Mexico High‑importance

	Mexico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geology Mid‑importance

	Geology portal This article is within the scope 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MidoriWolf07, Montserrat15, Pup shilo, Diamantesss. Peer reviewers: Katy1996, Quartz008.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

piccy

Does anybody have pictures of the cave that are appropriately licensed for Wikipedia? Seems a shame not to show readers how cool crystallography is. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i know of a few here but i am not sure about there licensing.

http://www.slightlywarped.com/crapfactory/curiosities/caveofcrystals.htm

Confront (talk) 09:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done Mrgoogfan (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

There are segments of this article which closely match (word for word in segments, with some small alterations) parts of http://vibrate.wordpress.com/2007/09/02/naica-mine/. These were added in the Revision as of 01:18, 8 June 2009, apparently without reference. The part of the wordpress article that's relevant is as follows: "In April 2000, brothers Juan and Pedro Sanchez were drilling a new tunnel when they made a truly spectacular discovery. While Naica miners are accustomed to finding crystals, Juan and Pedro were absolutely amazed by the cavern that they found. The brothers immediately informed the engineer in charge, Roberto Gonzalez. Ing. Gonzalez realized that they had discovered a natural treasure and quickly rerouted the tunnel. During this phase some damage was done as several miners tried to remove pieces of the mega-crystals, so the mining company soon installed an iron door to protect the find." I'm making this comment after looking at Wikipedia's Copyright Violations page, so someone can investigate. Nsfer (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the WP:copyvio. Thanks for spotting this. Vsmith (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

work in process

I am working on this section-it is not yet done, in fact it is far from done, but I'd like to park it here while I work on it. User:Gandydancer 02:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress moved to user subpage: User:Gandydancer/Naica, Vsmith (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure of 1910 Date for Discovery of Second Cave?

The National Geographic Article sited lists a 1910 discovery of another cave below Naica. This seems odd. How could they have discovered the second cave 90 years before the first cave. Are we sure that this isn't a typo in the original National Geographic article that has been copied over here?

Checked up on this and from here:

http://giantcrystals.strahlen.org/america/naica.htm

It appears the 1910 discovery was first. This isn't obvious from the presentation. I would place the 1910 discovery first and lay out the chronology in order. Inflector (talk) 04:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of the Caves?

The recent National Geographic Channel TV program on the caves mentions a few times the Naica Project expedition being "the last", and also says the mining company may not keep the pumps going, implying the caves will be flooded again. Does anyone have definitive information about the fate of the caves? It would seem that these caves should be on the fast track for UN World Heritage site, and a horrible loss to humanity if they are not preserved. Jimaginator (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flooding doesn't destroy the caves, it actually restored the conditions under which the crystals formed in the first place. Nor does it preclude the possibility that the caves could be pumped out again in the future. As it is, because of the harsh conditions, the caves are only accessible to a select few. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NatGeo show [1] -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup and copyedit

I spent a little time cleaning up this article, adding a bit, and editing out some inaccuracies. I'm a retired mining geologist, though I have no special expertise on Naica. Article is still a little rough, but better. --Pete Tillman (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science News resource, Sept 20 PNAS" billionth of a meter per day", "slowest ever measured"

Nature's crystal palace; Slow-growing crystals formed over thousands of years in Mexico cave by Devin Powell October 22nd, 2011; Vol.180 #9 (p. 8) 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, it's paywalled. --Pete Tillman (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improper connection of the page to other WP languages

Attention: the Cave of Crystals page is often directly referred to as Naica mine in other WP languages, without more description of the mine itself. As a consequence, the present page is not properly linked to WP in other languages. This should be achieved manually, as a bot cannot recognize such a problem. It was the case of the French WP, I manually added. Please, help in your own mother language. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

crystal caves

Would the various caves at this mine's location be considered geodes? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Well, you could make a case, I suppose.... --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC), geologist[reply]

This cave in Ohio Crystal Cave (Ohio) claims to be a geode. Thus the query. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore - just chopped that bit. If you can find a WP:reliable source that considers these crystal caves to be giant geodes, then add the info. Vsmith (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to rewrite geode which makes the same claim -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cristales cueva de Naica.JPG to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Cristales cueva de Naica.JPG will be appearing as picture of the day on November 19, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-19. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

The Cave of the Crystals is a little-explored cave in Naica, Chihuahua, Mexico. Lying 300 metres (1,000 ft) below the surface and connected to the Naica Mine, the main chamber contains some of the largest crystals ever found. The largest of these gypsum formations is 12 m (40 ft) in length, 4 m (13 ft) in diameter and 55 tons in weight.Photograph: Alexander Van Driessche

Archive – More featured pictures...

Explored or not?

The header says, "The cave is relatively unexplored due to these [heat and humidity] factors" but under Exploration and scientific studies the article states, "A scientific team coordinated by Paolo Forti, specialist of cave minerals and crystallographer at the University of Bologna (Italy) explored the cave in detail in 2006" I don't understand how it can be both relatively unexplored and explored in detail.

Number and names of the caves

This part of the text is dubious in section "Discovery"

"All of the caves discovered currently are: Cave of Crystals, Queen's Eye, Candles Cave, Ice Palace and Cave of Swords"

The source mentioned does not say that, it clearly says: "some well known and evocatively named: the Cave of Swords, the Queen's Eye, the Cave of Sails." Later the article says: "Dubbed the Ice Palace, the new cave lacks giant pillars"

In other words, there's no "Candles Cave" in the source, but instead a "Cave of Sails". The original name in Spanish can be translated as either sails or candles, so it is obviously the same cave - but the alleged source article clearly says "sails", so it cannot be considered a source for the name mentioned in the Wikipedia article.

In addition to this, there is another cave, namely the "Mouth of the Shark" cave, not mentioned in the NG article - that article does not state that it name all of the caves, it just mentions some of them.

Source can be seen here, though it call it the Shark Cave (Cueva del Tiburón) http://www.igme.es/Boletin/2016/127_1/BG_127-1_Art-10.pdf

2.108.158.80 (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review and Suggestions

The section discovery in the article is confusing. The information needs to be reviewed and the section itself needs to be written in a way that is more structured and that the information flows nicely together. Also explain why there are so many different caves. In addition, the section of the formation of the crystals needs to citing, the current reference it has is not accurate. The information given is this section is very different from what the article states.Quartz008 (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the photos that are included in this article. They are a nice visual that not only shows the readers what the caves look like but it also draws their attention and makes it more likely for them to be interested in the article. This article could use a little bit more information that further supports your topic as well as the subtopics. Katy1996 (talk) 06:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Your post is very informative. it has new, fresh information with citations. I would just reword some of the sentences to make them less stuffed and easier to read. For example: "However, besides the dangerous conditions,it has been identified as the greatest most important geological discoveries because of the magnificent beauty this cave shows because of its size and icy appearance crystals." I would reword it to "Aside the dangerous conditions, it has been........ due to its magnificent beauty in size and icy crystal appearance." So I would just reread it and check on words. In this sentence, "After the discoveries, group of scientists known as the Naica Project..." insert the word "a group of scientists." Other than that, great job.Igneousrocksrule (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cave of the Crystals. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706174556/http://www.ctvmedia.ca/discovery/releases/release.asp?id=13468&yyyy=2011 to http://www.ctvmedia.ca/discovery/releases/release.asp?id=13468&yyyy=2011

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]