Talk:Bat Cave mine

Mining Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Arizona Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Arizona portal This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona (assessed as Low-importance).

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

Photo Help

The pdf's of the Bat Cave mine article at http://www.grandcanyon.org/booksmore/epubs/pillar/pdfs/chapter3_part1.pdf and http://www.grandcanyon.org/booksmore/epubs/pillar/pdfs/chapter3_part2.pdf have some nice historic photos, but I can't get Adobe reader to export them, and it won't recognize gmail. If someone would email me the photos -- pdtillmanATgmailDOTcom -- I'll put some up, as Fair Use historic photos. TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did send these, but the reproduction quality was so poor, I decided not to use them. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Identity clarity

This article is confusing. "Bat Cave mine." Is it a mine? Or is it a cave? The article starts off saying it was the location of mining and then says it's a cave. Which is it? More clarity is needed. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Cave mine is a former guano mine located in a natural bat cave. So it's both a mine and a cave. HTH, Pete Tillman (talk) 07:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the article doesn't read that way. I recommend improving it for clarity. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? Vsmith (talk) 02:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better, thank you! Leitmotiv (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the Bat Cave mine... but I'm thinking that the article is improperly named. Perhaps, Bat Cave, Arizona with a major subsection on the guano mine and it's mining operation that takes place in the cave. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is essentially all about the mine and its history with really nothing about the natural cave except that it contained guano, it seems appropriately named to me. If you can locate references discussing the cave itself, please add to the article. If sufficient info is available to expand the article significantly with cave geology, description, exploration, mapping, biology, ecology, etc. then by all means expand it and we can then rename if warranted. Vsmith (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't need to expand the article significantly as you put it, just to give it its own page. But the article appears to be misnamed, since this is a mining operation within a cave. It should be a subsidiary part. But I'm unfamiliar with the mining part... was the cave altered and expanded like in a regular mine? Or were parts of it "mined" like just bat guano. If the guano was only removed, then it would be erroneous to call this a mine, since it is merely a cave. But again, I'm unfamiliar. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The guano was mined from the cave, and the natural cave was modified by excavating and installing machinery, such as the tramway. So it's definitely a mine, and called one in the RS's we cite. If you do find some info on the original (or present) cave, please add it! Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt the existence of it being part-mine. But is it first a cave, and only a mine second? The cave obviously existed before the mine, so it's a cave first. The mining operation IN the cave means that this article is mislabled in my opinion. But I'm not certain on that, hence this thread. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there had been no mining operation, there would be no notability and no article. There exist lots of caves containing bat guano, but they don't rate an article because they aren't notable (except to bats and maybe spelunkers). Vsmith (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well familiar with unnotable caves, even ones with impressive features and lengths. But is this article misnamed? Because as it is now, it's a confusing title. How do other mining articles compare? Some other possibilites would be Guano mine of Bat Cave, or Mine of Bat Cave. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]