Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Caves

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


Hi all - I've been asked to drop a note here to explain about stub categories for caving, from the point of view of the stub sorting WikiProject. For stubs on caving to be in line with similar stub types (and therefore keep Wikiproject Stub sorting happy), a comparison can be made with the stubs used for articles on mountaineering. With climbing stubs, there is one category, with the template {{climbing-stub}}. Articles on individual climbs are double-stubbed - that is, two different stub templates are added - with climbing-stub and whatever regional geo-stub is appropriate. This makes it possible for editors who know climbing to find articles, and also editors who know their own local areas. Some examples of this method of stubbing can be seen at Hillary Step, Haiku Stairs, and Horse Flats.

By analogy, stubs about individual caves should be marked with {{caving-stub}} and also with the relevant geo-stub. Every country in the world has its own geo-stub, of the form CountryName-geo-stub, and many subnational regions also have (such as individual English counties, for example).

{{Cave-stub}} has been nominated for deletion, as it is likely to cause problems for WikiProject Stub sorting, and is also likely to lead to the possibility of regional geo-stubs being removed from articles, which would result in less likelihood of the articles being edited. In any case, double-stubbing as described above will achieve a similar effect to having a separate cave-stub, whilst also providing extra sorting for editors on a region-by-region basis.

By the way, you might want to consider the idea of a WikiProject-specific talk-page assesment system, as used by many other WikiProjects (for example {{WPBeatles}}). These have the advantage that you can rate all articles related to your wikiproject, not just stubs, and furthermore the template would be dedicated specifically for your WikiProject (stub templates are for use by all WP editors, whether they are poart of your project or not, and can therefore lead to problems of usefulness and scope). Grutness...wha? 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The {{caving-stub}} template was broken, as I found when adding it to Kirkdale Cave (produced an extra blank line and stray ]]). After a lot of fiddling I think I've fixed it, although the template still files under "T" in the category listing which may be avoidable. Apologies if I've broken anything, but it looks as if it's better than it was! PamD 09:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

First cave dive[edit]

I just spotted a conflict between two articles, Wookey Hole Caves and Jack Sheppard (cave diver). One claims "first successful cave dive in Britain" was in Wookey Hole 1935, the other "the world's first cave dive in Swildon's Hole on October 4, 1936". To me this doesn't compute, but I know nothing of this field. Maybe it is a simple matter of what equipment was used? If so, please clarify. If it is a case of there being no firm documentary evidence, the material should be rewritten or removed please. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The first cave dive using brearthing apparatus (Standard Diving Dress) was at Wookey Hole in 1935 on 14 July by F.G. Balcombe. Starting at 00:40 and ending at 01:00 (reference: The Log of the Wookey Hole Exploration Expedition, p. 51 (1935)).

Earlier attempts at Swildon's hole were conducted by Balcombe and Sheppard and the latter sucessfully passed Sump 1 on 4 October 1936 (reference: A Glimmering in Darkness).

Earlier cave dives had been conducted overseas by Swiss divers using hard hat gear (reference: The Darkness Beckons) Duncan Price (talk) 10:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Paisley Caves[edit]

A recent news item says that evidence for the earliest humans in North America was found in Paisley Caves, Oregon. Not sure if this wikiproject would be interested, but the article was recently born and could use whatever perspectives apply. The article's infobox could really use someone more experienced with it. —EncMstr 19:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

requesting review[edit]

I've been working on Jeita Grotto and i know very very little about speleology and caves, i just had to expand this article as it's subject is of great interest currently. briefly, i need expert opinion if it's possible, if anyone could have a look at the article and give me some recommendations, it'd help a lot.

thx Eli+ 08:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1[edit]

Your attention is needed at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mammoth Cave National Park/1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Cave research in India[edit]

I'm trying to save this from deletion or a redirect. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are maps to be considered primary or secondary sources?[edit]

Please give your input at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Regarding maps being "primary sources" according to this policy. --Rschen7754 (T C) 12:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI: New articles[edit]

