Jump to content

Talk:Cave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 134.29.231.11 (talk) at 18:29, 24 February 2015 (→cave types are missing.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

records

Rls, I did, and I placed an external link at the page pitch (vertical space). Others can be found by a cursory google search... --Joy [shallot] 23:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I also mailed the author of that page that's wrong detailing its mistakes. --Joy [shallot]

Joy, the site you cite is out of date with its statistics, and seems less than thorough. I did of course do a "cursory google search" before reverting your edit and did not find an authoritative site that backed your changes. Bob Gulden's site is pretty well respected however and is generally kept up to date.
Incidentally, I would not consider a minor error (if it does indeed turn out to be one) to be a "blunder". And since when did reverts become minor changes? Rls 23:39, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
The very first google search result for Patkov Gust gives you the page of a branch of the Speleological Committee of the Croatian Mountaineering Association, that describes the location and discovery of this pit in a fairly detailed manner. I could find nothing on Google to indicated that Patkov Gust is in Slovenia, other than Bob's page that you cited, which in turn cites some anonymous person with a Slavic-looking name.
Furthermore, the first hit from a search for Vrtoglavica 643 603 also gives a fairly detailed article about that pit and its surroundings, corroborating information from showcaves.com.
I think it's plain old blunder to state that a pit on Velebit is in Slovenia when the mountain doesn't even reach the border of hr and si, it's at least 50 km to the south. It's primarily a blunder on the part of the people who published this originally, but it's not much better that we just copy it without checking.
BTW my revert is marked minor automatically because it was done with the "rollback" function. --Joy [shallot] 23:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I wrote the total depth of Vrtoglavica instead of its record pitch depth (which, to be fair isn't that different a value, and I corrected it when I did the revert), and it does seem that Patkov Gust is indeed in Croatia. I still don't think such minor errors amount to "A gross mistake; an error due to stupidity or carelessness" (OED), and labelling it as such is irritating and confrontational.
Oh, I just went by the WordNet definition of "an embarrassing mistake". Please don't take offence. --Joy [shallot]
Sorry, I was probably being overly touchy. Rls 19:58, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
You state that a Google search for Vrtoglavica corroborates information from showcaves.com; no it doesn't, showcaves.com doesn't even mention the cave, and I found several other errors and omissions with only casual browsing which is why I didn't trust it.
I also saw that omission, but that's probably due to being out of date or just uninformed. The deepest caves get explored practically constantly and a record that was up to date two years ago could well be wrong today. I used other sites to verify that Vrtoglavica does indeed have a 603m single drop, and kept that part of your edit. --Joy [shallot]
It's true that deep caves keep getting extended (the 2km mark was only passed a few months ago) but apparently Vrtoglavica was bottomed in 1996. Rls 19:58, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
What about Lukina Jama? A Google search for "Lukina jama" 516 didn't turn up anything in particular indicating a record pitch size, at least in English. I did find a sort of 3D survey, but as far as I can see there isn't a single pitch of 516 metres in the cave. Rls 02:05, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
On that Google search, when all languages are allowed, there are three hits from Croatian newspapers (novilist.hr, vecernji.net, slobodnadalmacija.com) which all consistently state that a section of vertical space within the Lukina jama is 516 meters. I remember seeing it in the news... that stuff from the speleologues should corroborate it, but indeed it doesn't seem to. I'll e-mail them asking for clarification, to see whether the press was wrong. --Joy [shallot] 10:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The definition of what exactly is a pitch isn't that well defined so there may be some room for interpretation. There's also the possibility that the cave was initially only approximately measured but then was accurately surveyed, showing smaller dimensions. Did you receive a reply from Bob Gulden? Rls 19:58, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Civility, "judgmental tone in edit comments" Rls 02:19, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

stupid aquatic terms

What is the difference between a stygobite (mentioned in this article) and a phreatobite (not yet mentioned)? --Chinasaur 21:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Caves

