Talk:List of caves of Maryland

Precautions

The "Precautions" section has too many exclamation points. That's okay for a how-to manual, but not suitable for an encyclopedia.

Just saw this page

After adding some caves to the List of caves for Maryland, I took a quick look at this article and see that it lists dozens and dozens of caves but with hardly anything cited. This looks like original research. Most of it hasn't been cited since 2008, and the 'citations needed tag' at the top of the article has been there since 2010. I will probably go in and prune this article of uncited entries if no one intends to cite this information. Also, based on the comments, it appears a lot of original research is taking place within this article which is prohibited on Wikipedia. It looks like if the editors of this page can't start giving citations for the "information" on this page, it will be a shell of its former self. It looks like about 98% of the content will be gone. I also checked the few references given (for some reasons listed as Notes when they shouldn't be) and two of those are dead links and need to be updated. Better get to it, there's a lot of work to do on this page. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a response to my reverts. The reverter responded that these are always works in progress. True, but not for 9 years. If you don't have references for this stuff, I'm going to delete it. Also, important to note, a lot of this looks like original research (especially if you look at the notations) which is not allowed. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please look carefully at my edit...it was unrelated to the IP's addition of uncited content, which you rightly undid, though with an edit-summary that was un-necessarily threatening and also vague because there are lots of issues already here on the talkpage. Instead, I merely edited the intro to the list to fix some lack of formal encyclopediac style. For example, WP:LEADFORALIST specifically guides us not to include notes to readers to edit lists. And there were also several MOS:CURRENT problems. Do you actually think that exclamation marks belong in encyclopedia-article prose? DMacks (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

By the way, {{Dynamic a-list}} or {{Dynamic list}} are the standard tags to accomplish it. DMacks (talk) 03:53, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You can revert my last edit, I only did it because you were trying to have a conversation through notation. Please revert my edits because I only did it in the first place to get someone talking about this page.

* Issue number 1: After reviewing the entire page, there are huge chunks of prose that could be described as fan cruft if this were a fictional book. You literally have people exploring caves, describing their interiors, posting their thoughts in the notations and changing the article to reflect that. That is original research and it's strictly not allowed.

* Issue number 2: The huge chunks of original research are also not referenced. References on this page are nearly nonexistent and content will be deleted if the editors of this page can't cite anything. There doesn't need to be any warning because a tag has been in place since 2008 for a total of 9 years. If editors can't place a single reference in 9 years it probably isn't going to happen. When the pruning of this article begins, 98% of it will be pruned and nothing will be left.

* Issue number 3: Caves of Maryland is a book. This article seems, in addition to the original research, to be writing or duplicating entire sections from the book. While I don't know this to be exactly the case, that reason alone could also mean a large pruning and restructuring of the article is in order. Plagiarism and duplicating a book is also not allowed on Wikipedia. You can quote a book when necessary to convey a point. You can summarize a book and describe some of the interior, plot, characters, etc, but to detail entire content is not what Wikipedia is trying to accomplish. At that point, you should probably just buy the book instead. Another problem with the book being the focus of the article, is that the book also becomes a primary source for the article which is also heavily frowned upon when secondary sources are the preferred kind. Primary sources are okay to use as citations in very small doses, but usually only to confirm the existence of something, to provide publishing data, and other similar things. But to repeatedly cite the primary source and nothing else would probably nominate this entire article for deletion.

With all that in mind, my recommendation, as a caver, is go check out the Oregon High Desert Grotto article, as well as the Horse Lava Tube System articles that I created and edited. Note that Oregon High Desert Grotto was nearly deleted because of lack of notability, and for lack of prominence outside of its local region. I dug up as many references as I could to keep it. The Horse Lava Tube System could very well be a book, but I limited the info, and the editors of this page would do well to duplicate the type of referencing that article has. Pay particular attention to the History and Conservation sections which are cited after nearly every single sentence to show where the info is coming from. Note the robust References section at the bottom of both articles. This is what you are aiming for. To flesh out this article you may have to hunt down other reference material, such as other guidebooks, NSS publications, local grotto publications, websites, etc. But if the sources don't match what is written in the article, or if it's not cited at all, it will be deleted. After 9 years of no work toward that goal, I think it's high time to start acting on that tag warning at the top of this article. If nothing at all occurs and original research continues and this talk page ignored, I may end up nominating the entire article for deletion. Leitmotiv (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The referencing is clearly unsatisfactory but it would seem that some content is based on references. Sadly, the lack of inline citations leaves it entirely unclear what is verifiable and what is not. Some material may well be OR but such content would not also be plagiarism or copyright infringement. If there is doubt about notability of a specific topic, a merge to a broader topic may be appropriate and that also seems to me a reason for keeping this article, even if a great deal of content needs to be removed in the interim. So, there is a strong case for improving the article (in part by pruning) and an arguable case for deletion. However, PROD seems to me inappropriate because that is restricted to articles where deletion is expected to be uncontroversial. Thincat (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Thincat The article is about the book since it explicitly states "the subject of this article and a reference book of the same name, Caves of Maryland..." Therefore if you cite the book itself many times as a primary source then you are plagiarizing if not directly violating copyright. How do you cite information within a book without citing the book itself? Well, first it probably has to be a very popular and/or controversial book, which this book is not. Therefore it may not be notable. You're right that OR content from the book may not be plagiarizing/infringement, but it's a moot point, because OR should also be deleted.