A bot has been set up, which looks through the new Wikipedia articles and picks up those that are likely related to caves. The search results are available at User:AlexNewArtBot/CavesSearchResult and are normally updated on a daily basis. Colchicum (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Userbox User caver[edit]

Hey everyone. I've made a fairly simple userbox with the same image as is used for the WP:Caves banner, and incorporating the Category:Wikipedian cavers tag. Any thoughts? Take a look at my user page to see it in "action". I was torn between the fairly boring "is a caver" and something like "enjoys dark wet holes" but figured that for something that resides in the Template: namespace it should be worded as unprovocatively as possible :-) – Fattonyni (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Cave alterations[edit]

I've added a couple of suggestions regarding alterations to Template:Infobox Cave on the template's talk page. Feel free to add your 2¢. Fattonyni (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cave survey[edit]

I've now created a new article devoted to cave surveying, separate from the speleology article as discussed on the talk page there. I've used the contents of the cave cartography section from that page as the basis. Added more detailed information on the BCRA grades and a section on hydrolevelling amongst other stuff. Currently lacking in citations, images and plenty of other info, particularly on software -- please feel free to contribute! Fattonyni (talk) 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I tried to add a sample survey image, but found the thumbnail illegible. Any hints on how to make these sort of things clearer? Ian mckenzie (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
I added the image back but a little higher in the lede section. A more vertical example of a survey would probably fit the article better but the image you added is an improvement. Thanks for it. There is no way that I know of to make the details in the thumb itself more legible. The interested reader will have to click on it to get a better view. WTucker (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I know that this survey is less than ideal, but at least there's no copyright argument with it. It is my hope that a WikiProject Caves participant will replace it with a more suitable one. BTW, the full-size image also does not look so great, for some reason; I thought I had uploaded it at its original size and res, but even 'save for web' res shoulda looked okay...? Ian mckenzie (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh wait; I see that clicking the thumb brings you to a preview of the full-size image, which itself is too big to display. Should I replace the full-size image with one that is resized to fit the page? Ian mckenzie (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Clicking on the thumb will take you to an image page in the file namespace and if the image is too big, it will have an indicator that the full resolution is available with one more click. Sometimes viewing these detailed images is like trying to view a scene through a drinking straw. Images that are mainly used to give a general impression such as portraits tend to fit but those that contain detailed information such as maps tend to need a full resolution examination "through the drinking straw" to be fully appreciated. But, if you think you can improve it, go for it -- it's the wiki way. WTucker (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Project tags[edit]

Is there a policy on using the WikiProject:Caves tag? Is there a tag-master? It is inconsistently used (e.g. many articles on caves do not have the tag). Do I just go ahead and tag away? Ian mckenzie (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, tag away. WTucker (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, but for example, is it appropriate to replace a WikiProject Geography tag with a WikiProject Caves tag, since one is a subproject of the other? It would appear to be less cluttered that way, rather than including both tags. I've also asked this on WikiProject Geography talk, but have not had a reply yet. Ian mckenzie (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

While WikiProject Caves is generally considered a subproject of Geography, it is not strictly so. There are many existing and potential articles that would fall into the Caves project that have nothing to do with Geography. So, I would tend not to replace an existing Geography tag but to add a Caves tag. WTucker (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Caves on the map? or Infobox Coordinates for Caves[edit]

