Talk:Urban exploration/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) .

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.

  1. Abandoned: Contains accurate and neutral information, and contains relevant and approperiate content for the urban exploration article.
  2. Dark Places: ?
  3. Infiltration Zine: Features much relevant information regarding urban exploring as a whole. The forum, however, it linked to UER.
  4. Urban Adventure: Contains neutral information regarding safety and exploration as a while, relevant and approperiate for the urban exploration article.
  5. 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 :)
  6. 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.
  7. UK Urban Exploration Forums: This should not be included because it is just a forum.
  8. Urban Explorers: Features "popular" topics such as "What to bring" and other relevant information that may or may not be covered in other sites.
  9. 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 (talkcontribs) .
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 (talkcontribs) .
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:
  1. Personal or group UE sites with photos and stories (example: UEC, Cave Clan, many more)
  2. Community websites with public forums (Abandoned, UER, etc)
  3. 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 (talkcontribs) .
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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) Can I add this site?

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

Needs updating regarding Media Attention, And Crane Exploration

In the UK Urbex has been recieving ALOT of media attention, Especially www.28dayslater.co.uk - In fact they have a forum dedicated to news articles regarding Urbex. It should also be noted, Most of the media attention is sensationalist and incorrect.

Also, There is a craze in "Crane Exploration", Once again highlighted by www.28dayslater.co.uk - I feel this should be noted in the wiki article. 86.18.1.196 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree : 'Craning' is now a recognised sub-category of UE and should be featured within this page BenFairless (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Link edit controversy

You should initiate discussion before making drastic and controversial edits, that were accepted by other editors through a consensus. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you were adding in your own link indicates you have an agenda. Good try. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the entry for "abandoned" belongs there? It takes you to a site listed as 'ababdoned online' which features travel guides to the highways and byways! This is CLEARLY inappropriate and is evidence of someone's agenda.

Some of the other links have at least some basis for being there, tenuous as it may be. If individual or group sites are to be included then ALL personal or group sites should be included. But if there's some pretense that only mass-market or widely beneficial sites are to be included then I would seriously consider editing the list as it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.168.3 (talkcontribs)

Please explain why you removed the majority of the links and added your personal site? Abandoned clearly works, but a change only a day ago over a dispute with a former host forced the redirect from the .com to the .net address to fail. I'm sorry I don't spend more time on Wikipedia; that's what other editors are for :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


Legality in Australia and the Lurline Bay incident.

As some urbexers may be aware, legality of our hobby is a bit .. how's it going. Further, two people died in Lurline Bay ('The Fortress') the other day and one almost died. First on the subject of legality, after extensive communication with Sydney Water and the New South Wales Police on the matter, I've found that the majority of charges in relation to urban exploration have been 'malicious damage to public property'. If something is deemed public property in caselaw then the ability to charge with 'trespass to private property' is negated. Which, in strictly legal terms, means that you are not trespassing.

Secondly, in relation to the Lurline Bay incident. I brought it to the attention of Randwick Council and the Police that their answer to 'look into ways to secure the drain' was inappropriate and given that the majority of manholes and gutterboxes to that network have been tacked shut with a welder, it could easily be said that Sydney Waters attempt to 'secure' the drain is the reason that two people died, and urban explorers attempt to break into the drain by bending the bar at the end many aeons ago which the third (lucky) person was ejected through in the flash flood is the only reason it's not three fatalaties we're dealing with.

I have been in contact with a group called The Tunnel Rats who will be assisting me in making representations to the state coroner on the issue. Given the eggshell skull principle and the fact it is reasonably foreseeable that people WILL access the drain, sealing all potential emergency exits amounts to negligence which in this instance occasioned death. The idiocy, culpability, assumed risk, et cetera, of the people who went in there is clearly not negated by any court within the Westminster legal system by the fact that all the exits were welded shut.

One equivilent that could be put forth is, if you are the owner of a .. derelict movie theatre on a block of land, and decided to reverse the firedoors push-to-exit system (let's face it, a claw hammer breaks a weld to get in, but from underground getting out nothing would break those welds) and people get trapped within your property and it burns down, you are entirely culpable with a non-delegable duty of care to provide an exit to those people even if they are breaking the law. This is the grounds that many people bitch about 'a burgler fell on my property and sued me', however it is NOT that simple, there has to be negligent action on behalf of the owner, so if the burgler fell, but only fell because the owner had a pit trap full of punji spikes, then yes, the owner WILL be found negligent.