I made a small change clarifying the difference between an ice cave and a glacier cave.Ian mckenzie 03:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it because this isn't true. Even if it was, we wouldn't want to list a cave containing ice as a special type of cave. Rls 14:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "ice cave" and "glacier cave" that I proposed (corrected) are those in common usage amongst cavers/speleologists in Canada and, I believe, the rest of the world. See http://werple.net.au/~gnb/caving/glossary/I.html http://home.pacific.net.au/~gah/speleology/glossary.htm http://www.showcaves.com/english/explain/Speleology/Classification.html http://www.speleogenesis.info/glossary/pdf/glossary_02_I.pdf http://207.57.17.64/files/glossary.pdf and http://nsidc.org/glaciers/glossary/glacier_cave.html all of which which mirror my understanding. There are many more. You can find a few references which call caves in glaciers "ice caves" but these tend to be nontechnical names. For example, http://glaciercaves.com/html/glacie_12.HTM gives several examples of glacier caves that are called "So-And-So Ice Cave" but are still referred to as glacier caves, with the distinct (correct) definition of an "ice cave" following. I can understand your argument that a bedrock cave with permanent ice in it is not a morphologically distinct cave type in itself, but do not agree that it is not a "special type of cave" because in those countries that have them, it is. Perhaps a compromise would be to correct the definition of "glacier cave" and include within that definition "...not to be confused with <ice cave>, which is any cave in bedrock that contains permanent ice formations".Ian mckenzie

I don't agree that the (many) references to caves in glaciers as ice caves are "non-technical", whatever that means. However I've made a change to the article incorporating the two names – see what you think. I'm beginning to think that this article should be split up into sub-articles for each major cave type. Rls 14:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good change. My original change was perhaps a little too strict, based on right/wrong whereas yours recognizes common usage. I did make one further small wording change, tho, as I believe an important function of wiki is to correct misconceptions, and the term 'ice cave' is technically incorrect when refering to caves in glaciers. I hope the present wording satisfies all...Ian mckenzie

can I replace the photo

The photo headlining this page is pretty poor, not to mention a blatant advertisement for a show cave, plus, it is repeated on a page made for that show cave. As a professional cave photographer I have images I'd be willing to donate, however am not sure of the procedure or etiquette involved in replacing an image. In the help sections I only see how to place an image, not how to replace one. --Dave Bunnell 22:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say go ahead and replace it, as cave of the mounds is hardly a famous cave in the international world. I don't know how to replace photos though, but someone did it recently on the Batu Caves page,so maybe you could find out from there. Cavingliz--Cavingliz 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense, I would like to say that the picture of Cave of the Mounds is most definitely not an advertisement. I am not a professional photographer, just a tourist. I was a touring the cave, and took some photos. I felt the picture was worthy of inclusion in the cave article, as it shows some of the unique structures found in caves. But if Dave Bunnell has some pictures he is willing to share, please include them in the article. And, as Cavingliz said, it is not particularily famous in the international world, but I do think it is a good picture, otherwise I wouldn't have put it in the article. To add your pictures, simply follow this format: [[Image:Example.jpg|thumb|#px|caption]]. Consider leaving the Cave of the Mounds picture in the article, but putting it lower, perhaps. I still think it adds significantly to the article, and is a good demonstration of caves.--ClockFace 14:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Considering the enormous number of outstanding cave photos in the world, I think this page could do with some replacements. The photos presently on it are good, but are not superb, and in some cases not particularly educational or representative. I should think that the first and last ones in particular could be replaced. BTW, don't take the deletion personally; Constant improvement is what wiki is all about, and Mr. Bunnell is amongst the best cave photographers in the world. Ian mckenzie 01:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following Ian's suggestion I replaced a few photos and added several. Note that I've tried to put photos in a logical context by section, so we now have something to illustrate lava tubes, sea caves, cave dwellers, and cave archaeology. I would have replaced the one from Hall of the Mountain King with one of a deep pit, but it's a nice photo so decided not to mess with it. This took me most of an afternoon so I hope people leave it in place for awhile. I hope most will agree that these photos help better illustrate the concept of caves and the subtopics in the article.--Dave Bunnell 07:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary caves

I reworded the limestone cave paragraphs in this section to better tie in with the theme of secondary caves. Have also removed the statement that faster solution would lead to fewer caves, which is confusing and possibly untrue - caves in the tropics form faster than in Canada, yet there is no evidence that there are fewer of them there. Also, I removed loess, ice and lava from the list of solutional bedrocks; two are not bedrock and none of the three owe their caves' existence to chemical solution, unless in the most exceptional circumstances. Ian mckenzie 20:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits made by 69.168.140.188 as one simply linked back to this same page and paragraph, and the other linked nowhere. Ian mckenzie 00:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate links?