The article of this discussion page mentions putting caves on the map (an idiom?), and I see reference to overlaying caves onto maps using satellites. I don't know how you guys feel, or what you're affiliation with caving is, but I personally don't want the average person knowing about most of the caves in my area. Nor would I like them to have access to a map showing where these caves are all at. After seeing the abuse the general public puts caves through, I think I will avoid helping out this aspect of wikipedia. As with the List of caves, I don't see the point in having a list of caves. No one cares about every cave, and nor should they. Some are unremarkable. And most importantly, cavers practice location secrecy, so it's not likely that list will ever be more than 1% complete. With a lot of caves being on private property, having coordinates will be a problem too. Coordinates are supposedly innocent, but let's not kid ourselves or anyone else. The whole point of coordinates is to visit that location. And visiting a cave on private property is breaking the law unless you have full permission from the owner. You also don't want inexperienced people visiting a remote and dangerous cave, especially those with vertical entrances or those with no oxygen. I think it's appropriate to direct people interested in caves and caving to join a local grotto or visit the NSS website for more information. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You are not alone in your concerns about freely publishing cave locations, especially unprotected, vulnerable ones. Most of the time this information can be removed from the article on the grounds of needing a reliable source. Reliable sources for the geocoord data are hard to find and often do not exist. Often these geocoord additions are simply original research and that is very much frowned upon. WTucker (talk) 13:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is a place for coord data on the infobox, then people will continually strive to fill it in, despite the wishes of landowners, conservationalists etc. I am no fan of location secrecy, but out of respect for those who are I removed coords from one such cave infobox and contacted the contributing Wikipedian with my reasons why, only to have that contributor repost the coords. So it really is a matter of whether the coord field should be part of the infobox or not. Is it important enough to have our US caving Wikipedians stop contributing? Ian mckenzie (talk) 05:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I've come across others who don't believe in coordinate secrecy, and some of them are related to geocachers. Geocachers are great as a whole, but every group seems to have a bad apple. Coordinates by themselves are totally innocent. But the function they serve is a means to an end. It provides for a way to find and go in the cave. I would argue not all caves should be known to the public. Some are just too dangerous. It's in my best interest to keep the average public away from a 150 foot pit in my region. Because it has unstable areas, and because most don't know how to navigate such a cave. It's a health risk to the extreme! I don't want that on my conscience. Also, several caves in my region are on private property and plenty of them get trashed by trespassers. Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a utopia where revealing coordinates to these caves would not be detrimental to the caves or their inhabitants? This ain't that world. Coordinates are convenient. And convenience breeds lack of respect. Coordinates empower the amateur who lacks the needed experience to navigate and respect caves in a proper fashion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leitmotiv (talkcontribs) 09:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Current policies allow removal of geocoord data when unsourced on precisely those grounds. The coords you removed appear to be sourced so he was within his rights to add them back. Lack of notability is another means of keeping these coords out -- not every cave is notable. I have used this argument to keep a sensitive cave on private property off of the wiki -- it was completely not notable and should not have had an article. WTucker (talk) 02:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the key discussion is whether coords may or may not be removed, or whether secrecy is a valid management tool or not, or if there are bad people in the world. The real question is: should coords be included as an infobox field, if it means it will discourage US Wikipedians from contributing? Ian mckenzie (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure that's a good point, seeing as how I'm on this side of the pond. But... I look at wikipedia like this. It should be an online version of an encyclopedia, except for one that anybody can edit. Would it seem appropriate to have coordinates in a paper encyclopedia? Encylopedias are not meant to be the "be all to end all" and that's probably another reaason why they're not peer review worthy. If coordinates were included, then I think you'd have to reconsider the function of wikipedia. It would be more like a waymark or geocache website detailing all your favorites places and how to get there. But if this is really to be like an encyclopedia, where you come to learn about the caves, then I recommend leaving coordinates out of it. Vague descriptions of locations can be put in the first few paragraphs. For instance, for a cave in the US you could put the state, county, and perhaps even a vague location reference like "on the flanks of Mt. St. Helens" or "apart of the Appalachian mountain range." That would suffice for me and most people I think. Coordinates are best left for map services. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence that US Wikipedians are being discouraged from contributing because of a field in an infobox? Can't one just leave that field blank and ignore it for particular articles? I think that show caves and well known and protected caves will not be harmed by the coords; but, sensitive, lesser known and unprotected caves (most of which probably should not have articles) should not have coords. Those coords can be removed on policy grounds. Wikipedia is not a cave database so not all caves should appear -- only the notable ones that can be reliably sourced. And not all facts about caves should appear. All of that having been said, I have no problem with removing the coord field from the infobox if that is what concensus wants to do. WTucker (talk) 14:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence? The NSS Cavechat site has a ban on revealing cave locations, and I think it is official NSS policy as well. Leitmotiv's comments (above) are typical, I'd say. As for "coords can be removed on policy grounds" - let's face it, they'll just get re-entered unless the field is blocked, or removed altogether. Ian mckenzie (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah my comments are typical of NSS Cavers, and generally speaking, representative of caver attitudes here in the US. At least among the cavers I've met on the west coast. Imo, having an infobox is begging for it to be filled, and will be a contstant editing nightmare if it's not omitted. However, I do agree with WTucker that notable caves could probably have coordinates (but could be listed elsewhere in the article). And defining notable, I would argue, should be different from how wikipedia defines it. Notable caves, in this regard, I think would be caves that are publicly accessible especially in the form of recreational caves, recognized monument caves, tourist caves, and perhaps even some historical caves (though I think that would be a bit of contention). As in the case of Fort Rock Cave, which is a historically prominent cave due to the large amounts of archaeological artifacts found therein, it is on private property. I live in the area, and I hear the owner does not look too kindly upon people trespassing onto his ranch to visit his cave or messing with his cattle. He's had people try to pothunt the cave, which is a punishable act by law. As it stands now, the article on Fort Rock Cave already notes the location of the cave in a short description. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Leitmotiv's comments

