Talk:Urban exploration

Lacking reference
"but because of the rising popularity, many individuals who may have other intentions are creating a concern among many property owners."

Is there evidence to support this? It would seem that individuals who had "other intentions" would've been already present before the rising popularity of urban exploring. Although property owners may express concern due to these individuals with the intent to steal, vandalize, arson, etc. it doesn't seem likely these individuals are creating more of a concern simply because of the rising popularity of people urban exploring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel ellis (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Please add new talk items at the bottom of the talk page (I've moved it for you) and sign your posts. As to the contents of the section, it might be valuable to come up with some core criteria and add or remove as necessary.  Removing the section itself seems excessive. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 04:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this guy "SchuminWeb" has just deleted that entire section for no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.193.204 (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I am in NO way recommending deleting the entire section. It contributes greatly to the article as a whole. I am simply recommending to delete that part of the statement, as it seems false. --Daniel ellis (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Lack of balance in regards to legality
This article also in my opinion lacks neutrality, but not like discussed and described earlier. Indeed if I compare it to the German WP article about the topic (my only alternative language), this article is embarrassingly conservative, control-freakish. The "legality" section is basically non-existant, lacks subheaders and comparison to other countries and in general both this section and the non-substantial claims in the introduction lack sources (verifiability) in terms of % of urban areas or cities in which "urban exploration" is indeed (regularly) illegal! And, after all, the definition of and distinction to which areas are not "urban exploring areas" (I lack a proper term) but simply public space doesn't make the article more convincing! To make some suggestions: The German article in the introduction simply states neutrally what UE is and urban explorers do. Then they talk about the motivation behind it and then after describing the places / objects (a way of defining and distinguishing!), only then they look first at the dangers and then at the legal issues. I wish the EN page would be that neutral / maturely distanced! For explanation, I am no UE, but just want to keep it truly neutral. Thus I'm especially ticked off by a wording like "inherent dangers" (German WP: "can be have risks...") and stuff like "Many (of the activities associated with urban exploration could be considered ... violations ... laws)" instead of "certain", "several" or simply removing the "considered" (i.e. working out to a more appropriately neutral sense of "could be but not must be") in the initial sentence. --Philipp Grunwald (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC) I want to add that "funny enough" the exact source ([http://2 http://www.terrastories.com/bearings/urban-exploration-guide]) cited concerning the legal matters does not say what it says in our article here, but: Urban explorers are breaking the law, but it’s generally assumed that such laws are antiquated or unjust. The most notable law that is broken by an explorer is trespass, but others may come into play as well, including: [...] In general urban explorers are liable to be prosecuted for criminal and civil judgements for trespassing, but publishing the photographs themselves is considered a separate issue. The only exception is invasion of privacy. If an explorer publishes photos that infringe on the likeness of someone, or put them in a negative light, then he or she may be held liable for that action in civil court." While the stuff highlighted by me is not even mentioned. --Philipp Grunwald (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Usefulness of photos
I have cleaned up the photobombing of the article with random uncaptioned pictures, and translated the non-English descriptions. However, many of the photos lack any useful description, including general location (e.g. city, country). It is understandable that the exact address may not be available, but the lack of any useful info (including at the Wikimedia resource site) makes some of these pictures candidates for replacement. As a minimum, indicate the general location, and describe why a particular photo should be more of interest than any of the thousands of other random urban exploration photos available on the Web. Still better, photos that actually are relevant to the text of the article would be helpful. Reify-tech (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

News articles
Sub-heading: === Injuries and Deaths ===


 * 28 May 2018 - A person began to climb up a Rostral Column to take a photo and then fell from it and received injuries including an open head injury, brain contusion, fracture of bones in the right orbit and contusion of the right eye, fracture of the lower jaw, damage to the left lung and pelvic fractures. In July 2018 the person had begun recovering from their injuries and they were to undergo plastic surgery to restore their skull.

Xyxyzyz (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it would be good to create a chapter on the dangers of the Urbex, with a few examples, like this one. Martial BACQUET (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Failed Verification Tag
In the first paragraph, the sentence is: Photography and historical interest/documentation are heavily featured in the hobby and it sometimes involves trespassing onto private property. with a SF Gate reference followed by a not in citation template. In May 2017,  because at the time the text said: Photography and historical interest/documentation are heavily featured in the hobby and, although it may sometimes involve trespassing onto private property, this is not always the case. I believe that adding the template was correct at the time, but as the "this is not always the case" phrase has been removed, I've removed the not in citation template. Cxbrx (talk) 13:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)