It looks like the links to a number of long and deep cave links have been removed as inappropriate. I don't see a note here. Why were they considered inappropriate? (Bob Gulden's site is considered as one of the most reliable by many cavers, and his work on caves and cave records in the National Speleological Society speaks for itself.)Nahaj 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see they've been replaced, removed & replaced again. I agree that they're quite appropriate & should remain. Looking forward to other opinions... Valerius Tygart 19:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any external link could be appropriate if the context is not blatant commercialism. Sometimes the most appropriate links about a particular cave might only be sourced from a commercial tourist cave site as the National Park type sites might not mention it, or the National Park type of site might just as well be a commercial in itself anyway as they depend on revenue from cave visitors. Not all speleological groups have the commercial tourist caves listed anyway. There should not be a discrimination, however much that speleologists consider a tourist cave as 'not really a cave' because after all, even if it has been substantially altered from it's native state, it is still a 'cave'.petedavo 02:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a lot of links have been removed by VSmith, he considers them to be spam, but in fact I would consider them to be genuine links to good sites. Cavingliz 07:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However in the context of this article on caves any mention of how deep or long etc should refer to their respective main articles and the said references should be on those main articles, not on some snippet of those main articles within the cave article. Since there are main articles on longest caves, deepest caves etc, then the proper references should be to the main article. It might seem a bit hard for novices readers of wikipedia to navigate thru but it would seem to be more encyclopaedic.petedavo 11:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I simply used the caverbob links as refs for the longest and deepest caves and removed the series of section inline links to caverbob pages. Facts need to be referenced, but we don't need a list of external links within as article section. As to the comment by Cavingliz above, Wikipedia is not a list of links (please follow those links and read the guidelines there). Vsmith 13:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A cave is a stupid hole in the grounde... (run-on sentence)"??? Surely we can do better than this. I don't remember how to sign on but maybe someone else can think of a more appropriate way to begin this article. I don't even have time right now to read the whole article but I'll bet there are more problems. It actually looks like someone tried to deliberately write something silly. This is the kind of comment a child would make when they don't want to do something they are supposed to do. I think someone needs to look at this article and figure out if this is lazy editing or vandalism or technical malfunction. Then I would love to read the whole article. Keep up the good work everyone. I enjoy reading Wikipedia articles and if I can ever figure out how to sign on with my user name again I'll help out with the editing. WLE 68.46.248.8 (talk) 22:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

give me info

i need info 4 project —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.65.240.27 (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solutional caves?

"...may form anywhere with rock that is soluble, and are most prevalent in limestone, but can also form in other material, including chalk, dolomite, marble, granite, salt, sandstone, fossilized coral and gypsum."

Since when is granite soluable? Isn't "fossilzed"(sp) coral just limestone? Shouldn't this section be re-written so as not to be so awkward? 16:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Senor Cuete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Cuete (talk • contribs)

Quiet?

Mention how quiet, both in terms of decibels of sound people can hear, and also in terms of radio wave penetration, it gets in caves. Jidanni (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasians.

It is a WELL DOCUMENTED fact that EUROPEANS originated in CAVES. While the Blackman (the ORIGINAL Man) was dwelling in the Palaces and Pyramids of KMT (or "Egypt" as y'all caucasians call it), they were crawling around in the caves of europe all terrified of the Sun (the Mighty Sun Disc Atun Amun-Ra, the Black God). To not mention this is complete horsesh*t, I mean, POV. Wikipedia's systemic bias is well documented but y'all can't even DENY this sh*t! white people came from caves. This article needs to reflect this fact as it is PROMINENT in the minds of Black Folks: we hear caves, we think white boys. Don't believe me? I found this sh*t on google, a WHITE, RACIST web site! http://www.accd.edu/sac/vat/arthistory/arts1303/PALNEO.htm

