Talk:Urban exploration/Archive 1

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

Links

Wikipedia is not a repository of links. There are thousands of pages by urban explorers about their explorations, and adding one implies that there should be links to the others as well. The links in the article should be restricted to pages with information on UE, like Infiltration (with the Infilspeak dictionary, tutorials, etc) and not pages just showing UE (like the ones I'm about to delete). —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 01:01, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Point well taken, but uer.ca is one of the former, not one of the latter (see the enormous UE Encyclopedia section). I've re-added it. jdb ❋ 01:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's also a crap site, but ok. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:11, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
What about this beautifully designed and executed site? http://www.simoncornwell.com/urbex/ Dafyddyoung 13:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I like the photos, but Brockert is right about WP conventions on this. jdb ❋ (talk) 16:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned up links and clearified what each link directed to and the primary language(s) it catered to. Seicer 22:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Since it seems as if some users via IP addresses cannot determine whether or not one link stays or goes within the period of one day, and cannot justify a reason for removing a link without discussion, it will be restored. Link in question was the Tunnel Rats, and after some research upon my part, it is a well dedicated group. If you include one major group, then you cannot exclude another based on no discussion. Seicer 03:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

More on Links

I have edited the links section - which I'm sure will be controversial and further edited, but I think the spirit of what I've done is right, even if the specifics are not.

1. Made the descriptions simple and objective, removing marketing speak like "and more!", "leading site" etc etc.
2. Removed repeated redundant use of the term "Urban Exploration".
3. Reordered the list into some vague guess at how likely they are to be of interest to the average user.
4. Added the main UK forum site - on the basis that it is a resource rather than a showcase or club (similar to UER in some respects, albeit without the database at the moment). Being a bit cheeky on this last one perhaps, but please do look at the site before deciding whether to delete. No, I have no connection with the site, other than as a user.
Mouser - thanks for correcting my mistakes and minimising the time I'd offended Canadians :)
I have added http://www.drainfreaks.net/ to the list. Apparently the admin of the site has also added it twice and had it deleted. It has its own gallery, and will grow to contain more and more ue information. News articles can be found, regional discussions, etc. It is not a "small club site", and if uer.ca/ is on here drainfreaks certainly should be. The admin of the site has not requested me to post this and I am not doing it as a personal favor. I have also added http://www.abandonedonline.com/, our above-ground partner. Uer.ca is about UERing. Drainfreaks/Abandonedonline are about UE. --Horus
UER is about Urban Exploration, not "UERing" (whatever that is.) UER is the largest resource and database website dealing with the subject of Urban Exploration, and comparing it to small-time local exploration groups is ridiculous. -- JamesBuegleFarmer
To make the external links more in a NPOV, I removed the attributing text and shortened it to the site's title, as per suggestive standards. I will also request that the majority of the links be curtailed if they are not credible web-sites that contain factual information (e.g. no plaguraized content) as per Wikipedia External Link standards. This means that many sites that have copied photographs (either due to blant disregard for the law or user submissions) and mass unreferenced texts will be deleted to bring this section up to par. I will start a seperate discussion for this. Seicer 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

There was a user on UER called Big Poppa Mikey (aka BPM) who was somewhat unpopular, and was eventually banned after threatening to sue UER. Av is the owner of UER, so at least most of the vandalism is true, if off topic. If you look at the contribs of the first vandal IP, you can see that they also vandalized Eifel aqueduct (probably because it was on the main page), signing it BPM. I have not actually contacted BPM to see if he's the one doing this, though I'm sure I could dig up some contact info if anyone would like. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:21, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

www.uer.ca

I think this link should be reomoved because they are getting away from Urban Exploration on their site and becoming more a a general forum where anything and anyone can be posted. UER is getting away from the meaning of UE'ing and becoming a a group of people who discuss everything. In fact, you could call them a news group or one big bloggish collaboration.

David

Most Internet fora, as they grow sufficiently large, undergo topic drift. It's natural. That aside, I posted the uer.ca link solely on the basis of their encyclopedia, which as far as I know remains on the site. If you think that the encyclopedia isn't useful, let me know; I'm restoring it for now. jdb ❋ 06:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

www.uer.ca Removal

I have removed the link to www.uer.ca because the site is no longer on the internet. If it shall resurface in the future, I will re-add it. At this time, I have been informed that UER is no longer going to be up and running.

