Talk:Urban exploration/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  More on Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  www.uer.ca 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  History? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  List of Abandonments 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popularity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Difference btwn. movies and short films 

message: Makes sense to me - another "guerilla" sport based on the urban environment Bwithh 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: added Urban exploration to the Parkour see also list Bwithh 21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but what do you mean? Are you talking about Parkour or something else? Bwithh 03:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I confused this with an edit war over Parkour in another article. Sorry.  Seicer (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest adding ''[[Parkour]]'' for see also list

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UE Zines 

message: Is Chapman (Ninjalicious) worth noting?--Monkeypillow 08:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Jeff Chapman

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is this MTV show 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text:  Gave him a warning, further reverts will spawn another warning, then I will seek moderator request.  Seicer (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity (cont.)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Not link spamming 

message: Is there a way we can keep that spammer who keeps on trying to post a link to their russian UE forum from posting?  I mean this is getting a little bit annoying and also rude.  We've told them time in and time out that their link is not acceptiable for the entry, yet they continue to try to get it included in the entry so as to increase their traffic.  Now it is even a closed forum which means you need to sign up to see the content, yet that is also another way to generate more traffic for the link.  Brothejr (talk) 05:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Spammers

message: I wanted to ask this question.  I can completely understand and agree with removing those movies from the entry as they do not pertain to Urban Exploring, but would it be worth it to start a new entry for movies either based fully in or partially in abandoned  buildings? Brothejr (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Movies

message: www.uepedia.org will happily accept UE related web page links. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.192.47 (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link additions 

message: http://exploration-nation.fotopic.net/
: Urban Exploration website created by Explorette. UEing around the UK and Europe trying to document as many places as possible before they are gone forever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.81.240 (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Exploration-Nation

message: http://skyfi.org.ru
: Site of russian urban explorer and digger. a lot of photos, some text on russian. Moscow side exploration. Please add  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.195.55.130 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SKYFI

message: http://www.derelictplaces.co.uk/
Uk UE site, quite mature now, active, see no reason why it should not be added :)
: Like to see some comment on this site.  Do we need another forum, one primarily limited to a particular geographic location?  I would say no, but I don't want to be the sole arbiter on the subject. Oherian 12:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is similar to 28 days later in age and content, just not as popular.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.9.21 (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Derelict Places

message: http://www.urban-bolton.co.uk  -- a new site with pictures and also a new forum, join now the community is growing every day
: Disagree -- very geographically limited, and basically a personal photo site. Oherian 12:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree this site does not add anything to the article and it also is a geographically limited forum that is more of a personal nature.  Brothejr (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: urban-bolton

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
thread_title:  alt.college.tunnels 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dark Explorer 

message: *2 agree.
*Result: added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slyv (talk • contribs) 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result (12.16.06 tabulation) 

message: Boreally: This site present the work of an urban explorer with underground (quarrie, mine, technical gallery), ruins and abandonned factory or casttle, rooftops. This site is like a daily photoblog on the first page and a real site with albums, presentation, documentaries, ... In one ou two month the site will be in english too.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Djwallace (talk • contribs) 
Can I add this site?
: Disagree per WP:EL 1.3.9, blogs should not be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by zipi (talk • contribs) 
: Only the first page is like a photoblog (one photo per day), the entire site behind the home page is an normal photo website —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Djwallace (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody vote for my site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.250.211.180 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree per the basis of a pure photo site. Needs breadth.  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boreally 

message: 4 explorers died last Dec 16 2006 in Buenos Aires while being caught by the rain during a drains exploration, the storm was announced by local meteorology services, so they should have een able to avoid the exploration. (http://www.clarin.com/diario/2006/12/19/laciudad/h-04815.htm) 200.47.22.84 11:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an English version of this?  Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UE death in Buenos Aires