Talk:Urban exploration

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Urban exploration article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

removals	Archives
removals, a vote will be taken for two weeks from initial submission on any new links. See this post for more information on this fair and impartial process.	1 2

Link additions

Since there was no formal agreement and since there were not enough votes to contribute to a worthwhile deciding process, all links will be taken on a case-by-ase basis and will undergo a vote and discussion for a period of two weeks. Any input will be considered. To consider your link for inclusion, add in a subheading using this template:

=== LINK TITLE ===

URL

REASON ~~~~

Link title should be a subheading under this header. The URL should follow policy. The reason should adequately explain why you want the link to be included.

This will provide a neutral standpoint for new link inclusions and will ensure that there will be little disruptions on the main page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SKYFI

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)[reply]

Derelict Places

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Urb-x

http://urbx.org.au/Index1.htm

An Australian website that features a forum and photo gallery. Is easy to participate in and is expanding. Camro77 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This hasn't undergone the review it should. Would some people like to look at it and offer their opinions? Oherian 12:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - looks good. Genuine urbex page with what looks like a growing list of photos, plus detailed reports of all the locations they have been. Photos aren't amazing, but I'm sure that will improve as the member list grows.Winkie (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - looks bad. Contains 5-10 drain stories and about 10 crappy drain photos. The front page "under construction" summarizes it pretty well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.174.186.80 (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

urban-bolton

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)[reply]

datamonkeys

http://www.datamonkeys.co.uk -- although its a small community it is growing by the day so please get on and register —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.7.121 (talk) 10:38, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

DegGi 5

www.DegGi5.com It seems that a wiki that mentions the website in its discussion should also include the website in its links to remain neutral. Nickinglis 19:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. Deggi5 (not Dijital Photography) is just a forum that violates two principles:

* 1.3.5: "Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community, such as sites that only work with a specific browser." With Deggi5, you have to know the site owner or be a trusted member of the community to gain entry to the most basic elements of the forum.

* 1.3.1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article." While it may provide information on the forum, it is inaccessable to most viewers.

Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Seicer on this one. I considered adding DegGi5 myself, until I realized it violates the principles, specifically 1.3.5. This doesn't reflect on the quality of the site itself. As a nonmember, I couldn't tell you what sort of resource it does or does not represent.

I also have to wonder if Mike Dijital would appreciate having his site as an external link on this article. I don't know him personally, but according to my understanding the purpose of DegGi5 is to keep information among a tight-knit community. I would think drawing more attention to the site through Wiki would be counterproductive to that purpose. You'll notice that DegGi5 is linked within the content of the article, I wonder whether Mike would even like that much? Oherian 11:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not relevant to its inclusion in this article. The purpose of this article is to document notable facts about Urban Exploration. The only factors you should consider when including a link are whether the link aids that purpose.

As pertains to the ethics of linking, the internet is massively connected. If he didn't want people to access his site, he shouldn't have included it on the internet. Twelvethirteen 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is still inaccessible to the majority of the "urban exploration" community and to readers of Wikipedia. It fails WP:EL 1.3.5 and as a result, it should be excluded as an external link. As a source, it is relevant because it validates a statement of fact. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result (09.12.06 tabulation)

1 agree, 2 disagree, 1 did not state.
Result: No consensus, no action taken.
This vote may continue based on new discussion. Votes may be struck given approperiate reasoning, and a new tabulation will result. A majority, just as a reminder, does not equal not consensus.

alt.college.tunnels

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Result (09.28.06 tabulation)

2 agree.
Result: Link will be added per condition above.
This discussion may continue, but due to a compromise listed above, the link should be added until additional comments can be inputted.

Dark Explorer

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)[reply]

Result (10.17.06 tabulation)

1 agree, 1 disagree.
Result: No consensus, no action taken.
This vote may continue based on new discussion. Votes may be struck given approperiate reasoning, and a new tabulation will result. A majority, just as a reminder, does not equal not consensus.

Forbidden Places

Forbidden Places: This site publishes urban exploration documentaries, worldwide. Tackles with all UE aspects, from underground to rooftops, from active to abandoned locations. Contains also some ethical writings. Seems like it would be a good fit for this. Should we add this to the links section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.48.72.25 (talk) 09:11, 17 October 2006.