Now compare to: http://www.in2itinternational.com/Artist/Hernandez_Reynaldo/Black_Imperial_Egypt_The%20Old_Kingdom_21_30.jpg http://www.zoss.com/personal/egypt/egypt1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Several comments: 1.) Europeans didn't originate in caves, they originated in Africa. 2.) The site with cave art that you link to shows cave art from all over the world, not just from Europe. 3.) Paleolithic cave art dates back something like 10,000 years earlier than Egyptian civilization. By the time of the Egyptian Old Kingdom, Europeans weren't "crawling around in caves," they were living in villages, farming, and even building some pretty impressive monuments--though admittedly less impressive than the Egyptian pyramids. 4.) Paleolithic Africans also used caves. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caverns

Caverns smell of dung. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.163.77 (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the link for "Primary cave" in the types of cave section simply send you back to the top of the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.71.137 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was because it was a redirect. The link existed probably in the hopes that a real article would replace the redirect someday. I have taken care of it by commenting out the circular redirect pending creation of that article. Thanks for noticing this. WTucker (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal caves

hey how come theres nothing on costal caves here??—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.86.57 (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have made a mistake interpreting your question but there does seem to be a section on this topic and an article.WTucker (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image added

A recent edit added a new image to the article. The image was added in a series of edits over several days. I thought that the article was already well populated by quality images showing various types of caves and that the new image was not superior and did not improve the article. So, I reverted. The user readded the image with no comment a short time later.

I am starting this section to discuss this image and whether or not it improves the article. I think that the image is of lesser quality than the ones already in the article. I also think that the image does not add value to the article. I do not know why the editor added the image nor why he/she is determined to keep it. Maybe they will contribute to this discussion. I have asked them to join in.

Does anyone else have thoughts on this image? WTucker (talk) 02:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

on the other pictures there arent so many formations. well, i just like it. :)--Horseluv10 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horseluv10 (talk • contribs)
it would go under the section "solutional caves", i think. it does have flowstone on it too, that i dont think any of the other pictures have! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horseluv10 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for coming here to discuss this. The images in the article are not attempting to show formations necessarily. I think that what was intended was to have a few quality images showing various types of caves. There is one for solutional, lava tube, littoral, and glacial. Several of the images in the article do show flowstone: the Lechuguilla image, in particular; the Ogof Craig a Ffynnon image; and the subterranean isle all feature flowstone prominently. But, speleothems are not the point of the images, the types of caves are. I appreciate that you "like" your image. Because I like caves and the image was taken underground, I like it, too. But, likeability is not the test. Whether or not the image improves the article for the reader is the test. I hope that you will agree with me that no matter how likeable your image is, it does not substantially improve the article about caves beyond the images that we already have. WTucker (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oh well, i guess you're right--Horseluv10 11:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horseluv10 (talk • contribs)

Digging & Mining

Mentions of mining could probably be added in context to the article, but so far what has been attempted to be added, adds nothing to the content of the Cave article, instead placing too much emphasis on mines and how special they are by noting their depth. While mining is entirely a manmade creation, caves are not. A brief mention of digging could be noted in the article somewhere, but it is hardly a "formation" or "type of cave," because at any point if the entirety or majority of the "cave" has been formed by digging, it is probably an oxymoron or misnomer. Digging is not a formation because caves are natural (meaning not related to man, in this case) and thus so are the ways in which they are formed.

