default.
      Two, with regard to consistency, Wikipedia should not cling to a mistake just because it has spent a lot of time making it. I would be all for moving 2010 Copiapó mining accident to 2010 Chile mining accident as well.
      Third, WP:NCE states: "If there is an established, common name for an event … use that name".
      Firebrace (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The claim about WP:NCE is very easily disproven given one of the two given examples for a "when, where, what" title such as the proposed "2018 Thailand cave rescue" is 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this article is directly comparable to a political crisis that affected all of Russia. In contrast, this cave rescue effort is taking place in a specific location (Tham Luang), not the entire country of Thailand. Edge3 (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may have had a point if the proposed title were "2018 Thailand caves rescue". 'Cave', a singular noun, identifies the rescue as taking place in one Thai cave and not multiple Thai caves. Firebrace (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: FWIW - *entirely* agree with others who are also opposed to a change of title from the present original one (ie, "Tham Luang cave rescue") - and - with their reasons presented above - for me atm, the present original title seems spot-on - also - redirects, covering other suggested titles, seem to work very well - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: By WP:COMMONNAME in most English article sources. Wqwt (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per manisfestation. Bryan (talk) 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Support-99 English-speaking people out of 100 don't know what Tham Luang is. Let's make it so that people about to click on an article actually know what it means. Display name 99 (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Language Doesn't make sense, only the title itself but ok. Bryan (talk) 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Strong, strong oppose - While I do concur with others above who argue for some change to the title, I strongly oppose changing the title to the year-country/city-event title format, as it has become kind of a plague on Wikipedia that sterilises the majority of articles on events of any unique, indentifiable name that allows them to stand out among other events, especially in lists or categories. This naming scheme just has to stop. It has to stop. Please. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 03:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid that "massive oppose", "strong oppose" and over-the-top cries of "stop please" carry no more weight than a straightforward "oppose" when it comes to building WP:CONSENSUS, which states: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". Firebrace (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • While not a cave system noted for being a site of a rescue operation, Rising Star Cave, an archeological site, is not given a title which includes the term South Africa. Due to the presence of wp:redirects there is nothing lost in just cutting to the chase and presenting the cave's name in the title. While I'm reluctant to predict the future it seems possible the cave's title may eventually become a household name. Bus stop (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per arguments above. Perhaps a redirect (if anything), but the current title is fine. QueerFilmNerdtalk 06:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I can understand the arguments to switch to the most wide-used naming in general, but for a cave rescue the name of the cave is the obvious choice and it just feels wrong to move away from it. As pointed out above, in the most comparable cases Copiapó, Riesending, we made a similar choice. --Stupid girl (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: Either title is 100% acceptable. Some things have more than one name. Whatever the final outcome, both names should be listed in the lead. Hopes and prayers for the team. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Naturalness: In the long run, the cave will be tainted with the outcome of this story, to a greater extent than the country will. Precision: There are numerous large caves in Southeast Asia. There are likely to be other tragedies, some in Thailand as well. Bob Stein - VisiBone (talk) 12:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Because most people are not aware of Tham Luang cave, but most of the people can simply understand the title 2018 Thailand cave rescue or 2018 Thai cave rescue instead of 2018 Tham Luang cave rescue. Abishe (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
most people are not aware of Tham Luang cave The reader doesn't need the term "Thailand" in the title. Beyond a certain point simplification becomes oversimplification. It is readily apparent to any reader that Tham Luang cave is the specific geographical location within Thailand of the subject of this article, and Redirects bring the reader to this article—so what are we trying to accomplish by placing the term "Thailand" in the title? Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've made a thread about what to change in the lead, if anything, after this discussion ends. Comments are kindly requested. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for reasons stated by gacelperfinian, VisiBone and others. Magic1million (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "2018 Thailand cave rescue" is vague and unencyclopedic. The page name should be more specific than the country where the cave is. 20Infernix04 (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per gacelperfinian. -Kez (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Changing the title loses accuracy and suggests Western bias. Any reader ignorance can be addressed through redirects. WWGB (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

An excellent suggestion. I suspect this would be a first for Wikipedia, unless you know otherwise. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia won't even use some of its $91 million revenue to create a 2D map... Firebrace (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Firebrace: It's not like the Wikimedia Foundation makes any of the maps you see on Wikipedia, they're all made by users who have the time to make them - or find non-copyrighted ones online. – numbermaniac 06:45, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Numbermaniac: I know that. But creating maps and diagrams, like the ones you see on news websites, is the kind of thing Wikimedia should be doing with some of its $91 million budget. When people donate money, they do so with an expectation of it being used to improve the content of Wikipedia. We cannot always rely on users having the time, skills, resources, and motivation to make graphics of variable quality for the encyclopedia. It's not 2005 any more... Firebrace (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Rising Star Cave includes some simple but helpful illustrations of that cave system. Bus stop (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a non-copyright version of this excellent BBC image? https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/146FC/production/_102380738_thai_cave_detailed_mapv2_976-nc.png Fig (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2 Questions- 1. Faecal matter 2. Aeration