Just thought I'd give you guys a bit of an update on these two pressing issues. Jachin (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jachin. While I agree with you entierley here, it is now no longer possible to sue some one for injuries sustained while in the process of an illegal activity in Australia. Hence burgulars can no longer sue for injures while burgularising you, and drain explorers can no longer sue for death as a result of being within a drain without authorisation.

Despite that, yes, I think sealing the drain is just stupid. In his case Predator's actions of years past saved one person's life. If the outfall was no grilled, it is entierly possible 2 other people would be alive that day, wet, but alive.

I for one would like to see the coroner's report. I should request a copy.

Images

Like I explained to Seicer, what I had been doing is removing redundant pictures. One picture is of the Demolition at Danvers that would be appropriate in the Danvers State hospital article, not the UE. It is not an UE picture. If the picture had been a picture of the hospital's inside, tunnels, or outside when the place sat abandoned, then the image would have been ok. Then I counted not one, but three pictures of drains. Two of the pictures were from the same user and of the same drain. Not only where two of the pictures from the same user, but it also had a picture of him within the drain. One picture of drains is enough to give the reader a good idea what it looks like in drains. I then removed the WV image because it also does not pertain to UE because it is not a picture of some kind of exploration. However, it does advertise that the place give tours (Whoohoo, which break into a place when you can pay to get a tour! that's real exploring!), which is also inappropriate for the UE page. Lastly I removed the bit of text because is was a user's personal opinion with no references to back it up.

The one problem I noticed with this article, which prompted me to remove those users pictures, is because this article seems to attract UE'ers who just want to advertise their web site, their exploits, and their images. Those two personal user shots I removed I put in that class and that was the basis I removed a good portion of the shots.

Now if there were different UE shots of the different aspects of UE (I.E. An abandoned hospital, abandoned mine, abandoned bridges, etc) then I would not have removed the shots. That is my reasoning for removing the shots. Brothejr (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yea, I removed the picture of the book because it is enough to list the book under the UE books, we either list then pictures of every book we put in that section, or we don't have any pictures of books. Plus as cool as Ninja was, his book is both outdated and a bit lopsided, not worthy of it's own picture. If we are going to include that picture, then we need to add the other images because there are some other cool and equally important books on UE out there. Brothejr (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from, and I've edited the page to reflect a possible compromise between you and Seicer and Noodle snacks. I added back the Access All Areas picture, the demolition and one of the drain pictures, and left one drain picture and the asylum picture removed. The Access All Areas should certainly remain, that book has probably had more impact on the activity than any single other work. This does not obligate us to put more pictures of other books up, and it certainly does not stop up should we wish to. The demolition pic was properly placed in the abandonment subsection, and one pic of a drain is proper they didn't both need to be removed. I can see reasons to included the other pics as well, but in the sprit of pleasing everyone that might not be possible. Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is nothing in the IMOS that states that we need to include every image of every book, when one image is sufficient. FU is covered under this article, it seems, given that there is not one dedicated article for the text. We really need to come to a consensus for the images instead of edit warring over something that is rather minute, IMO. I hold no indifference towards the images, but I disagree with the notion that all need to be removed for the sake that they are not related somehow to urban exploration.

What defines urban exploration? We are well aware that it is composed of drainers, abandoned building explorers and the like. Danvers (was) one such target of explorers for years, and an image of it being demolished -- while more favored towards the Danvers State Hospital article -- is still suitable for this page, although a replacement should be sought. Having a better representation of a drain is also more desirable as well, but there is nothing that screams "take me down" at this instance without at least having some replacement on hand. I can provide images for the article in relation to the exploration of abandoned/historic structures, but I have no experience with draining or any of the other variants. seicer | talk | contribs 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