The way I see mining being mentioned in this article is in the case of caves that have minerals or other valuable deposits that have been mined. Bat guano comes to mind. But so far I don't think mining is notable enough to be in the lead of the article. At least not at this time. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason for introducing the information was to place doubt on the assertion that caves are not found at levels deeper than 3000m because of pressure from overlying rock. The reference used in the article is a Russian paper or book, no URL given and not translated, so that for all practical purposes the statement is unreferenced. You object to the inclusion of the mining fact immediately following the rock pressure hypothesis on the basis of WP:SYNTH, an objection which does not stand up to close scrutiny since I did not introduce any conclusion. viz that the 3000m limit must be incorrect. I requested that you leave the information in place until we had sorted the matter out here, a request that I see has been ignored. Paul venter (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the synth problem as the interjecting of deep mine stuff immediately after the 3000 m max depth was indeed a problem as the mine had nothing to do with caves. Mining engineers work to avoid rockbursts and collapse of mineworkings at those depths plus it seems the rock types involved are likely quite different. While I agree that the use of a foreign language ref w/no translation is problematic and some of the wording may be a bit off, the solution would be to find another reference disputing the depth specifically referring to natural caves. Caves are considered to be natural underground cavities and not human constructed mines, tunnels or diggings, so the inclusion of data on gold or diamond mine depths are simply out of place here. For the other comments - see WP:BRD. Vsmith (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian references (at least the 2nd - 4th) are from The Commission Speleology and Karst, Moscow Center of the Russian Geographical Society and is a list of karst terms and definitions. Google translate works with those links. The first, the Russian book reference, has an invalid isbn per Amazon search. Vsmith (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above I felt that mining deeper than 3900m casts doubt on the 3000m figure used in the article. Speculating that "it seems the rock types involved are likely quite different" has no place in this discussion as rock types have not been mentioned up to now and certainly the 3000m assertion did not do so either. I would agree that rock type is an important factor in determining the depth at which crushing would take place, and that an unqualified assertion of 3000m is at best incomplete and at worst totally misleading. A Google search for man-made caves will produce more than 4 million hits - picking a few at random : Hellar, Fuling's Jinzishan mountain and many other, not forgetting the caves of Cappadocia and the opal caves of Australia. It seems that there is a case to be made for the article "Cave" to have 2 sub-sections "Natural caves" and "Man-made caves".Paul venter (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You state that you felt that mining deeper than 3900m casts doubt on the 3000m figure, and that is the problem. What you would need is a WP:RS that makes the connection - otherwise is is synthesis. If you feel the 3000 m figure is wrong, then find a WP:RS that refutes it. If you don't like the reference used then find another or take it to the reliable sources discussion. And please note that my comment on different rock types is here and not in article space - and it is relevant.
As to natural vs man made, it is obvious that there are lots of man made "caves"; fruit and wine cellars, catacombs, quarries, mines, subways, sewage systems, bunkers, storm shelters, bomb shelters ... The focus of the current article is on natural caves and it should remain so and not get involved in all those other underground workings. Also the "4 million" google hits is rather an irrelevant figure especially w/out knowing how you constructed your search query. Now if you want to make a list of human constructed or modified underground structures or something akin to that it might work as a list article, don't know. Vsmith (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly obvious that the fact of mining at 3900m contradicts the Russian hypothesis speculating it is not possible - there is no synthesis here. If the focus of the article is on "natural" caves, then the article title should be changed to reflect that, leaving the way clear to produce an article titled "Caves (man-made). Adopting a head-in-the-sand attitude is not going to make the problem go away. It may be time to solicit the advice and expertise of editors who do not have a vested interest in the article and are not biased one way or another. Paul venter (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've undone your undiscussed renaming. After you create (assuming you plan to) the cave (man–made) article, then we can discuss a possible move. Regarding your perfectly obvious.. bit, you really need to carefully read WP:SYN. Please assume good faith and avoid the head-the-sand attitude type comments. Vsmith (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD From your reaction here and in other geology related articles it is clear that you feel they are your personal domain. Take some time to read WP:OWN and ponder autocratic behaviour. Paul venter (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PV, I'm kind of tired of your accusatory tone, which started with you if you look back through the thread. Do keep good faith sir.
Regarding that Russian hypothesis: I personally feel it doesn't belong in the lead and without having read the source material, it sounds like junk science. But who knows? It could have a home somewhere on the article as a hypothesis, which is all it is. It seems cave records get broken from time to time.
Regarding a renaming of this page and a manmade cave page: In all the examples Vsmith gave for manmade caves (e.g. cellars, catacombs, mines) in every single one they are the other thing first and a manmade cave second. Yes there are manmade caves, but very, very few of them fit snugly within that description as a primary, but instead fall into a much bigger category as VSmith adequately detailed. I don't think there is a need to relabel this page, but perhaps there could be a need for a Cave (manmade) article at some point? I don't see a strong juxtaposition to differentiate this article from a weak need for potential article in Cave (manmade). As for any bias, that's just bologna nonsense. I enjoy all kinds of caves, whether they be subway tunnels, sewer ducts, or even regular man caves. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LM, whether you're tired of my imagined accusatory tone or not is irrelevant to the quality of the article. I did indeed assume good faith when making my first edit, an edit you promptly reverted as unsourced. When I added the same information with source Vsmith promptly reverted and this time called it WP:SYNTH which it was not - the one proposition was theoretical, the other practical, and both could not be true. Reminds me of the medieval argument amongst learned men who tried to determine the number of teeth in a horse's jaw, and when a passerby suggested looking in a horse's mouth, he was almost lynched for his impertinence. Anyway, the 3000m limit is history and I hope it stays that way. Paul venter (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Paul Venter

