Talk:Wyandotte Cave

message: Created as part of the WikiProject Missing articles/Wikipedia:Encarta_Encyclopedia_topics Paul 02:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The merge sign has been on this article for 2 months, and no discussion, therefore I assume that no one has a problem with it and will perform the merge. The pi pirate 16:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I found Wyandotte Caves on the copywrite violations list and, thinking Wikipedia should certianly have an article on the subject, proceeded to write Wyandotte Caves/Temp.  Then, whilst doing Google research for that article, I discovered this one!  I've spent the better part of two days writing an article Wikipedia already had!!!  I'm crushed.
At any rate, this article seems to be mostly copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, and it only mentions the larger of the two caves, Wyandotte.  Already the article I'm writing is somewhat more detailed than this one and I'm not nearly done with it.  However, if I do finish it, it will be very redundant with this one.  
I have three ideas on what to do with this;
*1. Merge the two articles here, making Wyandotte Caves a redirect.
*2. Merge the two articles there, seeing as the whole thing as it is used for tours and so forth is called Wyandotte Caves, and Wyandotte Cave is only one of the Wyandotte Caves, make Wyandotte Cave and Siberts Cave redirects.
*3. Focus that article more on Wyandotte Caves as the modern tourist attraction, and leave this one as about Wyandotte Cave, creating an article for Siberts Cave.
I'm going to avoid doing additional heavy editing work on the other article for a while.  I don't want to waste effort.  Once a decision is made on what to do with these two articles I will probably return to it.
What do other people think should be done? ONUnicorn 16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Option #2 makes the most sense. Thanks/wangi 15:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I checked out the source that the copy vio was taken from, and while I have used it in writing this temp article, it seems to be slightly confused about a great number of things.  From other sources I've been using, it seems to me that Wyandotte Cave and Siberts Cave are not in the same "Cave System" like Mammoth Cave is (where the whole system is connected), but are two seperate and unconnected caves (I could be misunderstanding here, if you have a source that says they are a single system, let me know).  Anyway, like I pointed out on the other talk page, that article is mostly taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica, and this one (in my opinion, but I am biased) is more up-to-date, more detailed, and (again, my personal, biased, opinion) better.  Plus, the official website of the cave is http://www.wyandottecaves.com/ (notice the s).  So I was thinking more along the lines of a merge to Wyandotte Caves once the copyright issues are sorted out, with, of course, all appropriate redirects including Wyandotte Cave and Siberts Cave.  A simple redirect from Wyandotte Caves to Wyandotte Cave would eliminate all the work I've done over the last few days, and a lot of that information is not present in the existing Wyandotte Cave article.  Why do you think a simple redirect is better than a merge? ONUnicorn 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I didn't mean to imply dumping your work here. Merge/redirect. --Durin 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Why dont you merge the info in both the articles and let one redirect towards the other? -- Lost 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my thought, but which location should the final merged article wind up at? Wyandotte Cave or Wyandotte Caves?  I really don't think there's enough material or noteworthieness to have 3 articles (one on each of the two caves and one on the two caves together).  Right now I'm leaning towards Wyandotte Caves, but I wanted to see what other people thought first. ONUnicorn 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wyandotte Caves appears to be a proper noun, as opposed to just a description of some caves, then the proper final article title should be Wyandotte Caves. I would merge everything into that one article. Feel free to be bold here, no need to be 'fair' persay per se (which seems to be misused here since "per se" is Latin and means "through itself (by its own nature)" --Richard 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice.  Now an additional question, how long does the temp article stay on the temp page before the copyvio is sorted out and the article can be moved to the main namespace?  And shouldn't I wait to redirect the existing article until the finished article is in the main namespace instead of a temporary location? ONUnicorn 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the copyvio can be sorted out as soon as you have a suitable replacement article. Once you've got something vaguely presentable in the /Temp page, let the user who created the copyvio notice know (in this case, User:W.marsh), so it can be moved into place. When that is done, then change the other two articles to redirects. Phidauex 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absolutely crushed. 

message: *I think we can safely redirect to the existing Wyandotte Cave article. The source text that the copyright violation was taken from can't seem to make its mind up about the plural nature of the caveS or singular cave. I think it's simply a cave, much in the same way we refer to Mammoth Cave in the singular, even though it's the world's longest cave system. --Durin 20:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I checked out the source that the copy vio was taken from, and while I have used it in writing this temp article, it seems to be slightly confused about a great number of things.  From other sources I've been using, it seems to me that Wyandotte Cave and Siberts Cave are not in the same "Cave System" like Mammoth Cave is (where the whole system is connected), but are two seperate and unconnected caves (I could be misunderstanding here, if you have a source that says they are a single system, let me know).  Anyway, like I pointed out on the other talk page, that article is mostly taken from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica, and this one (in my opinion, but I am biased) is more up-to-date, more detailed, and (again, my personal, biased, opinion) better.  Plus, the official website of the cave is http://www.wyandottecaves.com/ (notice the s).  So I was thinking more along the lines of a merge to Wyandotte Caves once the copyright issues are sorted out, with, of course, all appropriate redirects including Wyandotte Cave and Siberts Cave.  A simple redirect from Wyandotte Caves to Wyandotte Cave would eliminate all the work I've done over the last few days, and a lot of that information is not present in the existing Wyandotte Cave article.  Why do you think a simple redirect is better than a merge? ONUnicorn 21:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I didn't mean to imply dumping your work here. Merge/redirect. --Durin 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from [[Talk:Wyandotte Caves/Temp]]

message: :Why dont you merge the info in both the articles and let one redirect towards the other? -- Lost 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my thought, but which location should the final merged article wind up at? Wyandotte Cave or Wyandotte Caves?  I really don't think there's enough material or noteworthieness to have 3 articles (one on each of the two caves and one on the two caves together).  Right now I'm leaning towards Wyandotte Caves, but I wanted to see what other people thought first. ONUnicorn 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because Wyandotte Caves appears to be a proper noun, as opposed to just a description of some caves, then the proper final article title should be Wyandotte Caves. I would merge everything into that one article. Feel free to be bold here, no need to be 'fair' persay per se (which seems to be misused here since "per se" is Latin and means "through itself (by its own nature)" --Richard 17:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice.  Now an additional question, how long does the temp article stay on the temp page before the copyvio is sorted out and the article can be moved to the main namespace?  And shouldn't I wait to redirect the existing article until the finished article is in the main namespace instead of a temporary location? ONUnicorn 18:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the copyvio can be sorted out as soon as you have a suitable replacement article. Once you've got something vaguely presentable in the /Temp page, let the user who created the copyvio notice know (in this case, User:W.marsh), so it can be moved into place. When that is done, then change the other two articles to redirects. Phidauex 18:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from Village Pump