Talk:Rowten Pot

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Rowten Pot is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-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 articles

Rowten/Rowton[edit]

Someone with access to caving guidebooks etc might like to have a look at Rowton cave and Rowten Pot. From OS map and the linked database, Rowten with an E seems to be the right spelling - but I'm not clear whether there's a distinction between R Cave and R Pot (the R Cave article had redlinks to Rowton Pot, which I've amended to point to Rowten Pot). I wondered about just Moving the Rowton Cave article to Rowten Cave, but thought I'd better leave it to someone with sources. Googling is inconclusive. Lots of redirects needed, to pick up the pieces and prevent any future confusion. PamD (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think referring to Rowten Cave as 'safe for kids' isn't exactly what Mr Wainwright meant - he meant the small cave before the stream entrance to the Rowten Cave system. (Mike App) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.44.66 (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PamD - it's 'Rowten' for both the cave and pot.

Mike App - you're absolutely right - I've removed the Wainwright comment. We can't have kids wandering down Rowten Cave and finishing up falling down the shaft!

I've also given the article an overall clean-up. --Langcliffe (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]