Talk:Geocaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Geocaching article.
Please do not use it as a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Place new comments after existing ones (within topic sections). Separate topics with a ==Descriptive header==. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Respect etiquette Assume good faith No personal attacks Be nice Don't bite the newcomers!
This link will start a new topic section.

Contents 1 References Needed 2 Archival of talk page 3 Vigorous defluffing 4 Popularity of Websites 5 Striking the Off-site "History" Page 6 Geocaching Terminology 7 Trigpointing vs Benchmarking 8 Mystery/Puzzle cache variation text

[edit] References Needed

There are 2 sections (Appeal and Geocaching as a sport) that I have marked for requiring references. There are many weasel words ("some geocachers", "others", "a small group", etc.) in these sections and absolutely no references to where these opinions are coming from. Both sections are on border of being total POV junk to be deleted.

Also, the Geocaching websites section needs more of the non-U.S. websites listed.

Finally, I would like some opinions on how to better keep this article about "Geocaching" and not about Geocaching.com. Editors of this article need to filter everything they want to say here through a neutral PoV better, because this article should be about the activity and not about any specific website's influence on that activity. ju66l3r 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree on ditching those two sections. They appear to serve no purpose other than to sell geocaching to the reader. ikes 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I vote to keep Appeal because that was exactly what I was looking for when I looked up geocaching, I knew what it was, I wanted to know why people did it. I also suggest removing the reference needed tags. Yes, it uses words like "some" and "others" but those are legitimate words when there is disagreement within a group. As an example, '"some" americans voted for Bush "others" did not, "a small group" is very vocal about the election' is a perfectly valid statement. As to expertise, the opinions are coming from the author who is presumably a geocacher and therefore has the only qualification required to write about why people do it. I actually agree with ikes that some cites would be nice, but I take a less strict view because if I marked everything that really needed it with a "needs citation" tag I'd have marked 90% of the articles in Wikipedia.Jerdwyer 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That is exactly the reason that references/citations for "some" and "other" (aka weasel words) are necessary. If "some" Americans voted for Bush, then there must be a good reference showing that they did. Provide it. Otherwise, you are exactly right; the reader must presume expertise on behalf of the editor and that presumption could easily be wrong. If 90% of Wikipedia is missing a citation, then so be it...hopefully, by bringing the need to attention, these things will be verified and verifiable by the next person or removed (as there's no basis to find them as fact). WP:V and WP:OR are good places to read up on why you shouldn't just presume the editor is always right. ju66l3r 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archival of talk page

I moved all of the pre-September discussion to the archive box. This way we don't have wierd conversations coming up randomly from the past where a number of the contributions were unsigned/timestamped. ju66l3r 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vigorous defluffing

Links area was defluffed again. In the process I've found that there are articles for Paperless Geocaching and Geocaching software, so there's no need for most of the software links that were here before (and those pages may need their own defluffing/merging). ju66l3r 20:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popularity of Websites

The information stating "xxx is the most popular", "xxx is the second most popular" etc - who is justifying this. OK geocaching.com is the biggest, but does that make it the most popular, or the best? And what statistics are there for the positions of the next two? Sounds like somebody's making stuff up, again from a US-centric POV. Cached 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree to a degree. Geocaching.com is the largest and best known. That's hardly disagreeable considering its geocache data quantity (largest), net traffic and linkage (which can be found on alexa, google, etc.). It's also larger than most regional websites outside the U.S. As for who would be considered "second" or "third", I can agree in disagreement and US-centricity there. The section you're talking about has bothered me for some time, but I've been a bit too busy to make sure it's worded right instead of just not worded...which would be preferable (better to edit/replace than simply delete). ju66l3r 18:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Striking the Off-site "History" Page

I contest the accuracy of the offsite "History" page linked from the geocaching topic. Since this Wikipedia entry is meant to be an accurate page which already includes a history, the biased and less than factual link off this site to a "history" page should be stricken from the entry.

I do not suggest that it be replaced with the history page located at http://www.geocaching.com/about/history.aspx but that it should be removed entirely. For Wikipedia to be a useful site the bias should be left at the door.

I also want to ensure that there is a record on the entry stating that the link should be stricken. I'm well aware there are biased (re)writers of this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.251.6.105 (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the link should be removed and was bold and removed it. The simple fact is that the link was a personal webpage and therefore is a "link to be avoided" per the external link policy. While parts of the link were well-sourced, there were also many conclusions or inferences drawn that were not sourced making it fail the reliable source policy as a primary source with unsourced claims. If someone wants to reinsert the link, I ask that they discuss it here first. I do take exception though to the previous editor's lack of good faith on the part of the "(re)writers" that are claimed to be biased. I don't see any evidence to make bad faith assumptions about any of the editors of this article. ju66l3r 05:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geocaching Terminology

Wouldn't it help to have a geocaching terminology page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The SOAD Fan (talk • contribs) 14:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a list of definitions or dictionary. If you are thinking about logbook acronyms, then you're going to have to present them in a way that is not just a list like:

1. TNLN - Took Nothing, Left Nothing
2. TFTC - Thanks For The Cache
3. etc...

There could be a section within this article, possibly. It would have to rely more on describing the fact that these acronyms and initialisms exist and less on being a dictionary of terms. There is already a link to the GeoLex at the bottom of the article. ju66l3r 00:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trigpointing vs Benchmarking

If one is in the main article, then both should be. Just because Benchmarking is on Groundspeak does not in any way devalue the equivalent Trigpointing. --PopUpPirate 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Current edit reflects this, apologies --PopUpPirate 12:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I chose to also remove benchmarking. Neither of these things are exactly geocaching and so they are better suited to their own article(s). The virtual cache moniker in the cache type variants could potentially have quite a bit more than just the earthcache sub-type or none at all. I'd be willing to hear thoughts on the matter. Since multiple websites do host virtual caches I think it's important that it remain in the text as a variant, even though it doesn't fit the definition of geocaching really. But equally so, I'm not sure that maintaining every possible sub-type of virtuals is necessarily a good option either. ju66l3r 17:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mystery/Puzzle cache variation text

An editor has recently wanted to add a very specific location as an example of a mystery/puzzle cache. Unfortunately, there's nothing contextual about the coordinates or text added and so it seems ill-placed and somewhat like they are attempting to highlight their own cache (or planned cache). Neither the text nor coordinates fits the general description of the cache variations and I have even gone so far as to modify their original edit to give a fuller description of the variation than was there before. Any other discussion on this? I'd like to hear from the editor, but they have not yet responded on their talk page, mine, or this page as I suggested on their talk page. ju66l3r 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)