Jump to content

Talk:Canyoning: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Adagio (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Geo.plrd (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 112: Line 112:


I should have discussed it here first, but got excited when I saw some place I could help (and procrastinate a little work). Sorry if I've destroyed anyone's baby. Feel free to correct anything I've added that is incorrect or appropriate, or completely undo anything I did if you feel it is that bad. Its not going to be personal for me, trust me. Canyoneers of the world unite.
I should have discussed it here first, but got excited when I saw some place I could help (and procrastinate a little work). Sorry if I've destroyed anyone's baby. Feel free to correct anything I've added that is incorrect or appropriate, or completely undo anything I did if you feel it is that bad. Its not going to be personal for me, trust me. Canyoneers of the world unite.

== Notice of Mediation ==

The dispute on the ATS link has been sent to mediation, I am the assigned mediator.
I would like to hear why this link should be left on this page.
[[Usertalk:Geo.plrd|Talk]] [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.plrd]] 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:54, 24 May 2006

To the person(s) who keep removing the link to the ACA, please provide your rationale so that we may come to a consensus whether the link should stay or go. From my point, the ACA is a non-profit group, and their web site has a treasure trove of canyoning-related information, probably more than any other site on the web.Adagio 17:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the edits on the page have gotten out of hand. I've tried to address the issues in this page, but several users (71.118.162.113 and 216.66.233.10, in particular) keep adding the external link back repeatedly without discussion on this talk page. The user 216.66.233.10 has even resorted to editing other external links, rendering them invalid, which is vandalism pure and simple. I've changed it back. Apparently this is all part of some dispute between two websites, and I believe this dispute has no place on wikipedia.

I've sent a request to the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal to mediate. I hope official channels won't be necessary. I would ask those involved to refrain from adding the ATS link until this is resolved, thanks. Adagio 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We feel the ATS link should be listed on the canyoning section of wikipedia for various important reasons. Please read the talking points below. However, first we should discuss the other links in a little detail.

1) ACA -- no comments on this link as ACA individuals have been the ones continuing to eliminate us from Wikipedia.

2) CEC -- a very limited site for information sources. For a laymen, it appears the site is only trying to sell you expensive courses in Europe. Easily contradicts #6 of the wikipedia guidelines as you cannot view any information or receive any information unless you are a member. "Sites that require payment to view the relevant content"

3) Barranquismo -- a dead link that does not even work when clicked on!

4) Canyoneering.com -- the main page has an objectionable amount of google advertising and is selling books right in your face! Per wikipedia guideline #5 of sites to avoid. " Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising"

5 & 6) Wiki's dedicated to canyoneering in various locations -- rock on!

ATS Link -- Although ATS does exist to sell a product of various courses -- the website is a valuable & unique tool for various reasons. Wikipedia recognizes this as a possibility within their guideline restrictions. Per email "if you site offers a unique resource beyond the content listed within the article, exceptions can be made". A) The resources on the WCCM -- the West Coast Canyoneering Method is fast becoming the canyoneering method of choice for Southern California. Putting all biases aside (you know who you are), this methodology should be recognized on a free resource such as wikipedia. B) The ATS filmworks -- right now on the site there is a free informative training video, more are going to be added daily. There are no other sites listed offering anything of that nature. C) ATS offers free unique year round programming to anyone in Southern California -- Adventure Film Festivals, Environmental Days, & hullaballoo's (canyon partys) D) The ATS Community -- growing quickly into becoming the resource of choice for trip partners in all disciplines throughout California -- up to minute canyon beta can be found here.

There are more reasons that we should exist on Wikipedia. However, we feel we have made sufficient case against some of the other links and a good case for our link. Thank you for taking the time to keep wikipedia clean. A free encyclopedia of information can only exist through the unbiased qualities of those who edit.


Who are these guys think theyre fooling. The website is for guides service. If they want to advertize they should PAY to advertize somewhere else. Free stuff is only for promoting the guides service. One video with a guy abseiling from a tree not for instruction but for selling a product. Tying a prusick knot and calling it a autoblock is not good instruction. Everything just bragging without any real good informtion. Only agree that cec link is german not english on english wikipedia and doesnt belong here.