John D

Er, the site says "UER IS DOWN until new server is online." We probably should restore it when it comes back up (assuming it hasn't changed for the worse). (If it indeed never comes back up, at least we won't have to deal with all the damned vandalism that the link attracts.) jdb ❋ (talk) 04:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note: UER is back online and the link has been restored. UER is not a site that showcases UE, it's a site with resources and information about UE, which makes it ideal for wikipedia.
-Av, Apr 26 2005.
One, do not remove other people's comments. Two, make at least a tiny effort to get people's names right. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 22:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
The information you are posting is not publically available. Cease immediatly. I have already filed a complaint with sysop Angela. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Angela#Problem_with_Ben_Brockert
If only the actual article got this much attention. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I also wonder how the UER site maintainer's personal life is at all relevant to this article? It seems like an attempt at an ad hominem attack on your part. For better or worse UER still has a large membership making topical posts (as well as the Encyclopedia), and should therefore be included in the article if any other such sites are also included. - Robert Stephens 03:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the copyrighted images which have been posted illegally on this site without permission, and I have also removed the completely irrelevant personal details posted without permission by Ben Brockert. Any attemps to return them will result in legal action against this site / Ben Brockert.

History?

I don't know much of the history of urban exploration, but I think some of it belongs on this page. Can anyone help out with this? --Prangton 18:23, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The closest thing to an authoritative history would probably be the timeline on Infiltration, although its mood is best described as playful rather than serious. I would try to include it but I am not particularly familiar with the Wikipedia way of doing things yet, so perhaps someone better versed than I can try to assimilate it into the article. - Robert Stephens 03:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can explain the Australian history.

The first known drain explorer was Alf Saddlier who was active from the mid 1940s for about ten years.

There was also a group called The Drainiacs.

There has been explorers in France exploring the quaries for hundreds of years.

As far as recent history goes I can tell you this - the first three website involving UE were Cave Clan sites made by local branches. The first was the South Australian branch of the Cave Clan. The second was from Canberra and was called 'Draining Down Under'. The third is what is now www.caveclan.org.

As far as I know the Cave Clan were the first group to travel/spread to other states. We have branches in all capital cities in Australia as well as members around the world.

AH, I could bore you for hours about Cave Clan's part in the history of UE... but I won't :)

Having the name 'cave' in our title confuses people. We spend as much time exploring above ground as we do under it (just added that in case someone says, "draining isn't real UE" :)

Cheers, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DougClan (talk • contribs) 16:42, 12, July 2006 .

If you want, you can modify the draining article since it is a redirect to the urban exploration bit. This will help cut down on the length of this page and have a more specific devotion to that entirely different interest. Seicer (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional Links

I have recently added a group mentioned in the articles website, on finding and exploring it I found it to be of worth to this article as it contains numerous explanitory works on urbex, namely a comprehensive FAQ, forum, photo archives and analytical writings on the concept and act of urbex. It is also worth noting that they are the first officially recognised legal entity solely for the purpose of urbex (in Australia, .org.au's can only be registered by a legal organisation / entity), which is highly amusing as it appears that urbex is slowly getting recognised as a legal sport/hobby!  ;)

Perhaps for future clarity, other authors adding links to this article might want to throw their reasoning under mine, so we don't get pointless advertising of random sub-cultures.

Jachin 1 July 2005 06:16 (UTC)

List of Abandonments

Is the list of abandonments really necessary? Any building can eventually become abandoned, regardless of its prior use. Plus, if people just keep adding to the list, eventually it'll take up half the page.

I didn't want to straight up remove it, since it's been edited a lot, and it does link to other pages. But is it useful to the content of the page? If it isn't, maybe someone should snip it. --Prangton 17:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - I read the list thinking "huh, why would any building not be in this list?". StephenHildrey 20:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, cool. This question's been sitting around for a while so I'll take that an ok to remove it. If anyone wants it back, they can just revert the change. --Prangton 02:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I realized that there were a lot of wiki links in the list, so I tried to preserve those by integrating them into the leading paragraph. --Prangton 02:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Popularity

I would enjoy reading other opinions about the 'popularity' of urban exploration. There have been numerous threads posted about this on multiple forums, albeit they are on restricted systems. I made my opinion known in the article that is hyperlinked. Since it is a hot topic and others will probably contribute to that new section, you may wish to break the 'popularity' section with links to respective opinions. Seicer 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Difference btwn. movies and short films

Please keep major movie releases to the movie section of the urban exploration page. Short films (under one hour typically) and documentaries that do not have major backing, please keep it regulated under short films and documentaries. Seicer 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggest adding Parkour for see also list