While Danvers was such an important part of UE, putting up a picture of it being demolished is not appropriate to this article. What I will do, seeing as people want to have a Danvers image up is that I will find and add one, that is ok to post on Wikipedia that will be related to the article. Also, the book that Ninja wrote did have some impact on UE, but did not have that much impact to warrant a picture of the book. I suggest, that if we are going to include the picture of his book, then we need to find a picture of every book up on that list and post those pictures to to give a fair impact. However, instead I suggest that we remove the picture as a reference within the book section is enough. Brothejr (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have uploaded a better Danvers image that better reflects UE. It might not be the best shot, but it is more appropriate to this article. Also, as per my argument above and to be fair to the other books listed, I have removed the all access book image. Brothejr (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You need to come up with a consensus on this, listing every image if you wish to continue. All this is doing is creating a very petty edit war over a very trivial subject that is entirely opinionized. Nothing in the IMOS states that we need to remove these images on the basis that the book was of inferior quality (an opinion), that there is a person in a drain photograph (no reason why it can't), or that Danver's is being demolished (a target for explorers while it was still up). seicer | talk | contribs 00:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to start an edit war and never was. However, all the points that you keep on making to me can be exactly said about you. As I mentioned before, the danvers pic does not belong there. It is a deconstruction pic, not an exploration pic. While I agree that Danvers was a target for exploration, that pic is not of when it was a target of an exploration, unless people were exploring a construction site where all there was left were walls and construction equipment. I had put up an appropriate image of Danvers instead, and then you guys just go and revert that and slap me with a three revert rule? To me, this seems as if you guys don't want to see what I am seeing. Also as far as the book is concern, if you want to keep the image up, then please explain why it is so important to have the image of that book up, but not any other? Why is it, you can go to most other simular articles that contain books and find no images of the books, yet this one has to have a picture of Ninja's book. I've met the man, I've been doing this for long time, and I know quite a bit about the book and the man. while I mourn his death, he was not the end all be all of UE, nor was his book. Not that many people have read the book and those who have said there are a lot of errors within it too.
As far as that guy standing in a drain, my reasoning for removing it was because he had already added one shot of the drain, then he added another shot of the same drain with himself posing in the shot. Did Wikipedia become an image hosting service where any explorer can come and post their own images of their exploits up online like the various UE forums out there? I see it as the same thing as people posting their personal websites up tehre just so they can get more traffic to their site. It's the same thing folks.
So I ask you again, why is it that important to have the image of his book up there when no other book has an image and why is it that important to have the image of Danvers being deconstructed instead of one that is relevant to the article? I ask you guys to prove why an unrelated image and also a picture of one of the books listed have to be up there?
As I stated before I removed unrelated images and removed personal advertising pictures off the article and I create a firestorm.Brothejr (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
No intention of personal advertising was made on my part, but having more than one image from one person has obviously upset you a bit. First thing is first, the image with the urban explorer in it that i have placed back is not myself, or one of my friends, therefore not personal advertising as you suspected. I changed the image from the other one and moved it to the top of the page based upon the discussion for a peer review at Wikipedia:Picture_peer_review/Image:Urban_Explorer_Hobart.jpg. It is more representative of urban exploration as a whole than the other images, which only either show an explorer, or a location of exploration, not a clear picture of both.Noodle snacks (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that I also bumped the size slighty to make the subject of the picture visible from the thumbnail. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What about the bloke in the image, do you have his permission to put up a photo off him on wikipedia. I am not exactly sure what the rules are, but is it possible that this guy could take legal action. . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

His face is not visible, and no action can be taken. seicer | talk

| contribs 03:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The face can be seen quite clearly if it was my head I would complain. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Whoops. Didn't note the image change. That would be grounds for removal... seicer | talk | contribs 04:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
You thought I was talking about the other one. If I was allowed I could photo shop him out completely . --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