Leitmotiv, I understand what you are saying about not saying where a cave is but I have to say if people get hurt while attempting something totally not suited for the regular public it isn't really our fault. To give you an idea of what I mean, I jumped Bromley Rock earlier this summer & near the rocks there are signs saying not to jump. People (like me) do it anyway. Now, lets say I got injured doing it. Would I go off on BC Parks? NO! Why? Because it is my own fault if I get hurt. I'm doing something that can be potentially dangerous so if I get hurt the blame is on me.

My point is if someone gets hurt or killed doing something that we all know can be & is dangerous (caving) the blame is not on Wikipedia. It is like at a grocery store where there is a toy car that you put a quarter in and there is a little tag on the side that say something like "we will not be responsible for any injuries obtained while using this machine". See what I'm getting at; caving is dangerous & everyone knows it so if someone is too foolish to get proper experience before trying to satisfy his needs to go check out some cave somewhere, it isn't our fault for providing directions. Our directions are for cavers, not the regular public who mostly have no experience in this field but if they think they are too cool for experience & they want to take our directions & go to some cave to show how hardcore they are, it is up to them.

Now we would still feel sorry for them. Nobody likes to see someone die in that fashion (geez dying in a cave is probably one of the worst ways to die out there) but there is a difference between feeling sorry for someone & blaming someone else for something that isn't their fault. Leitmov, I'm sorry if this post sounds dismissive but I'm trying to explain something here; I will be the first to admit I disagree with your ideas but I'm going to disagree respectfully. Regards AndrewEnns (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss whether cave location secrecy is appropriate or not. It's been discussed to death on every caving forum, with no conclusion - chalk it up to "cultural differences". The Wikipedia issue, in my opinion, is whether it's worth including coords in the cave infobox if it means excluding the participation of US cavers on Wikipedia. Is it really that important to have coords - what's the benefit? Ian mckenzie (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ian, I'm sorry. I just joined this project & I though I'd give my thoughts. I didn't realize this was a long hung jury. I apologize. I do stand by my statement; I still beleive the coordinates are okay to have but that if as far as I'm going to go because you asked me to stop. Now what are you trying to say about the US cavers? I don't get your point there.
Also, how come you indent your posts with a little star (*) & not just like this with a semi-colon (;)? Do different editors have different ways of doing it or what? I'm just wondering... several other editors do it that way too. AndrewEnns (talk) 14:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I won't spend much time responding AndrewEnns, but I will summarize your response as revolving around the people who visit the caves, and not enough about the caves and their contents. All three should be big priorities, and Wikipedia as an avenue for dispersing cave coordinates seems to be counterintuitive to the function of Wikipedia which is to teach. I can't protect a fool from himself, but I sure can protect the inhabitants, archeaological contents, and geologic cave features from the fools. Coordinates on caves usually aren't found in books or websites, so I would imagine that any coordinate for a cave that is unsourced (which would be the majority) could be deleted. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi AndrewEnns, sorry about the goofy indents, will try to refrain. My 'point' about US cavers is that most are against publishing cave locations. It doesn't matter why, or whether it makes sense, or whether I or anyone else agrees with that, it is just a fact. So, if Wikipedia is a place where people publish cave locations, US cavers won't like that, and may cease to be contributors because they know that someone will add a cave infobox to their contributions and the coords will get included. It logically follows that removal of coords from the infobox template also removes the US cavers' objection, and they may contribute without the fear that coords must inevitably be added in. Ian mckenzie (talk) 04:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I concur! Ha.. And I think this topic should be merged with the above, because I see no difference between the two. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Or maybe moved to Template talk:Infobox Cave. Ian mckenzie (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As per discussion I have removed the Coordinates field (but retained the location field). Please, discuss further before reverting. I believe Location is adequate, while removal of Coords satisfies the concerns of our US members. Pls direct your comments to Template talk:Infobox Cave. Ian mckenzie (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a US caver and agree with the comments above. Publishing cave coordinates online is a big mistake, unless that cave is already well-known or a show cave (in which case everyone should be encouraged to visit). Posting coordinates to a pristine cave screams out "destroy me" and that is what will happen. I have seen cave lists on the web before that did not compromise location. The approach was to list the USGS quadrangle only. Anyone serious about locating a cave listed this way will contact experienced cavers at the local grotto or ridgewalk the area themselves. I think this is a reasonable compromise that protects these caves while educating the public. [Anonymous] February 9, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Coordinates have to go back in internationally![edit]

