Talk:Hellfire Caves

References

Of the 7 "References" links, only one -- that to the BBC site -- is sensible, and working, at 2020-12-06. I do not know how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.117.56 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

To MsHyde: This article has a "references" section, and there is an entry therein. A footnote is not necessary--the listing of the entry in the references section constitutes a citation. The unreferenced template is supposed to be used for articles that do not have references. This is not such an article. Furthermore, according to the template's page, the general consensus for use of the template is that it is supposed to be placed "either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." This article does not have an ""empty 'References' section," so the appropriate place for it--if it were an appropriate template for this article in the first place--would be here on the talk page. -- Takwish | Talk 19:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus about where to place the tag, and if there are no references, I think it is better to place it on top, so passersby can see it and add references. (Otehrwise, in the specific section(s) if only sections have no references, not the whole article.) The reference you have added is not a citation--linking to Amazon is not a reference, etc--need the ISBN. Also, specific page numbers of the book should be cited within the article for controversial claims. I have requested citations for particular claims.-MsHyde 19:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Officially, yes, there is no consensus on where to place the tag. However the tag's page does state that "most suggest..." etc. Please note that I did not add the reference in question. It was already there. Personally, I have done very little editing on this article, other than adding the current photo. However, this article DOES cite a reference, contrary to the the statement in the "unreferenced" template. Your suggestions that the citation of this reference be improved in form (by adding an ISBN, etc.) and that specific page numbers be provided for controversial claims are valid suggestions--but they don't warrant the use of the "unreferenced" tag at the top of the article. -- Takwish | Talk 20:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for incorrect assumption that you added the reference. However, the reference tag explicitly states "does not cite references," not merely does not have references. Also, this book--as explained in the article--is not a reference for the whole article. It is a reference for one point of view about this place. References for the rest of the article are needed. And in-line citations of the references, especially for controversial claims.-MsHyde 20:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the reference to Mannix's claims.......From Page 90 and 91 of the Sept 1978 New English Library edition (where Mannix attempts to add support to the theory from an occult/symbolism expert). FWIW, one can find web pages that poo-poo Mannix's claims. IMHO the level of referencing being requested here seems to go beyond what would normally seem reasonable -Proteus4 20:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't find much support in the dictionary[1] for your rather narrow usage of the word cite. However, you may be using a specialized definition in use here on Wikipedia. If so, please educate me by pointing me to the Wikipedia guidance page that states that having references and citing references are distinctly different things. --Takwish | Talk 22:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For controversial claims, you should cite the reference inline. You added this material, and you are aware is is disputed/controversial/theoretical. Further, leaving it at the bottom implies that the book is the reference for the whole article, and it is not.-MsHyde 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not add the material--that was Proteus4. I'm looking forward to your response regarding the usage of the word cite, though. If you can't back up your assertion that "having" references and "citing" references are distinctly different things here on Wikipedia, then I'd like to ask you to remove the "unreferenced" tag. I'm not disputing your use of the "fact" tags, at this point.--Takwish | Talk 23:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ghost's at Wycombe cave's

Ghost at Wycombe cave's 2A02:C7C:E44:C700:55F7:1825:88D7:2B72 (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This non-sense section should be removed. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 18:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Legacy

The article states that

During World War II, plans were made to use the caves as a large air-raid shelter if nearby towns were bombed, but Buckinghamshire's rural position meant that High Wycombe and surrounding towns were not an enemy target, and so the plans were not carried out. During the late 1940s and early 1950s the caves were renovated and turned into a local visitor attraction by the late Sir Francis Dashwood (11th Baronet). 

How can a guy from the 18th century be still alive in 1950 to renovate the cave? - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 18:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see, Francis Dashwood, 11th Baron le Despencer (2nd Baronet) and Sir Francis Dashwood (11th Baronet) are not one and the same person. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Was it deeper?

I am 56 now but recall a big hall at the end of the tunnel. After a recent visit I found a small waxworks at the end. It was just not as I remember. 2A00:23EE:1050:BC0F:9423:7791:3CBC:EAF9 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I visited today. There is a big hall (the "Inner Temple") at the end, though it is currently closed because of flooding, though you can look through the gate and see it. ColinFine (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)