As for your "uncontroversial" argument, your reasoning is circular. Preemptively stating it may be controversial is not controversy in and of itself. That's essentially guessing the future, and using that as evidence for your argument. But that's neither here nor there now, since you removed the nomination. I just disagree with your reasoning.

Yes, as you say, there is a strong case for improving the article and that strong case has existed for 7 years and nothing has been done about it. I'll either AfD this and/or start pruning away 99% of the stuff shortly, which is effectively deleting the article. Unless someone wants to start discussing how to save the content, which no one has done yet. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The way I read the article it is about the caves rather than the book but it makes it clear that the book is an important underlying resource. The early edits could presumably be referenced to the book but it really needs to be done by someone with the book to hand. I have asked the original creator if they could do this (thank you for informing them of the situation). They edited earlier this month but other than that they only contribute rather occasionally. Thincat (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the intro lede is misleading and confusing, but as you said, at the very least, it seems to point in the direction that it's using the book as a crutch and may be leaning toward plagiarism. Just another thing that needs improving in this article. The problem is, I started a conversation here a while ago and none of the editors watching this page paid it any mind. I've given ample time for a response and the last thing I want to see is an edit war because people refuse to discuss things on talk pages, but that's how it seems to work. Delete the content and suddenly everyone gets angry, revert, but refuse to engage in article discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

What an edit would look like if all uncited material were removed

Okay editors, I went through and did a preliminary edit and I'm posting my results here, so you can see what it would look like beforehand. But first, I'll share with you my thoughts on the Notes section of this article. Keep in mind that "Notes" aren't actually references/citations. They're supposed to act as additional commentary that would otherwise distract from the narrative or the narrative's cadence, but is important to the article's content. It appears the notes in this article are behaving like references, but are marked up as notes erroneously. These notes should be converted.

Note #1 should be converted to a ref. The following sentence suggests that the book Caves of Maryland is the "principal source of information" about this article, and the first sentence in this article suggests the reference book is the subject of the article in no small part. Therefore, I'd treat the book Caves of Maryland as a primary source because it's the principal source; it is likely to be referenced a lot. In fact, the article goes on to say it will use the book as an "outline" further declaring its intention to copy it, or behave like the book. The book can still be referenced, but primary sources are usually only cited to prove the existence of something or to prove information about it's publication, such as publishing information (date, author, press, etc). Citing this book multiple times is not what this article wants to be doing. At the very least (and probably at the very most too), this book can be referenced after the very first sentence.

Note #2 is a dead link and the bot that takes care of dead links either hasn't gotten to it yet, or perhaps no substitute exists. Not sure how those bots work exactly. But it doesn't really matter, because the note appears to be defining what a cave is, which is not necessary for this article, nor is it the focus of this article. You could direct someone to the cave article for that. Therefore it can be entirely deleted since the adjacent content is also uncited.

Note #3 is about the Maryland Geological Survey, but appears to be noting the specificity of Hagerstown Valley having well-established waterways, which the link does not specifically say. Nor does the website say anything about caves or any specific cave as far as I can see. So the note does not support the sentence, nor does the sentence refer to the note. Therefore it is entirely deleted. No harm really done, since this article is about caves and not about underlying waterways.

Note #4 is also a dead link. If no one can find a replacement, everything it's noting is tentatively deleted. It appears the note was referencing "ridge-lines" of the Catoctin area, which arguably adds nothing to the dialogue of the article, and certainly not after the related uncited material is deleted.

Note #5 appears to be valid supporting material. Even though the direct link has zero information supporting the written content, the search engine on that site supports the claim that John Friend Cave and Crabtree Cave are protected by the Nature Conservancy. If this note were converted to a reference and the url links made more direct, those two caves would remain a part of the article.

Note #6 " A (sic) History of Western Maryland [with Illustrations]" is noted for Marker Cave. Again, another note that was probably intended as a reference. I assume it's supporting the fact that Marker Cave was the focus of an archaeological investigation that revealed the remains of Native Americans. The book itself can be found here and is searchable. A search in the document for "Marker" reveals no mention of a cave by that name and therefore the note, if it were to be converted, does not support the claim. A search for "bodies", "mummy", "mummies", and "remains" also did not come up with anything close to supporting the claim about Marker Cave. Everything in this section should be deleted.

All right, so what would the article look like after my edits? Here is the remaining content:

List of caves of Maryland

The subject of this article and a reference book of the same name, Caves of Maryland was first released by the Maryland Geological Survey (MGS) in 1950. Information about Maryland caves was first gathered into a series of reports by Martin Muma in the mid-1940s, working under the MGS. After the release of these articles in 1946, a more comprehensive study was begun by William Davies, whose years of fieldwork led to the compilation of the premiere edition of Caves of Maryland in 1950.[1] Since its publication, this reference work has remained the principal source for information about Maryland caves, and has served as an outline for the work to follow.