This is crazy and US-centric. I have spoken to American cavers and am aware that this part of their culture is locked-in and cannot be argued with. However in England and the rest of Europe cave locations are extensively published: [1] [2]. That's a fact, whether you agree with it or not. In practice sensitive caves have locked gates installed as we do not believe in security by obscurity. Owing to this profound disagreement that will never be resolved, can I propose two Cave Infobox modes -- one for US caves, and one for the rest of the world? There are two ways to do this. Either I can make a new Cave Infobox for the UK (or Europe) and leave the generic one suitable for Americans (works for national highway infoboxes), or I can stick a country location field into the cave infobox which results in an error if the coords are filled in and country=US. I don't know which is the better approach. Comments?Goatchurch 08:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a separate template is obvious. Look at the lovely one they have in German:[3]
I have no strong opinion either way. I was bold and removed the parameter because I knew how to do it while others were struggling. The consensus reached said that the coordinates parameter was to be removed from the infobox to remove the temptation to attempt to add coordinates for every cave article. There is nothing to prevent adding the coordinates to an article outside of the template. I can see the inverse, too; that being that the coordinates parameter can be left out of sensitive and unsourced cave articles. The temptation would be there but it can be ignored. I believe that we should contact Leitmotiv and Ian mckenzie (they will probably show up here soon as they are probably watching this page and the infobox) to see if a new consensus can be reached. I, personally, would not like to see two infoboxes. The error idea sounds interesting; but, I can see even some U.S. caves may have well sourced coordinates such as many private show caves. As it is now, the parameter is removed from the template but coordinates can be added to articles outside of the template (if well sourced and necessary). Goatchurch, what is wrong with adding the coordinates outside of the template? WTucker (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with WTucker. If coordinates are really needed you can enter them into the main body of the article with a reference. Two different templates is going to cause confusion. As it is, the Location field is starting to be used for coordinates. Just look at Lava River Cave. We should specify what the Location field is for. Region specific, right? Country, State/Province, county?
Also WTucker, Wikipedia does not respect the location secrecy of sensitive caves. If there's a valid referenced coordinate, it can be applied and then it would be very hard to remove from the article. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
In my experience, trying to control wikipedians is like trying to herd cats. Rules are often ignored. In my humble opinion, the best way to control the publication of inappropriate coordinate information would be by identifying and paroling [patrolling] articles of concern; and not my general prohibition. However, protection by obscurity will become more difficult over time with the advance of the internet. –droll [chat] 19:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean exactly by paroling articles of concern. Protection by obscurity is effective but not full proof. And you're definitely right about the advance of the internet being a threat. That's why I'm on wikipedia now, to nip this in the bud. I imagine that the grottos of caving may only be forced to be more secretive about sensitive caves or the opposite will be true. The problem I personally have is with the public feeling they're entitled to know everything; when the public in general has not proved to be responsible with that knowledge. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My only information on this topic comes from what I've read here and reports of cave vandalism in the US. I meant to type "patrolling" but my brain slipped. The term usually applies to oversight of new pages and the like. You could read Help:Watching pages and look into using Wikipedia:Twinkle. I my humble opinion you should probably confine your effort to caves within a specific area and then only those whose locations are not widely known. Best of luck on this. The coordinates of many well known caves in the US are available on the GNIS site and I think these should documented in Wikipedia. –droll [chat] 23:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah most cavers are aware of the USGS names registered there. It will pretty much come down to as you say: patrolling sites of critical or sensitive concern. It's a never ending management problem! Thanks for the tips. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of caves?[edit]