On the whole, image sizes need not to include the image size, per the MOS so that it is renderable on all browsers. seicer | talk | contribs 03:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can live with moving around the shots and I can see your point of the top one with the explorer. However, my other points is this: I can completely understand peoples ideas and thoughts of Danvers and I would like to have a Danvers shot in the article. However, there has to be a better shot of Danvers then the deconstruction shot. Heck, if we could find a shot of Danvers back when it was abandoned (That we can all agree upon), then that would be more representative to UE and Danvers. Also, my other point was that I don't want to remove the entry about Ninja's book, it's fine and good to leave it there. Yet, my point was why does it need an image of the book when we don't provide images of the other books. To me it seems a little bit lopsided, as if we're saying this book is way better then all the rest, which could be construed as advertising. Brothejr (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the image of Danvers, that is UE related, is of when it was abandoned, and is more appropriate to this article. I had origionally put it up before it was reverted and I was slapped with a 3RR warning. Brothejr (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't this this picture represent UE. To me and I would assume to others, would appear to be a picture taken from a rooftop of an historic building. There is nothing in it to suggest that it is UE related. I think an interior shot of the place semi demolished and in ruin would have been more appropriate. Adam (talk) (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with an interior shot of when the place was abandoned and "semi-demolished." My only disagreement with the original picture is that it is just of the demolition of the hospital and does not show any of the grandeur of the place. While, I understand that the destruction of the place was devastating to explorers, most readers won't get the idea of devastating by just looking a the picture. Plus, I argue that sort of thing would be better on the Danvers article.
As I mentioned before, if you have a better picture that shows the interior, then I'm cool with that. Brothejr (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. That image means nothing to me, and the article doesn't even explain the significance of its inclusion. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 21:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
That has been my point. I also, like others, want to have a Danvers pic in the article. However, this picture has to be some appropriate to UE and a demolition pic of Danvers, while sad to see, is not really related to UE in general, but significant to those who explored there. A pic like that should be included on the Danvers page.
My other point is the picture of Ninja's book. I had raised the question about why we have a picture of his book up, but not the others. Why is his book more special then the others? Brothejr (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, that could be a matter of fair use. The book covers are likely copyrighted, so only one or two exemplary books should be shown. Of course, any important book on urban exploration should still be discussed in the text. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 12:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you there. Plus also, could there be a copy write issue with the image of Ninja's book too? Also, by adding just that image of that book and no other seems to place undue weight on Ninja's book. Brothejr (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Image Vote

It has been over three days since anyone has made a comment on this issue. So I have come up with a plan for people to have a say in this. Twas Now had made a comment that an inside image would be more representative of Danvers and also better UE image and I agree with him. So what I am going to do is to upload a bunch of images that people can vote on (If you have something better then by all means upload it and add it to the list.). It is 8am Eastern Time Zone now and I'll leave the voting open for 48 hours. After the 48 hours has past, I'll tally up the votes and add the image that received the most votes.

When voting, please bold your response.

  • My choice would be Number 6. I feel that it is better as it combines a multitude of aspects covered in this article: it is of Danvers State hospital, it shows a tunnel with am mysterious end, and it has parts that are related to the movie Session 9 which is rather popular in the UE world. Brothejr (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind, but I made this a single gallery for (vertical) space reasons. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I like it! It looks better!Brothejr (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • They all look good and it is a hard choice, but maybe number 6. Can't we ditch the doofus drain pic or remove the doofus from the drain pic altogether. Adam (talk) (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that people wanted him there because after removing it, people put it back up. However, with this vote winding down and with the exception of . Adam (talk) everyone else has not responded. I agree with Adam on Number 6 (I've also changed my vote to reflect that too!) so that will be added to the page. (Please note, if you had stayed quiet and had not at least said something against this, then you should not be reverting the picture. You had more then sufficient time to voice your opposition to the change.) Brothejr (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The only person that wanted the drain pic with him in it was the author himself. He uploaded the image with his account and then used his ip address to insert the image. I know this because he left a message on someones talk page to complain about me and the removal of his image from this article. He used his account leave the message and then the ip address the reinsert the image to the article, he then stated on the other persons talk page that some one else put the image back. He then made the mistake of using his ip address to make a correction to the message on Jrons talk page, the same ip that was re adding the image to this article. Adam (talk) (talk)

Drain picture

How about this for the drain section. The quality may not be as good as the other but this picture shows actual people in the act of urban exploration. They are exploring a tunnel in in a Sydney suburb. The tunnel itself is known to the Cave clan as Hercules pillars. You can find pics of this in their website gallery as well. The image is four stitched photos.

Cave clan exploring Hercules pillars