• Crabtree - A cave protected by the The Nature Conservancy [ref #1]
• John Friend - A cave protected by the Nature Conservancy [ref #1]

And that's it. Not much of a list, and hardly worth contributing to another article. And hardly worth an article about a List of Caves of Maryland. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Leitmotiv opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of caves of Maryland and posted the entire above passage there. I responded there. --Doncram (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

One general response, and then to respond to the six specific points raised:

Making threats to delete stuff unless something is done, seems unhelpful here. The material was sourced. It seems the entire article (started in 2010 or whenever) once was very clearly sourced to the "Caves of Maryland" source, although not with a zillion separate citations as would be more common with a new article in Wikipedia now. Later additions also were sourced it seems, and those sources no longer being available online is not a valid reason to delete the material. The sourcing just needs to be updated to either re-connect to old links via use of the Wayback Machine, or to note that the source seems to be offline.

1. Yep, the reference to the "Caves of Maryland" source should be made explicit. At the AFD I found and posted link to a free online copy of that source, which should be included in the reference here. It should be a "named" reference so that it can be re-invoked several times, perhaps once for each cave in the list.

2. About Note 2 which provided a working definition for a cave for this list. I responded at the AFD about this. But briefly it is highly appropriate for a list-article to explicitly define its standard for items to be included in the list. Per, i think is, wp:SALAT, editors at an article can/should establish a consensus for the standard. One common standard is items which have separate Wikipedia articles, but I kind of abhor that as a standard because it then spurs creation of separate articles, or needless conflict, when good documentation and coverage of items can be included in the list-article itself. A minimal standard is that items be supported by sources. Here it is my impression (not verified by the simple expedient of reading the "Caves of Maryland" source, which I oughta do) that the working definition is what is adopted by that source, so it would be reasonable to adopt that definition for this article too.

It doesn't matter that the source is now a dead link. Change the reference by updating it, or remove any link within the reference. It is fine for us to use off-line sources.

3. Complaint about note 3 is moot: the Maryland Geologic Survey website does provide info about specific caves, including by its providing the entire "Caves in Maryland" book as a PDF file. More specific referencing, e.g. to pages within that book, are indeed needed.

4. Not researching Note 4, but just responding: just because a link went dead, doesn't mean the material needs to be deleted. There was a source. It is now offline. So what, that is fine. Or, better, find the specific old source using the Wayback Machine, and update the reference.

5. About note 5, the comment seems to be reasonable, that the item can be improved by adding an explicit Nature Conservancy reference or whatever.

6. About Marker Cave, like for all other apparently factual information in the article, I think it would be wrong to be too quick to delete its coverage just because one person can't verify it immediately. There probably is a reasonable explanation and sourcing can in fact be improved.

Overall, threatening to delete stuff is not the way forward. The best way forward appears, to me, to be to start adding inline citations supporting coverage of various caves, first by checking the "Caves of Maryland" source. Showing the original writer(s) how inline sources are now commonly used in Wikipedia can help them participate more perhaps. Eventually it will become clearer what is supported by what.

Going forward, it would be better to have specific separate discussion sections about one matter at a time. It is generally very unwieldy to proceed with discussions about 6 or more issues at once. So I hope this has given some response about each of the issues raised, but I don't expect it has really solved all of the issues. There is limited attention available; do let's be strategic about managing discussion. --Doncram (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think some of these comments were neither here nor there; If I choose to light a fire under the butts of fellow wikipideans, that's my prerogative and I won't apologize for being the only person actively looking for a solution before this was submitted as an AfD. Number 6 was investigated and appears to be original research, and as I noted before (many times) this article's main focus was on the one source it is effectively using as a primary source. In the mean time I found this which appears to be an earlier version of the one you found Doncram. It doesn't have Marker Cave in it either. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of caves of Maryland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828120823/http://varegion.org/var/conservation/caveLawMD.shtml to http://www.varegion.org/var/conservation/caveLawMD.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080718183128/http://www.nps.gov/cato/naturescience/geologicformations.htm to http://www.nps.gov/cato/naturescience/geologicformations.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Article has been cleaned up

I've gone through the 1950 Caves of Maryland source by William E. Davies and cited all caves that were in that book and deleted anything else that wasn't cited. Plenty of the stuff that I did cite had information not in the book, and I wasn't entirely thorough, so I'm sure more details could be deleted as they are probably unsupported. Lots of original research in the way of "bad air", "cave is closed", "unknown", "cave rescue", "white-nose", etc. Original research is not allowed on any Wikipedia pages. Everything must be sourced or it is eligible for deletion.

Going forward, if you want to add a cave to this list, add a source with in-line citation, otherwise I will revert and if you start an edit war, I will give you a warning and take it to arbitration. This article had over a decade of time to improve and no one acted. I have sharpened the article a bit, even added a few listings not originally present, so be thankful for that. Although my recommendation would be to keep this article pared down as much as possible. This isn't an article about Maryland, or about the caves' character, this is just a list as the article declares in the lede. If you want to expand on a single cave, make a separate article and we can link it here. There aren't nearly enough cave articles out there. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)