I don't see the writings? Is it under a specific location? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an about page (talk)

Complete bilingual site, not only pics as most UE sites around. Vote: "to be included!" ~~Paul

Result (12.16.06 tabulation)

2 agree.
Result: added. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slyv (talk • contribs) 09:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Boreally

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).[reply]

Anybody vote for my site? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.250.211.180 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

28 Days Later

28 Days Later is the UK's (if not the world's) largest UE forum with well over 3,000 members and over 80,000 posts. I believe this forum should take precedence over the other "urbex forum" which is less than a quarter the size of 28 Days Later. GrimGary 06:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the other forum? The site is quite nice and stands as an example of what should be exemplified as a Wikipedia link. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Urbex Forum" is linked in the External Links. GrimGary 17:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Since we have UER, which is similar to 28 Days Later, it would only make sense to add. Plus it has received some publicity lately (some good, some bad), but it would make for an overall nice contribution. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: Very active, very UE related Slyv

Agree: 28 Days later is the busiest UE forum in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.134.162 (talk • contribs)

Disagree: very unfriendly towards new people and all users suck up to the admin

Agree: The above comment is a personal experience, not a fact. 28DL is probably the biggest UE website in the world and has massively influenced UE trends and been partially responsible for such increasing popularity within the UK. BenFairless (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Result (03.05.07 tabulation)

3 agree, 0 disagree.
Result: Agreement to add link.
This vote may continue based on new discussion. Votes may be struck given appropriate reasoning, and a new tabulation will result. A majority, just as a reminder, does not equal not consensus.

DenverDrainers.org

DenverDrainers.org is a relevant, quickly emerging UE website for the Denver & Colorado area. It also has information on draining not limited to the Denver/Colorado area. Funker joe 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: This site is very empty and local Slyv

Disagree: Geographically, its very limited. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Ghost

eastghost.com combines History, Hauntings, Urban Exploration and Photography. The forums are organized and searchable, there's an integrated picture viewer and google map, and the database (though named Haunts) actually contains full, organized info on all sites, "haunted" or not. Numerous investigations and explorations include Maryland and nearby locations such as Tome School, Glenn Dale Hospital, Henryton, "Fuller State", and various military forts and battlefields. Most locations are fully addressed and/or mapped, and everything is searchable by zipcode proximity, text, or location such as zip, county, city, etc. It's much more than just another haunted site. Membership is free.

Almost forgot to mention the database is nationwide, contains thousands of entries and is growing. For instance, it includes extensive coverage of Pennsylvania historical locations, battlefields, haunts, and other sites such as Byberry, Eastern State Penn and others. The site offers a warm community and a nice, broad bridge to the paranormal side as well as to those with an interest in photography and history. SolarAngel 12:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, not fully UE related, mostly paranormal and ghostly activities, moreover lot of sections require to have a registred account to be viewed Slyv

Disagree per statement above. WP:EL states that it must be publically viewable or not as restrictive. Plus, it isn't pertaining to abandonments or urban exploration. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UE death in Buenos Aires

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)Alejandro Dec-19-2006[reply]

Is there an English version of this? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs updating regarding Media Attention, And Crane Exploration

In the UK Urbex has been recieving ALOT of media attention, Especially www.28dayslater.co.uk - In fact they have a forum dedicated to news articles regarding Urbex. It should also be noted, Most of the media attention is sensationalist and incorrect.

Also, There is a craze in "Crane Exploration", Once again highlighted by www.28dayslater.co.uk - I feel this should be noted in the wiki article. 86.18.1.196 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Agree: 'Craning' is now a recognised sub-category of UE and should be featured within this page BenFairless (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link edit controversy

You should initiate discussion before making drastic and controversial edits, that were accepted by other editors through a consensus. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you were adding in your own link indicates you have an agenda. Good try. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how the entry for "abandoned" belongs there? It takes you to a site listed as 'ababdoned online' which features travel guides to the highways and byways! This is CLEARLY inappropriate and is evidence of someone's agenda.

Some of the other links have at least some basis for being there, tenuous as it may be. If individual or group sites are to be included then ALL personal or group sites should be included. But if there's some pretense that only mass-market or widely beneficial sites are to be included then I would seriously consider editing the list as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.168.3 (talk • contribs)

Please explain why you removed the majority of the links and added your personal site? Abandoned clearly works, but a change only a day ago over a dispute with a former host forced the redirect from the .com to the .net address to fail. I'm sorry I don't spend more time on Wikipedia; that's what other editors are for :) Seicer (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]