  1. If there has been 13 people for 10 or more days in such a congested place; there must be a buildup of stools, urine and the gasses (including foetid and/or toxic gases) accumulated in the air pocket. There might be lot of germs in the cave floor, air and water. How these problems are being tackled?
  2. How aeration is being managed? provided 13 people breathing in such a congested place for so many days? Even metro/ tube rail stations need a continuous blow of air at a high pressure; how in such a congested place the aeration is being tackled ?

-- 08:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:421B:1C2B:C403:4DED:9ADB:3F3F (talk)

If necessary information about these 2 issues found; kindly add them to wikipedia article. 2405:204:421B:1C2B:C403:4DED:9ADB:3F3F (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the air in caves, an informative article is here. That should give enough context to find reliable sources on the same topics. On stools and urine, there will be less than expected due to reduced eating and drinking in the first nine days. It will increasingly become a problem, but there are ways to deal with this, and ways for the rescue divers to package up and remove waste if needed. The real problem is how to get them out safely. As long as the waters don't rise, there will be little problem keeping them supplied and healthy. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: I understand, taking the kids out is the first and foremost issue. However journalists are saying the boys may have to stay there for an indefinite period of time for diving training, which may require more than month. 2405:204:421B:1C2B:783F:AAFE:EBF0:489F (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also the place seems to be disconnected from external atmosphere due to water logging. It reminds me all the time about an U-tube of a manometer. 2405:204:421B:1C2B:783F:AAFE:EBF0:489F (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One solution of copyright violation problem

One solution exist for copyright violation exists... if any officials / organisations themselves publish an image in Wikipedia. I have seen in some historic documents in Wikipedia which have different sort of copyrights/permissions; and submitted by national agencies or Government organisations (and not by individual user). 2405:204:421B:1C2B:C403:4DED:9ADB:3F3F (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death???? Which portion at cave?

Mine gosh I was so hopeful initially by knowing there's everyone safe and sound. I was taking this international effort quite a bit positively.

But saw saw on todays news and also on Wikipedia that one rescuer has been passed away!!!

From encyclopedic approach, it needs a map and a hill-sectional view about where this tragedy happened?

Prayers.

2405:204:4421:E901:0:0:1854:38A0 (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do have an External link to the cave survey published by the BBC. So until a dedicated survey is created for this article, I guess all we can do is mention the location, if this is reported. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Air not oxygen

Divers do not breath oxygen, they breath air (21% oxygen, 79% Nitrogen). Oxygen breathed under pressure is toxic.

I know many news articles incorrectly say "oxygen" but why compound their error and ignorance?


@ previous unsigned comment (Possibly done in edit version https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue&oldid=849066134, Difference https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATham_Luang_cave_rescue&type=revision&diff=849066134&oldid=849065109 ) is absolutely correct. Either ordinary air or a breathing gas (with a certain specific O2 concentration) is used. For patients with oxygen deprivation, Carbon monoxide toxicity, etc more higher concentration of oxygen is used in breathing gas. So describing ordinary air as oxygen causes potential misunderstanding, but journalists often do so. 2405:204:4421:E901:25D0:2F5D:179A:B58B (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are meant to reflect what is said in "RS" sources, rather than "tell the truth". But we need to be selective on the sources used for this. I have changed the first instance in the lead section from "supplies of oxygen" to "supplies of air". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the possibly misleading headline, New York Times is correct. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, they will be breathing air not pure oxygen. There are plenty of misnomers used by non-divers when referring to diving equipment. The correct name for the tank is an air cylinder, and flippers are called fins not flippers. But I have seen photos of oxygen being delivered to the caves, presumably it is used to top up the oxygen levels via lines in to the cave's air spaces. Danrok (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A new news saying; for a certain day or time-period a pump was accidentally driven in reverse direction !

The news webpage https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/984556/Thai-cave-rescue-Thailand-football-team-latest-update-rescue-options-video tells a new information. 

 "To make things worse, water has been accidentally pumped into the cave instead of being sucked out by volunteer rescuers, making a day worth of work almost pointless."

