Talk:Urban exploration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Urban exploration article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Vote on link additions	Archives
To remove the controversy of new link additions, a vote will be taken for two weeks from initial submission on any new links. See this post for more information on this fair and impartial process.	1 2

Contents 1 Link Reverts 2 Link additions 2.1 DegGi 5 2.1.1 Result (09.12.06 tabulation) 2.2 alt.college.tunnels 2.2.1 Result (09.28.06 tabulation) 2.3 Dark Explorer 2.3.1 Result (10.17.06 tabulation) 2.4 Forbidden Places

[edit] 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 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 (talk • contribs) .

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Link additions

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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