Makes sense to me - another "guerilla" sport based on the urban environment Bwithh 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

added Urban exploration to the Parkour see also list Bwithh 21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Any further attempts without discussion will be considered vandalism. I'm tired of seeing this come and go, come and go, come and go with no word or even an edit summary. Everyone was given ample time to discuss. So if you really want to remove it, discuss it first. Seicer (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what do you mean? Are you talking about Parkour or something else? Bwithh 03:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I confused this with an edit war over Parkour in another article. Sorry. Seicer (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Links based on "size"

This is a discussion on the External Links section which a user has reverted based on "size". It is a relative term, to which it can be argued to a great extent. An urban exploration site does not have to be based on the amount of "members" or the amount of photographs. As per Wiki standards, alphabetized links are the preferred way to go. If there are any arguments against the standard, discuss it here. Seicer 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To me, having links ordered by popularity or contributions (or even date added) makes much more sense than simply ordering alphabetically. Why should 'Drainfreaks' be listed above 'Infiltration'? Infiltration is one of the oldest sites on the net on this topic; it definetly deserves to be listed first. -- JamesBuegleFarmer, July 7, 2006.
And what makes 'Infiltration' much more enticing (in my opinion) than 'Urban Explorers'? I find the latter to be much more satisfying and something I can relate to. Using this methodology of organizing gives preference based on your relative thinking of a site's popularity. Wikipedia is a site conforming to a NPOV, and precedence must be given to that over a site's "popularity" based on a user's beliefs. To add further, Infiltration is one of the oldest sites, but others are just as old and just as popular. The forum on Infiltration, for instance, cannot be used to gauge its popularity since it is linked to uer.ca's forum. Seicer 19:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To further bring the links to a NPOV, I removed the descriptions. This should also resolve any disputes. As it stands, do not add any links that cater to a foreign language, are blogs, or social networking sites. Any site that "contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research" should also not be considered for addition. Seicer 19:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll give this discussion one week to come to a conclusion on the ordering of the links. During this time, do not go in and add descriptions or swap orders as this will be reverted until a compromise can be reached. But based upon articles that I have read, and general list standards, I am going to state that it should be alphabetized to remove further bias towards anyones relative opinion on a link or subject. Seicer 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Who are you to give orders on how this page is to proceed, or to decide how much time a discussion should take? I don't recall any election in which you were placed in charge of this particular page. It predates your arrival on the Wikipedia by a considerable margin. The solution to this problem should be arrived at through discussion and not ultimatums.
With that said, I think the links should be ordered by the date upon which the site appeared on the internet. A quick and easy way to do this is to check the site www.archive.org. Why does this make more sense than alphabetically? Well, if the rule was Alphabetically, "Aaron's Craptacular UE site" (example) would appear at the top of the list, while the revolutionary Infiltration website would be lost somewhere in the middle. -- JamesBuegleFarmer, July 10, 2006.
No, you edited the links to which I had cleaned up and had conformed (at the time to my knowledge) to Wikipedia's standards for links. I then further revised them by revising them to Wikipedia's standards for lists and removed the descriptions to rid the discrimination between any sites via bias. With your last statement there, you are introducing your own personal bias, by stating Infilitration as "revolutionary" when that is your own personal opinion, not a factual statement. There is a big difference. A links page (and the page as a whole) should be as free from any personal bias as possible. See the [neutral point of view] page for guidelines.
To add, just because the page predates my arrival in a time frame, doesn't mean that no one can improve on an article. When I first began editing this article, it was full of blantant bias, not only to several web-sites, but to many other aspects. It had a lot of categorization issues, and was partial in that it presented one set of viewpoints. I corrected and amended the article, and expanded upon it. Wikipedia is a site that anyone can edit it. I am not giving orders, but since you gave no logical reason to why you reverted the links to a standard against Wikipedia's policies, I am opening the discussion into reverting it to a non-biased state. I suggest you read the NPOV article I cited, along with the standard for lists and links. Seicer 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Since there is a dispute about which link is "best, more reliable, more revolutionary" etc. and since the links are only separated by 5mm each anyway, an alphabetic list is the best solution. Additionally, most readers will realize the links are alphabetized, so (for example) "Aaron's Craptacular UE site" being at the top would impart no special significance. LuckyLouie 23:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The discussion was originally centered around its unordered list. Then it was about its "size." Then "popularity." And now its original inclusion date into Archive.org. Let's keep it uniform by applying one set of standards - by arranging them alphabetically. It's easy. Seicer 04:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted per WP:EL, Lists (stand-alone lists), WP:MOS-L Seicer (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)