What was that? 2405:204:4421:E901:3DAA:A434:8E37:C287 (talk) 10:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is already mentioned, at the end of the "Extraction operations" section? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Express is non-WP:RS. Firebrace (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refs in lead section

Why are there 13 different refs in the lead section? Shouldn't these all be given later, if needed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed. WWGB (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

death of rescue worker

Article says he "ran out of air" (picture him not bringing enough air tanks to get himself out underwater) but I remember reading a different description of the incident. The non-flooded areas of the cave were believed to have breathable air, but some regions had higher CO2 levels than expected, so the guy passed out while breathing normally and possibly not realizing what was going on. I think this is worth chasing down and clarifying. Hopefully now that they know the issue, they can use monitoring and other measures to prevent more occurrences. My source is a web forum but there must be RS for something like that. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, interesting, pursue it JuanTamad (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Tribune source says it's "currently unavailable in Europe", but the USA Today source, which I can see, seems to corroborate that interpretation. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming the boys

Hi Stephen, Please can you explain why you have deleted the new section I added listing the boys' names? The article on the similar 2010 Copiapó mining accident contains an extensive table not only of the miner's names, but their age, the order they were rescued in, the exact time of their rescue, personal details, and the names of the actors who portrayed them in the later film. I started this list envisaging a similar table being built up for this rescue. Any comments? Gnangbade (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The children are not notable as individuals, and their names at this stage are non-encyclopaedic trivia. Stephen 10:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: they are the human beings at the centre of this crisis, so how can they be considered less important than the (named) divers and others who are rescuing them? The principle of notoriety would certainly apply if someone was to create individual articles for each of the boys, but within a more general article like this, I think it is valid and important information. I'm not familiar with the correct procedure here: who arbitrates in cases of disagreement between users? Gnangbade (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Other users arbitrate, at first. I agree they're the central figures here, no differently from the miners, and should be similarly named. They'd only need individual notability to have their own articles, not to have their names noted in the article for the notable event they essentially (but accidentally) created. Naming multiple other non-notable people makes the stars' absence even more conspicuous. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:18, July 8, 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and with the rescue operation beginning today, it seems even more important for the article to list the boys' names. Otherwise how can it accurately describe a one-by-one rescue operation? Gnangbade (talk) 07:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose listing the (full) names of the teenagers due to privacy concerns. - Manifestation (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When you're underground and the subject of an international front-page humanitarian concern, hoping for anonymity is unrealistic at any age. Jessica McClure was just a baby, hence her new title "Baby Jessica". On the bright side, attention spans are much shorter today, so these children should more likely fade back into private obscurity afterward. In the meanwhile, the more humanized they are, the better it is for understanding an article of human survival, courage and compassion. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:37, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
The names of the boys are now widely available on various news sites, here for example Gnangbade (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
looks like it was back. Oppa Justine! (talk) 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I also oppose naming the boys. Additionally, the 2010 Copiapó mining accident has a number of issues; if you look at the history you'll see I've worked on cleaning it up a little bit. I would argue that that article does not meet all the standards of Wikipedia and shouldn't be considered an appropriate comparison. However, for the record, some miners in that situation organized and took on different roles, making certain individuals notable enough to mention by name. In the case that news reports in the future report on the leadership or other notable role of certain boys it would become relevant to talk bout them by name. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 23:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Names are in reliable sources, many sources. There are not that many name, not like 25 names or 100 names. Vanrich (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanrich the argument is not about how many names, it’s about Wikipedia policies and guidelines. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nine days without food?

So they were discovered after nine days. In the article I am missing any report on which and how much food they had in that period. - DePiep (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IKR How they get those food? @Martinevans123: @Nick-D: (tagging any experienced editor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.234.156 (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have yet to find a source that says they had any food for those nine days. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I read in a reliable source that the coach let the kids eat all his food and he ate none. Vanrich (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this source have a name? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, July 9, 2018 (UTC)
Washington Post: According to rescue officials, <the coach> is among the weakest in the group, in part because he gave the boys his share of the limited food and water they had with them in the early days. WWGB (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign languages

@Khiikiat: Re [1], per MOS:FORLANG, we "do not include foreign equivalents in the lead sentence just to show etymology". Firebrace (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Musk submarine