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: See Outline of sharks.

I think there are enough articles with enough variety to justify an outline. I say, "Go for it." WTucker (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
If there aren't enough articles now, there's definitely the potential for there to be. And it would be good to have an outline in place before those articles arrive. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing caves articles[edit]

I've updated a list of geological places, including section about caves - Skysmith (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"list of caves" style unification[edit]

I would like to unify the style of the "list of caves" pages. I propose to make them tables, like so:

cave region sub region
ape cave Washington State Skamania County

I will start in France, as that is where I live now. Just a side note: I am an armchair caver, I think they're really cool, but I haven't done more than holiday caving at places like Ape Cave and Ice Cave in Washington state USA (near where I am from originally).

--JustinGarofoli (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mystery Cave photos[edit]

I recently visited Mystery Cave in Minnesota and uploaded my best photos here on Commons. I invite knowledgeable editors to have a look and hopefully assist with categorization or correct any terminology mistakes I may have made. Cheers. Jonathunder (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of update to Template::Infobox cave[edit]

I've stated a discussion about updating {{Infobox cave}} on the template discussion page. The update is implemented using the meta template, {{Infobox}}, and so the appearance will conform with that of other geographically oriented Infoboxes. I welcome your collaboration in this effort.

P.S. Coordinates are not mentioned in the sandbox version. –droll [chat] 18:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Cave onyx [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Cave onyx , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Kleopatra (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

List of caves in xxx[edit]

Hello cave people. We are working on a table at List of caves in China. We welcome your input, as the result will be used as the table format for List of caves in Mongolia too. Hopefully, before too many of these lists of caves are developed, this might become a standard. Please help, as we are not cave people, but you are. Unka Unka!  :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is here: Talk:List_of_caves_in_China#Table column headings. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

UBSS Cave sprint[edit]

Taking place in the UBSS library, having produced a functional {{Infobox ukcave}} infobox that hosts locations.

Very long term objective is to allow for the webscraper of wikipedia here to harvest all the infoboxes and produce a table of longest and deepest caves, as well as maps.

Short term is to tidy up articles that relate to us, such as Category:Caving_organizations and take full advantage of the library to obtain historical citations, as well as keep up to date with current events.

