Talk:List of caves in China

China Mid‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Caves

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caves, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of caving and cave articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CavesWikipedia:WikiProject CavesTemplate:WikiProject CavesCaves articles

Geology Low‑importance

	Geology portal Talk:List of caves in China is part of WikiProject Geology, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use geology resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.GeologyWikipedia:WikiProject GeologyTemplate:WikiProject GeologyGeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Table column headings[edit]

So, what's important?

Name (obviously)
?
?
?
?
?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I'll add the agreed format to List of caves in Mongolia) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My preference would be for:

Name
Geology

Length

Area (i.e m2)
Location

Philg88 (talk) 07:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. If karst, maybe add it in parentheses so visitors don't think it's a kind of rock. Just a thought. Ditching foot conversion is good. Use an asterisk next to name or somewhere with a legend beneath table to indicate something like: karst, archeological site, tourist site, etc., to save need for extra column. Just another thought. Too bad there's no col for remarks, as visitors might be very useful to visitors to identify cave. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

karst is an indication of geology- as for types I don't think that there are any that are not classified as tourist attractions so a color key wouldn't help. As for remarks, maybe they can be done with Template:Cnote2 against the name. Philg88 (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cnote2 may be a good idea, but it would be nice to make it simpler, as this may become the table that other cave lists use.
Isn't a cave either karst or not? If so, some sort of indicator being present or not might do. One entry that says karst while the next says limestone is confusing. Two different categories.
What about combining width, depth, volume, length with a heading "size" or "magnitude" or something like that? Each cave has its own defining quantifier. That way we could restore the "remarks" column which really could help visitors find that cave they're looking for.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Karst is a specific type of lansdcape as opposed to a type of cave. Although karst is created in limestone strata, it is possible to have a limestone cave that isn't technically karst. I'd go with the heading "Size" then, dependent on how much data there is for an entry set the format as Length: {{Convert|0000|m|ft}}<br />Width: {{Convert|0000|m|ft}} etc etc.

Restore the "Remarks" column by all means but maybe call it "Notes" - more encyclopedic I think. Philg88 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sample[edit]

Name	Size	Geology	Notes
Cavo del Mucho Guano	1,000 metres deep	limestone karst	Insane echo. Harsh guano smell.

Please help tweak headings, col widths, invisible comments for new entries, input/formatting conventions, etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me as it stands. Philg88 (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the final word on karst format? Any comments on column widths, invisible....(see above)?

I posted asking for input at list of caves talk and project caves talk, no reply. I don't think anyone cares. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should just go ahead and implement the changes. "Limestone karst" is a perfectly valid description because you can have karst formed in other types of carbonate tocl such as dolomite. Sortable columns are a good idea too. Philg88 (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Let's call that a keeper. Yep, sortable is great because then visitors can group all the caves that have a harsh guano smell. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like what everyone has been doing to this list, but sortability on length does not work correctly. Any work-arounds? Verne Equinox (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The size col is for length, depth, vol., etc., plus the units could be Imperial or metric, etc. So, for that column, it's a bust. I can't think of any decent work-arounds at all. My suggestion is keep the sortability, for what it's worth, and let the sorting fall where it may. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Figured it out. I'm sure there are other ways, but this worked. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, all we need now is some data! ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 01:06, Wednesday February 23, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about all those columns just to get around the metric problem. I think it might be met with opposition when adding it to other lists of caves articles. Is there a more compact solution? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about making two tables, one for metric and one for Imperial? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samples with Remarks --> Notes

Name	Depth (m)	Length (m)	Geology	Notes
Thatsome Cave				Contains skeletons still wearing knapsacks

Name	Depth (ft)	Length (ft)	Geology	Notes
Thatsome Cave				Contains Hoffa

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about area? Is that a common unit? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found out how to get m/ft in the same column and still leave the table sortable. This frees up space for two more potential columns. Area? ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 23:13, Thursday February 24, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about area. Might be little-used.

I see what you did in the article. Does that mean we should have two tables, one for metric countries and one for Imperial? (One m conv to ft. and one with ft. conv to m?)

Doesn't that clutter the column? Is the conversion really necessary? Personally, I'm split. Visitors look at caves from around the world and want figures in the unit they know. On the other hand, it sure does clutter the col. Anyway, let me know what you think a good final form should be because I want to start adding it to other lists. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CONVERSIONS backs the conversion thing - Wikipedia is world-wide blah blah. So we should keep it. I am not bothered if we have area or not - I think the list is OK as it stands. BTW, I bought some food wrap with the brand name "Guano". Luckily it doesn't list the ingredients on the package :) ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 05:27, Friday, May 24, 2024 (UTC)

Almost there. Just reading up on Imperial and it's too rare to have two tables. Only US still really uses it. Looking at US cave articles, area is used a lot. Last call for adding an area column. (Your call, in fact.) Get the size right, give a final example here at the bottom, and away we go. Many thanks for your research and patience. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. I just did a survey of a few dozen cave articles. Area is used in 1 out of 20 articles. Not worth stealing space from Notes column. Clean and simple. Thanks! I'm going to start adding them. This ought to be an asset to the articles, and will certainly help create consistency over the coming decades. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final form[edit]

See List of caves in Czech Republic. I tweaked the column widths because a lot of caves have long names. I will do Iceland (List of caves in Iceland) and then back-off pending peer review. Please let me know what you think. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should the list items in List of Caves be removed once { { main article } } has been created in order to prevent info and new items from landing in List of Caves, instead of added to the new list? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could just put a reference to the main article and a hidden comment asking editors to keep the two synchronized. I'm not sure of the WP policy. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:41, Friday February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Good plan. I did just that. Please inspect invisible comments. Change the whole lot by dumping into Word and doing a search and replace, to your liking. I will check WP policy soon, to be sure. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I should have added the invisible comments to all. I only added them to lists with { { main } }. I'll fix it. What I did only took a few minutes with Word marcos. Doing the lot ought to be just as easy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]