[2] This looks dubious but it's something to keep an eye on. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This too: [3] 173.228.123.166 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this from the article. Elon Musk states that his companies are developing ways to rescue the children, but they haven't actually been completed, tested, sent to Thailand, transported to the site, tested again, approved for use by the Thai Government, or used. It seems unclear to me whether the Thais would actually be very interested in using brand-new and untested technology to rescue children from a complex and very dangerous cave system. This seems much less significant than the experts and teams of experts from around the world who have travelled to Thailand and are actually helping, but aren't described at all in the article. Musk appears to be trying to milk this incident for PR purposes. Given that various sources say that parts of the caves are now free of water, it's hard to see how a little submarine would be very useful at present. I'd suggest only including this if/when Musk's assistance is accepted and used. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I wasn't suggesting including it in the article unless it actually was used or at least delivered. It was just something to be aware of in possible updates. Still I can't blame Musk or anyone else from wanting to help. This is pretty silly too, but same idea. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Musk's ground penetrating radar also sounds useless at that depth. But I've wondered if they could use acoustic rangefinding. Put some seismographs with precise clocks in the cave and make some vibrations (maybe using small explosions) on the ground, and do multilateration on the seismograph recordings. I'm sure they have thought of this though. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, I find it really shitty of you to suggest bad intentions behind Musk actually trying to help, and you have absolutely no reason to believe that. What you believe is more likely a projection that says more about you than about him. As opposed to most people, and especially billionaires, Musk has a long history of actually wanting to do good in the world; you should try to read more about him. Furthermore, I find even the fact that he wants to help and is actually working hands-on on a possible solution, even if it turns out not to be used, noteworthy and interesting. It shows how many people are involved and trying to help, even people from the other side of the globe. --Jhertel (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly agree (though I think Nick-D was perfectly well-intentioned!). Musk's attempts have been widely reported, including The New York Times and Business Insider. I was surprised this wasn't mentioned in the article. Apparently the "submarine" is nearly past the testing phase and will soon be sent to Thailand. — MusikAnimal talk 23:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2018

misspelled word: please change helpped to helped 97.79.222.107 (talk) 16:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for pointing it out. Have a nice day, Manifestation (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the lead following move discussion

The above debate regarding the requested move is currently ongoing for 4 days, with 3 days remaining. Both sides have made good arguments regarding the proposed title, 2018 Thailand cave rescue. Regardless of what the closing administrator will decide, can we discuss how to change the lead following the discussion?

If the "Thailand cave rescue" side wins, we could have something like this:

Current After the rescue
The 2018 Thailand cave rescue is an ongoing effort to rescue ... The 2018 Thailand cave rescue occurred from 23 June 2018 to ... when ...

If the "Tham Luang cave rescue" side wins, then perhaps we could still somewhat satisfy both parties by writing:

Current After the rescue
The Tham Luang cave rescue, known internationally as the Thailand cave rescue, is an ongoing effort to rescue ... The Tham Luang cave rescue, known internationally as the Thailand cave rescue, occurred from 23 June 2018 to ... when ...

If that doesn't work, then maybe we can put "Thailand cave rescue" somewhere down the lead:

Current After the rescue
The Tham Luang cave rescue is an ongoing effort to rescue ...

(...)

The ordeal attracts international attention, and is commonly referred to as the Thailand cave rescue by media outside of Thailand. The rescue operation includes an international team of people from all over the world, consisting of ... etc.

The Tham Luang cave rescue occurred from 23 June 2018 to ... when ...

(...)

The ordeal attracted international attention, and was commonly referred to as the Thailand cave rescue by media outside of Thailand. The rescue operation included an international team of people from all over the world, consisting of ... etc.

What do you guys think? Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transliteration

In the 'Disappearance' section the name of the 25-year-old coach is transliterated as both 'Ekkaphon Chanthawong' and as 'Ekapol "Ake" Chantawong'. The 'Ake' nickname aside, which transliteration of his name should be used consistently throughout the article? JezGrove (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @JezGrove: added => "Ekapol" - spelling seems better supported in the latest BBC News, 8 July 2018 ref => https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44757804 - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Drbogdan. Best, JezGrove (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ekkaphon Chanthawong is เอกพล จันทะวงษ์ in the Royal Thai General System of Transcription. I believe we should use the Royal Thai General System of Transcription, but others will disagree. There has been a similar dispute with regard to สมาน กุนัน. Khiikiat (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)."[reply]
I've no preference about which transliteration is used, but whichever one it is needs to be used consistently throughout the whole article to avoid confusion. JezGrove (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism?

I'm not sure why the rescued group are being named in the article along with acknowledgements that these names are disputed. Shouldn't we wait for a definitive list from reliable sources as per WP:NotNews? JezGrove (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC) JezGrove (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism has nothing to do with their names. Their names are not recent. The names should be removed only to comply with WP:TooMuchFuckingDetail. Vanrich (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly applicable. Bus stop (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There have been a few recentism related issues with this article over the last few weeks. I understand that editors are eager to update the article, but we should be a bit more discerning about what is added. For newer editors, I would encourage you to review relevant wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTNEWS. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that according to recentism, this article should be deleted and recreated in 2019. However, that is not the Wikipedia way. The names are not that many, not like 25 or 100, and they are cited in multiple sources. There is even more cited, such as the one Burmese boy who spoke English to the first English rescuer and confirmed the number of children. He is the only fluent English speaker. Vanrich (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

vanrich I see you are a relatively new wikipedian, welcome. I’d recommend that you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sources, because a distinction is made between a source and a reliable source for Wikipedia. Wikipedia follows certain procedures that tends to favor accuracy over expediency. †Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tham_Luang_cave_rescue&oldid=849441346"