Areas of special importance: Leck Fell and Caves of the Mendip Hills Goatchurch 01:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

After 1 hour of hassling, have finally got the 3G internet connection going. General mail going out.Goatchurch 12:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Time to wrap up at 6:30pm. Have edited Burrington Combe, Goatchurch Cavern, GB_Cave, Charterhouse Cave, Leck Beck, Swildon's Hole, Ireby Fell Cavern, created Manor Farm Swallet, Read's Cavern, and tried to defend my Template:Infobox_ukcave from marauding deleters. UBSS is to be commended for putting many of their historical proceedings online so we can make good cross references.Goatchurch 18:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Day 2. Got some more students this time who are caving at the weekend, so they can deal with the caves they're planning to do.Goatchurch 10:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion concerning deletion of Template:Infobox ukcave[edit]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_22#Template:Infobox_ukcave about whether it would be better if there were not two separate infoboxes: {{Infobox ukcave}} and {{Infobox cave}}. A difference being discussed is that one infobox allows a precise cave location to be given and the other deliberately does not. There is discussion as to whether or not it is undesirable or contrary to policy for this difference to be maintained. The matter of location has previously been discussed on this page and at Template_talk:Infobox_cave. Thincat (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople[edit]

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

That was some scattergun that you used to cause you to think that this RfC has anything to do with caves.WTucker (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Lots of Caves[edit]

Dozens of recent articles on Caves inside Gibraltar have been written which may interest some here as they invariaby hae been exploited to be used by Neanderthals or the Army. The latest is Star Chamber Cave but that has a template which lists quite a few other recent articles. Victuallers (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


There is a discussion at Talk:Stalactite#Limestone bias, regarding the coverage of the article - please feel free to contribute. Mikenorton (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I think as the article stands now with my edits and supplied sources, that it was clearly evident that the article had limestone bias and omitted everything else, including the common ice stalactite (of a different mineral than limestone). The term lavacicle was never accepted worldwide and was a local phenomenon of the west coast of the United States. To date geologists and cavers worldwide use the term lava stalactite and lava stalagmite prolifically. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Er Wang Dong[edit]

I created Er Wang Dong (currently just a stub) for this treasure. Please feel free to help expand! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Mayan caves in the Yucatan (seeking additional information for this article)[edit]

Hello ! I have a question about Maya archeology . In the mid- 90s . I watched an interesting TV show . In it a group of people studied karst system in the Yucatan . At the deepest and furthest from the surface of the cave they found a small, stuffy stones input ( such as having the right kind of masonry ) , allegedly leading to the lower world (or sanctuary) Maya. This entry allegedly walled Mayan priests to keep out strangers in a holy place (like Spanish ) when they invaded their land. Log in to open did not. In this TV show is over. For information about entering I have never found . If you know , please tell me : what was this cave , and where in fact this is the input? Thank you in advance. text in Russian - . Vyacheslav84 (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Wookey Hole Caves[edit]

I've been doing some editing on Wookey Hole Caves (which I note is on this project page as a "notable cave") and believe it is nearing GA standard. I've asked for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Wookey Hole Caves/archive1 particularly as I have limited knowledge of the specialist caving and cave diving terms and history in the article. In particular I'm unsure whether the individual chamber names & numbers should be capitalised and a sentence which says "Controversially, he was beaten to the discovery of the magnificent active streamway of Chamber 24 by Geoff Yeadon and Oliver Statham a couple of days later." without explaining why this was controversial. There are several points which might be understood by insiders but need to be clarified for a wider non-specialist audience. Any edits or suggestions would be great.— Rod talk 20:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that controversial sentence lacks supporting evidence. Eligible to be edited out of existence. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've asked for clarification &/or a reference for this on the article and from the user who inserted it. If they are not forthcoming I will remove. Any other advice on the article would be great.— Rod talk 19:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Haiton del Guarataro[edit]

I have added an entry for the Venezuelan cave Haiton del Guarataro. --Langcliffe (talk) 12:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Dog Hole and Pate Hole in Cumbria, Airmen's Cave in Texas[edit]

I've rewritten the Pate Hole and the Airmen's Cave articles, and added an infobox cave to the Dog Hole Cave article, and generally extended it. Langcliffe (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

