Talk:Urbex

Beyond North America
I tried to get this article started, but I am extremely far from being anything of an expert on the matter&mdash;my experiences have been few, recent, and rather casual. The greatest weakness that I've contributed so far is to give the article a very strong North American (U.S. & Canada anyway) bias. It would be great to see the geographical scope of this article expanded. For example, I can only guess at the incredible Urbex opportunities in the FSU... --(WT-en) Peter Talk 19:32, 1 August 2009 (EDT)


 * Yeah, there are some good photos here. (WT-en) Gorilla Jones 18:25, 4 August 2009 (EDT)

I think we should tread very carefully with this topic and avoid posting any specific information. Three reasons:
 * Legality - Urbex mostly falls in a grey area (unless you are in Scotland, "right to wander" ahoy!) but is just as likely to be flat out illegal. Covering the latter is blatently against Wikivoyage's rules. The page as it stands is treading a thin line I feel...
 * Ethics and preservation - I raise the above mostly as an excuse to cover the main problem: I have seen the damage over-exposure has done to specific sites. Near where I used to live, one guy started maintaining a foreign-language website stating maps, transport directions, the LOT to some amazing sites made mostly amazing by the objects left behind. Naturally, after remaining in that state for years, it took only months for the location to be picked clean by vandals.
 * Scope - Urbex details are way beyond the wikivoyage scope as the level of upkeep required to log the rise and fall of specific sites exceeds that of logging every small bar in Tokyo. Better to have a good solid resource outlining some vaguerities, clearing up questions as to what urbex actually is, and hints on where to start looking than spreading it too thin. Part of the challenge of urbex is finding a site in the first place and pulling that aspect out of the equation will reduce any respect for the hobby. Teach a man to fish and all. - 06:44, 13 February 2011‎ (WT-en) Snave

American to British English?
There isn't any important reason to change the form of English to British English in a general travel topic article, correct? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I for one do not understand this comment. —The preceding comment was added by 203.56.188.95 (talk • contribs)
 * That's funny, because you're the one substituting "shops" for "stores" and "central" for "downtown", among other changes. (And still refusing to sign your posts on talk pages, I see.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it's funny. What is wrong with central and shops? I do not understand 'still refusing to sign your posts on talk pages, I see, —The preceding comment was added by 203.56.188.95 (talk • contribs)
 * How many times do you need to be asked to type 4 tildes (~) at the end of your posts on talk pages? You say "What is wrong with central and shops?" I reply "What was wrong with 'downtown' and 'stores' (and, arguably, 'subway') that impelled you to change those words?" Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand 'How many times do you need to be asked to type 4 tildes (~) at the end of your posts on talk pages?' But, Ill try to answer. it is once and by your question above. I will then follow up with my own question, what are you talking about?
 * As far as I know, "central" is valid in the American language. Central Square, New York is just north of Syracuse. K7L (talk) 10:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, and so is "shop". My point is, what was the need to change these words? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In so far as it's possible, they are more neutral as to the "flavour" of English?
 * See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Opportunities_for_commonality for the general concept. 80.234.185.120 15:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, and what about this edit? The article has now been so thoroughly Anglicized that it should be completely in British English "to have a consistent variety" within the article? This is a worldwide travel topic, not something specific to Britain, Australia or any other country that uses mostly British spellings. I think many of the recent edits to this article were unnecessary and wrongheaded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly.
 * It's a significantly smaller set of countries that officially use US English.
 * However, I can't see anything so very wrong with the diff you provide. The only really problematic change that I can spot is swapping "subway" for "metro". However short of using the ugly construction of metro/subway or "underground mass transit system" I can't see any way round that. Hasn't the great "US or non-US English" debate been an interminable wrangle from almost day 1 of this project?
 * After all these years of nit-picking changes, personally I would ordain a switch to non-US English - if only on the grounds that might give us a significant boost to persuading Goodle that we are not an inferior derivative of Wikigravel. After all, there's not much point in crafting the most sparkling and consistent prose if nobody can ever find our articles to read them... 80.234.185.120 19:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr./Ms. IP, you are not a new user and know Wikivoyage policies very well. I would not "correct" British English if it were used for a worldwide travel guide, but "correcting" American words and spellings to British ones in a worldwide travel topic is against policy. You know that. We are not going to discuss your age-old conceits about SEO in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you clearly have an hatred for British people. That is your problem, but i will just note I am not British. I will also note it is insulting to class Australians as British. And I not understand various statements from you such as 'You know that. We are not going to discuss your age-old conceits about SEO in this thread' —The preceding comment was added by 203.56.188.25 (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for making me laugh. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but I don't see a joke. —The preceding comment was added by 203.56.188.51 (talk • contribs)

Considering deletion proposal
Unless this is substantially rewritten, I am going to propose deletion of this in line with the recent changes to the Illegal Activities policy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reworded a bit; this is not an article about sneaking into hotel pools for free. K7L (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I still think this article needs a fundamental rethink. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization
Is there a good reason to capitalize "urbex"? I doubt it. I can't see capitalizing "urban exploration". Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a proper noun, so shouldn't be capitalised.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what I think, too. Yet it is capitalized a number of times in the middle of sentences. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This problem has been resolved. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)