Talk:Urban exploration/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

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 (talk • contribs) 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 (talk • contribs) .

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 (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)