Talk:Caves

Thematic Subdivision

So it seems that underground structures can roughly be divided into caves (i.e. natural structures), mines and bunkers (with of course some overlap and things that don't belong into either category)... Maybe we want to break up this article in some future time along those lines? And mines might be better suited in an article together with open pit mining and its remnants, or am I mistaken on that one? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

No objections to splitting if the article expands, the issue of mines vs caves was why I'd used 'works' in the title.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So we might end up with three articles; bunkers, mines and mining culture and caves Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Natural Caves should be split from "Underground works" fairly soon then, given your thematic overview, but I started with one article because I didn't want to duplicate material initially.

Theres also (over what you've mentioned) :-

• Urban Rail
• Tunnels ( I mean things like the Gothard Base or Channel Tunnel are 'Underground Works', and Norway has some impressive Road Tunnels ;) )
• Underground Public Works, like Steam tunnels and so on...
• Underground Cities ( Houston comes to mind, but there are other interconnected 'basement' public space).

I only started this because it seemed to be an area that was currently missing, if you can improve and massively expand it to many articles with a linking 'portal' ( ;) ) page, don't be timid. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

And yes, I realise we need a better banner.. Do you have a panoramic image of part of Mammoth Cave which could be adapted?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

In respect of Underground Cities - w:Underground_city, also in reading another article I seem to recall a 'basement' somewhere in the Southern US, that resulted from some road improvment works in the turn of the century, and which was recently turned into an arts space? Iedas? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Split?

Seems like the article is quickly expanding - that is great! But I think we should be prepared to split the article in case it becomes too big. --Erik den yngre (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

See above, the thinking is perhaps to split it into (Natural) Caves, Mine tourism (which includes open quaries) and Underground Works (which would cover the man made items). There may of course be some overlap, when it comes to older and archaeologically important sites.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see that. --Erik den yngre (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should separate continents first to create some organization like other list-articles. Then the categories mentioned above could be divided within each country until enough exist to warrant a new article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think splitting up by topic rather than geography makes more sense. At least at the "creating new articles" point of the process. Especially given that the topic is already an amalgamated one that lends itself to subdivision Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think at least to split by a couple of main topics such as man-made (e.g.,mines, catacombes) and natural (caves), then to organize by geography - perhaps even split by continent if article becomes too large. --Erik den yngre (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Caves can become a large article of its own if left to develop properly, then the man made is an obvious separation. support a split. JarrahTree (talk) 13:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘So should we just go ahead and split? And if so, how do we call the new articles? Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

What about simply "Caves"? ANd I think the focus should be on caves that are available to the general public (free or organized tours), not caves that require special skills and equipment. --Erik den yngre (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. What do we call the other article? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Both Show Caves (i.e easy access) and proper 'caving' (i,e the ones needing speclaist fitiiness/equipment) are worth articles, Three way split perhaps? At the very least a Caves article should give some information on the more specalist side as it is something the adventuerous traveller persues. 80.176.129.180 14:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

In that case it must be very clear if a cave is available for the general public. In Norway there are some very long (25 km) caves, partly under water, only available for the most daring cave explorers (some fatal accidents happened recently). I guess that specialists are well aware of caving options in various areas, so I dont think "specialist" caves should be a priority. Erik den yngre (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe show caves and "specialist" caves should be subheadings of the same article, not separate articles. And I feel that this article looks okay as is, since we still don't have such a long list (see for example Roman Empire#Destinations), although I won't stand in the way if the consensus is inclining towards a split. Vidimian (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this. They're all caves and should be covered in the same article, but in different sections. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

let's not forget that the current article originated as basically a catch all "everything below the surface". And in mere grammatical terms the title includes an "and" so there is a (kind of) logical subdivision right there. Imho the long list of destinations in our Roman Empire article is not necessarily a feature and should not become the rule... Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Erik's comments, that caves definitly needing specialist skills permits etc should be clearly delinated from those that you can just wlak up and pay the entrance fee. Anyone up for doing a reformulation?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Third article

There are now 2 articles, one on caves and one on mines. I think we need a third article on "various" underground works such as bunkers and catacombs. --Erik den yngre (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. What should we call it? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Listing details