Hi, I'm the one who wrote the 'ATS External Link' section below. For the record, I'm not affiliated with the ACA, and I don't know the details of the fued going on between the ACA and ATS. I'm not necessarily against having an ATS link, but I think a few things should be cleared up first.
The CEC link. I think it is important to have an external link that represents Europe, where canyoning is so prevelant (note that the CEC link does have an 'english' page, just click on the US/British flag). However, if there is a better link for Europe I'd be interested in replacing it.
Barranquismo: it wasn't dead for me... ?
Canyoneering.Com: That link was added after I wrote the ATS External Link stuff below. I haven't reviewed that link in depth, and it seems to be down for me today, but I believe you have a good point. I'd be interested in hearing from the person who added it, and others, to see what value it has as an external link. Perhaps it should be removed.
As for the ATS link. I think your page is a good start, but I think it needs more work. The problem is that after years of canyoning on 3 continents, in nearly every western US state, and having a number of first descents under my belt, and after monitoring a number of canyoning-related forums and discussions groups, I've never heard of the WCCM until now. So I googled it, and the only mention of it is on the ATS page, and on a few portals that link to ATS (perhaps done through advertising?). Searches of forums have yielded nothing. I think that contradicts the assertion that the WCCM is "fast becoming the canyoneering method of choice for Southern California". So I looked on the ATS page for info on WCCM and basically found nothing. Your page basically talks about how it was invented, but gives scant info on what WCCM is, instead it implores us to take ATS-sponsored classes to learn more. It sounds to me like the WCCM is just something that ATS invented to sound 'official' as a means of selling course seats. If it is so popular, how come nobody is talking about it?
Second, part of the reason to clean up the external links is that every locale seemed to have one. Your page, by your own admission, is geared to California. If we had links for every locale, we'd be stuck with a laundry list of links again. If we have a link geared to California, then we might as well have some for the pacific northwest, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Australia, Spain, France, Italy, Reunion Island, South America, the Caribbean, etc, probably with multiple links in each geography, and again, we'd have a list of links longer than the original article! That is why I suggested the ACA, as they are geared to north america, not just a small part of it.
Third, you mention content (such as training videos) that aren't even available yet. I think they should be available before we link.
So here is my suggestion. Go back and update your web site. Put some informative information about the WCCM on your site, perhaps with videos. Put more than just "The WCCM is really popular and everyone uses it, but to find out more take one of these classes that we offer..." Currently your site reads like a glossy brochure. Add some decent information beyond a sales pitch, and then come back and add a link to the external links section. Adagio 19:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the person who keeps adding alpinenets.com as an external link. I've read through the link, and I don't believe it follows the wikipedia standards for Wikipedia:External links. In particular, I believe it violates this one:

Under Links Normally To Avoid: 4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

It seems to me that the link is to a site that offers commercial guiding, and very little information relevant to canyoning itself, beyond what you can find in the existing list of external links. Before you add the link, yet again, please leave a note on this discussion page stating why you feel a link to ATS is appropriate in this article. Please refer to the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links and state your case. Thanks Adagio 19:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATS Spam

"Alpine Training Services, the only Canyoneering school on the West Coast offers a full-training curriculum (I-VI) throughout Southern California, Arizona, Utah, Northern California, and Nevada."

I editted this down to what was demonstrably true. Taking out:

"only ... west coast" - the ACA also offers course on "the West Coast", and other places could too. "full-training curriculum (I-VI)" - this is just marketing speak, contains no content. "throughout..." - means everywhere in these states, which is not true.

Nothing personal, just the Wiki is not a place for business advertising - thus I have editted it down to what I feel is NPV. Ratagonia


Ok, the External Links section of this page is completely out of control. There are more lines dedicated to links than the text of the article! The following wikipedia entries only have 4 or 5 external links each: hiking, kayaking, climbing... while canyoning currently has 19!

I recommend cutting the list down to 4 or 5. Any nominations as to what should be included? Mine are:

Any objections? 24.8.163.159 22:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hard to know where to draw the line. All of the links appear to be non-commercial, except for the ongoing spam from Alpine Training Services.


Here is my rational for chosing those five:

- the Oz Canyons Wiki contains a long list of links that include all of the links under the 'Australia' section of this article - The ACA and the canyonwiki site contains a long list of links that include all of those under US, Canada, and Mexico - The CEC site so that Europe has representation in the links list - The barranquismo site because it is by far the most complete list of links to online canyon beta in the world

All of the above are non-profit, and tend to be more substantial than a generic user canyoning page. I think the above links are the best of the best resources to find further information on canyoning. All of the links currently in this article can be found through those pages as well. 24.8.163.159 15:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Found the external link policy page. Recommendations given above are consistent with Wikipedia policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Recent changes

I rearranged the wiki quite a bit. I use wikipedia all the time, but was really disappointed in this canyoneering article, and thought I could contribute, since I do quite a bit of technical writing and editing in school and work, and happen to know something about canyoneering (although I'm no expert by any means!). Most of what I did was cutting and pasting things so they flow a little bit more logically and correcting those errors that I could find. I didn't really remove anything besides a few redundant sentences, and added a few paragraphs, sentences, and clarifications to round out a few areas/sections.

I should have discussed it here first, but got excited when I saw some place I could help (and procrastinate a little work). Sorry if I've destroyed anyone's baby. Feel free to correct anything I've added that is incorrect or appropriate, or completely undo anything I did if you feel it is that bad. Its not going to be personal for me, trust me. Canyoneers of the world unite.

Notice of Mediation

The dispute on the ATS link has been sent to mediation, I am the assigned mediator.

I would like to hear why this link should be left on this page. Talk Geo.plrd 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]