Paul: As someone who has devoted much of my life to caving, I have to say that you obviously don't know what you are talking about. This doesn't seem to deter you from having a strong opinion about the subject. This is troubling. Your belief that there are man-made caves is foolish. It demonstrated a misconception about what a cave is. A cave is a naturally occurring void in the Earth. Mines, cellars, etc. might be colloquially referred to as "caves" but are not. Your move to caves(natural) was heavy-handed and should have been discussed here first, where it would have been rejected. My dictionary doesn't define caves as usually horizontal so I guess we now have a contest to see if my dictionary is bigger than yours. Even if your short dictionary says that caves are usually horizontal, it's wrong. You should stick to editing articles about subjects about which you have expertise. This way you won't suffer the frustration of having all of your edits rejected. Alternatively you could discuss them here so we can tell you to forget it. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

Senor Cuete: You obviously know little about dictionaries - The New Shorter Oxford comes in 2 volumes, each just under 2000 pages. The lede paragraph of any article normally gives a summary, in layman's terms if possible, and since the concept of a cave is not a technical one, the layman's perception and a generally accepted definition is the one you should go with. I'm also troubled by the adversarial tone of your note in which you feel you speak for everyone, and would suggest that you read up the WP guideline on politeness and assuming good faith. The other thing that troubles me is your avoiding discussion of the points I made in my revert, appointing yourself as an expert and denigrating the contributions of editors whose opinions might differ from yours. "Alternatively you could discuss them here so we can tell you to forget it" is totally dismissive and not up to the standard that WP editors should be maintaining. In short, lay off the personal gibes and focus on the quality of the content. Paul venter (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why a dictionary is being used to define what types of entrances caves have. Seems like the last source anyone would use. In my experience caving, I see all sorts of entrance arrangements (horizontal, diagonal, vertical, mixtures) and I mostly only deal with lava tubes. I'm sure it's similar in karst, but boy it seems like only the pits make the cover of the NSS News! My recommendation to Paul is to use better sources. A dictionary is great for defining words and other etymology, but the authority on caves? yeesh! Leitmotiv (talk) 05:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean spelunking? ;) Leitmotiv (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul: You obviously don't know anything about caves. I'm completely familiar with the Oxford English Dictionary. The public throws words like "cave" and "cavern" around carelessly but this doesn't mean that there's isn't a strict definition for these words. These ARE technical terms. The strict definition of these words can be found in a karst geomorphology textbook. I recommend "Karst Geomorphology" by Sweeting or "Karst" by Jennings. Sorry but for the definition of technical terms a dictionary is not a reliable source. Since you have now added the text for the third time you are edit warring. If other editors agree with your definition of a cave as "usually horizontal" here it can stay otherwise not. Someone else delete this so I won't be accused of edit warring like Paul. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
"The New Shorter Oxford comes in 2 volumes, each just under 2000 pages." Obviously your point is that your dictionary is bigger than mine. Get it DICKtionary? har har har Senor Cuete (talk) 15:56, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
My version of the Shorter Oxford (a little older than the 1993 'New' edition) has nothing about "horizontal" - there is also remarkable unanimity in other dictionaries that I have access to [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. All but one use "natural" and none of them mention "horizontal". Away from dictionaries a general definition is mentioned here. Mikenorton (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My computer's online dictionary is the New Oxford American Dictionary. This is a standard dictionary provided as the online dictionary with many operating systems. It doesn't contain any reference to horizontal either. Oxford has many amusing vocabulary words, like codswallop, balderdash and taradiddle. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
Mikenorton: Regarding your last citation: Arthur N. Palmer is the gold standard of modern karst geomorphology. White is William B. White. These are the eminent authorities of speleology. In my opinion this settles it, Paul Venter's addition of "usually horizontal" must go. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
Removed the "usually horizontal" per the above discussion. The lead paragraph is supposed to be a summary of the article and not need references, therefore the nature of cave entrances should be first discussed below if needed. Seems most of my spelunking has been in an area of essentially horizontal carbonate rocks - so many do have horizontal entrances. But many have only, or additionally, near vertical sink hole openings. It seems a section discussing cave entrances could be included – based on WP:RS and not my fuzzy memory of course :) Vsmith (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"In some countries a cave is regarded as being a horizontal opening, as opposed to a pothole, which is a vertical opening. This usage is common in England but is not ubiquitous." "Lexicon of Cave and Karst Terminology" Paul venter (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think most cavers are aware of the term potholing and its niche use in England. Many of those so-called potholes have nonvertical sections, does that mean those too are just potholes? By that definition it gets silly real quick. But this article is not supposed to cater to specific locales but the broader global term. Leitmotiv (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also cavers are "bloody potholers". Senor Cuete (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