Aren't these "catch all" travel topic articles for giving an overview about the subject and providing links to the articles on destinations which are particularly important for the topic covered, and let those articles cover the details? Right now we have phone numbers, opening times, admission fees and even full postal addresses complete with post codes thrown into some of the listings. I see that they are listings, but I think they should be more of a summarizing type with full details saved for actual listings in the destination articles. Vidimian (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree that is an issue, perhaps we should at least skip some of the details. On the other hand: There should be some details to make the list informative for the traveler. I don't think a very general description of caves as a travel topic can be very helpful. --Erik den yngre (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem with that is that natural caves have a tendency of being in rural areas which we have historically done a poor job of covering. Pottenstein (in Franconian Switzerland) redlinks for instance. And the cave was only listed properly in Franconian Switzerland after I put the listing here... Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

At least there should be details such as "what" and "where" (country, region, perhaps also coordinates), and perhaps also "what does it take to visit" (OK for general public or fitness/skills/gear needed). Phone numbers, opening hours, driving details etc less important --Erik den yngre (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

No objections to some splitting/diffusion, as the original intent was an overview portal with perhaps more specfic 'Caving in X' information pushed to more specfic topic/region articles Plunge forward. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that what/why, where, and how are important to mention. On the rural areas issue, I guess for many/most caves, there should be a base town where you usually start your trip. Caves could be listed at the "see" or "go next" sections (whichever makes more sense) of those articles, which in turn could be wikilinked from this article. For those that are truly far from everywhere, I think they could be mentioned in the containing region articles, and the regions then be linked from here (but not sure if people would agree with this). Vidimian (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The base town approach, might be a good one, after all given the comments about more advanced caving earlier you need to know where to lodges your plans and check in with the authorities.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Just created a somewhat related travel topic

Have a look at mining tourism (the name can of course be changed) where I think we can cover all mines both above and below ground as well as the remains of (open pit) mines and marginal topics such as gold-washing... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Did you intend it to cover quaries as well? And then you have oddballs like Chiselehusrt which are called Caves but are essentially chalk workings.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fine to include quarries. But I would defer to anybody with a good reason against... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Photos

I added a few photos I like. Please remove if too much! --Erik den yngre (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Underground works

I've split off the man-made stuff to Underground Works, so that this one can ideally focus on caves which are for the most part natural.

I'm not sure how to split up the India-section, so the assistance of others in splitting it Thematically would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Under the earth...

Swept in from the pub

So how do I title an article that's a general ovewview/portal for caves and mine workings?

Underground seemed taken.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest a prosaic title of Caves and underground mines, rather than something poetic. It has to be "underground mines" because some mines are use pits rather than shafts. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Went with Caves and underground works , I now need the help of other contributors to get it rolling :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Underground articles

Swept in from the pub

Wow, but I'd like to request a review on what should be done to the Caves article so that it's a candidate for main page inlcusion in a coming month.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Dormant lava tubes?

Not sure if these should be here or in Volcanoes...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

They sure feel like a kind of cave, or at least the one I've visited so far did. I would keep it here, with a note in the Volcanoes article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

If you can enter and visit them they belong in this article Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Caves

Swept in from the pub

This is marked as an outline, but I would like to ask that this status be looked at as the article is quite extensive. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just FYI, you don't need anyone else's approval to change the status of an article; you can just do it, specifying why in your edit summary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's now at usable status, which seems appropriate. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Later: are we clear on the scope of this page? I understand it to be:

- show caves, or those that a reasonably fit independent traveller could visit without technical training;

- just the very best of those, worth travelling some distance to visit; otherwise we have to list hundreds;

- for more advanced caving, just a pointer to the need for training, not a description;

- not about artificial structures.

Is that how others see it? Grahamsands (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

That was how I saw it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I interpreted it as for it to be listed, it needs to have an article of its own though many listed don't have their own articles. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 23:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

If by "article" you mean it has its own page, that makes it a candidate but not a certainty for mention here. Conversely if it doesn't even have a listing in its base city, it's a candidate for ejection, after considering whether we've overlooked a major attraction. Where I go from that is that other material such as "Stay safe" only needs to be reflective of show- or publicly-accessible caves. More advanced stuff is just by-the-by to indicate why you can't simply wander in. Grahamsands (talk)

What if that location has no base city, because it's so remote? Also, it's worth noting that many of the caves listed in India seem to fail the criteria you mentioned and many don't have their own articles. It might need a cleanup though Ellora, Ajanta and Bhimbetka are definitely worth keeping here. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to the Indian (temple) Caves being in their own article, with the significant ones being retained in summarized form. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Individual temples don't get their own articles per wv:wiaa though. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 07:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Some are covered in Sacred sites of the Indian subcontinent or in destination articles. This article might have links. Pashley (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)