Talk:Hobby tunneling

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Civil engineering Low‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCE articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does Bentinck belong in this article?

The Welbeck Abbey article asserts that the rooms of his house aren't actually underground, just that their ceilings are at ground level. But even if they were underground, a Duke employing builders to construct underground extensions to his country house doesn't sound much like the work of a "hobbyist", any more than a modern London basement extension would. --Lord Belbury (talk) 08:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the first sentence mentions, some structures are undergound and some below ground, the latter being what you mean, I think. Perhaps the most are of the below ground variety, I don't know.

Grounds for including the Duke are the sources that say "hobby". One that I read but didn't use for citation and one that's in the article Charles Archard, see next to image "The Riding School": it says "one of his hobbies". I'm not attached to this section though, so if you want him out, take him out. I'll be writing a small Trivia section and then I'm done here, I think. SanderO (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems okay, from the source. If they were built for an eccentric personal reason rather than pure necessity, I suppose that does put him closer to the rest of the hobby tunnelers. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include the young lady on tiktok who is excavating her house?

I'm not sure if it's notable enough, but she is getting in legal trouble, and it's fairly well documented. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/tiktok-tunnel-girl-building-hobby-rcna125000 2601:245:C302:A320:6C68:FAB:865D:A62E (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Source-wise she's in the news, and she HAS been at this for just over a full year. Jellybean213 (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Motivations' section reads very strangely

Like it's AI-generated or something. Includes super-basic info like the definition of tunnel. Then the subsection 'Hobby' has some okay description. I kind of want to merge the 'Hobby' subsection into 'Motivations', and get rid of the extremely basic info, as well as the bits about escape tunnels and smuggling tunnels, which are explicitly not the same as hobby tunneling.

Thoughts? Scalveg (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section was written in 2020 by an editor from the Netherlands who describes their English as "advanced" but not at the level of a native speaker. It would seem okay to me to cut all the text from it and remove the "Hobby" subheading, leaving a "Motivations" section that starts with A few people have dug tunnels as a hobby... (which could itself use a rewrite). Belbury (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]