Paul Venter has now removed the statement that most caves are formed in limestone four times and it has been reverted. Does anyone think that this improves this article or is it disruptive editing? Paul: do you really think that this statement is untrue or are you being vindictive? If you have no support for your edit on this talk page you should stop this. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]

WP:NOCITE If a claim is doubtful but not harmful, use the [citation needed] template, which will add an inline tag, but remember to go back and remove the claim if no source is produced within a reasonable time. This should be clear enough. Paul venter (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"If a claim is doubtful..." So are you saying that the claim that most caves are in limestone is doubtful? Why do you doubt that? Do you know ANYTHING about caves? This is not doubtful at all - caves in other soluable rocks like dolomite or gypsum or lava tubes, etc. are rarities. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
Paul Venter: your FIFTH attempt to remove this claim has been reverted. Tell us why you think that this is doubtful? Senor Cuete (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Senor Cuete[reply]
While I agree that "most caves are limestone formations" is not controversial or dubious, I added a ref so you can stop wasting everyone's time on this. At this point, it appears that PV is trying to make some sort of WP:POINT; if such behavior continues, a block may be warranted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that upholding WP policy is a reason for blocking? Are you serious? I think idle speculation about my reasons for maintaining WP policy is certainly not appropriate and neither is criticism. If you are looking for reasons to block then examining Senor Cuete and Leitmotiv's ownership behaviour on this article might be more constructive. Paul venter (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only ownership I have seen here is from you. You make edits solely based on your viewpoint and have reverted multiple times contrary to the consensus. Also despite the well known common knowledge that limestone caves are more abundant than any other type, you have removed a perfectly fine "citation needed." And I think Ohnoitsjamie hit it on the button with his WP:POINT comment. Sorry Paul Venter, but your personal bias toward this article and your edits do not alleviate you from criticism. I don't see how anyone would be above criticism. That's just more nonsense. Had I taken your approach, I could have made a mess of the Nelson Bay Cave article you created, but instead all I did was add a citation needed instead of being disruptive like you. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cave types are missing.

This sentence was found in the glacial cave section. "Glacier caves are sometimes misidentified as "ice caves", though this latter term is properly reserved for bedrock caves that contain year-round ice formations." Nowhere in the article are bedrock caves defined. are they a type of solutional cave? If I knew enough, I'd add a definition of bedrock cave and put Ice caves in as a sub-type, but I do not know. Someone please help. 134.29.231.11 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cave&oldid=648661395"