New UK caving pages[edit]

I have recently added the following pages: Jib Tunnel, Rat Hole. Flood Entrance Pot, Bar Pot, Disappointment Pot, and List of UK Caving fatalities‎. Please improve! Langcliffe (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Little Blue Lake (water-filled sinkhole in South Australia)[edit]

Hi, I have just added an article about the Little Blue Lake, a water-filled sinkhole located in South Australia (SA). This was created as a test project for a number of a future articles (i.e. other water-filled sites in SA) and to remove inappropriate content from another article. I had some difficulties in getting the '| coords', '| lat_d' and '| long_d' parts of the infobox to work. At the moment, there is no location marker on the map. can someone have a look at what I have done to figure out what I did wrong? Cowdy001 (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cowdy001 (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

List of UK caving fatalities[edit]

I have created a List of UK caving fatalities. Langcliffe (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Hello Wikipedian cavers. I recently created an article for Lamprechtsofen, the second-deepest cave in the world. I am having trouble finding quality information about the cave online. I'm wondering if you could point me towards some reliable sources (like databases or something), to fill out information about the cave. (Or contribute yourself!) I'd like to work it up to submit to DYK in the next few days. — AJDS talk 08:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's actually the fourth deepest - see (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Good to know. It seems to be difficult to find up-to-date information on this. Thanks! — AJDS talk 06:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Skirwith request[edit]

Hi, sorry to pop up out of the blue but I just wanted to let your project know that I made an article request for Skirwith here. I hope it might tickle this project's fancy. I was very fond of the show cave but in no way competent to write the article. Cheers DBaK (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Already done! Blimey. >> Skirwith Cave << Thanks Langcliffe!! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Weathercote Cave[edit]

I've added an article on Weathercote Cave - Langcliffe (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Yordas Cave[edit]

I've added an article on Yordas Cave - Langcliffe Langcliffe (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Colossal Cave Adventure[edit]

Colossal Cave Adventure, an article about a video game, is listed on its talkpage as being within the scope of this project. Just thought I'd point that out. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Chase the link to the author: William Crowther (programmer). WTucker (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Cave Rescue Wikibook[edit]

So on the main project page there's a suggestion for creating a Wikibook by merging content from the OUCC and CUCC expedition rescue guides. I'd like to start that but I'd appreciate some help if you're free; it's a good way to revise your cave rescue techniques at the very least! So a bit of a layout plan (very much copying the OUCC guide):

  1. Introduction
    1. Avoiding Rescue
    2. Precautions
    3. Types of Incident
    4. Responsibilities
  2. Rescue Procedure
    1. Missed Callout
    2. Injury Reported
    3. Equipment Required
    4. Problems
    5. Dealing with Injury
    6. Problems outside the Cave
  3. Rescue Techniques
    1. Recovering a caver from a rope
    2. Managing Exhaustion & Illness
    3. First Aid
    4. Warmth
    5. Stretcher Rescues
    6. Local Difficulties
  4. Case Study
  5. Further Reading

aricooperdavis (talk) 11:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

At the moment it's [[4]], but feel free to move it if you think it should be elsewhere. aricooperdavis (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Glossary of caving and speleology[edit]

I started it but am worried about the sources. Any suggestions? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Palmer, Arthur N. (2007). Cave Geology. Dayton, OH: CAVE BOOKS. ISBN 978-0-939748-66-2. 
  • Hill, Carol; Forti, Paolo (1997). Cave Minerals of the World (Second Edition ed.). Huntsville, AL: National Speleological Society. ISBN 1-879961-07-5. 
WTucker (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
There is a lot of terminology that could be put in there, but most would require a source (not that hard). Also, don't forget the terms karst and pseudokarst. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Leitmotiv. :) Long time! Where have you been, in a cave? Smile.svg Thanks for the books. Actually, I cannot access them. Do you think the article is even needed at Wikipedia? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sooooooooo, cavers, do you think you might chip in and add an item or two to help expand the list? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)