Talk:Geocaching

Geocaching was nominated as a Sports and recreation good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 6, 2009). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geocaching article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Geocaching B‑class Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geocaching, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Geocaching 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.GeocachingWikipedia:WikiProject GeocachingTemplate:WikiProject GeocachingGeocaching articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geographical coordinates

Geocaching is of interest to WikiProject Geographical coordinates, which encourages the use of geographical coordinates in Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Geographical coordinatesWikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinatesTemplate:WikiProject Geographical coordinatesGeographical coordinates articles

Games Unassessed (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Games, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GamesWikipedia:WikiProject GamesTemplate:WikiProject GamesGames articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Categories:

GA nom

This was just nominated as a GA. There are some things in it that still need to be worked on though, before it can pass against the criteria. The article falls under the quick-fail criteria for the multiple cleanup tags, for example. I haven't reviewed it myself, as I don't know much about the article topic; somebody with an interest in geocaching might want to pick it up and suggest areas to improve. The general problems that will prevent it from successfully passing as a GA though are:

Multiple cleanup tags that are still valid. These need to be addressed.
External links should generally not be included within the body of an article.
All web references need to include publisher and access date information at the least.
Some statements are not yet referenced. For example, the points about law enforcement official's responses, and the names & dates of the first websites.

Thanks. –Whitehorse1 18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will try to fix all these things after the article passes/fails (likely the latter). It's probably not best for me to do it until it's complete, since I nominated it. It was probably a bit to soon, but I was trying to be bold. MobileSnail 20:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I nominated it before I did substantial work on the article, I figured I can fix it myself and have now taken care of bullets 1, 2, and 4. MobileSnail 19:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived

I created a second archive of this talk page as there were many stale discussions in it. MobileSnail 01:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Caches

I think keeping a running total of a number of caches is a waste of time and we should remove statements like "X number of caches since date Y". If we were to keep counts, I think having a table with every site would be much more useful than the current tracking of a single site (geocaching.com). Thoughts? Hardaker (talk) 14:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think knowing upfront at least the approximate number of geocaches, and then knowing how current that number is would be information many people doing a quick lookup of the concept of geocaches would want to know. I think it should stay.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the desire. But I don't think the way it's currently done is a good one. It'd be better to have a table (as I suggested above) rather than a number from a single site. Hardaker (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old discussion, but I agree with Hardaker. Constantly updating the numbers every few days based on one web site is pointless. And a number with seven significant digits is disingenuous. Thousands of "active" geocaches listed at geocaching.com alone are actually missing, hundreds are archived and hundreds more added every day, and tens of thousands more are listed on alternate web sites. Then there are the ones where the same cache is listed on multiple sites. I recommend changing the sentence to something like:

Geocaches are currently placed in over 100 countries around the world and on all seven continents, including Antarctica.[1] After 10 years, there are over 1 million active geocaches published on various web sites. [2]

Maybe even two significant digits, something like "over 1.1 million". But not "1,114,101". Jason Kilgore 16:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Today, Aug 25th 2010, after 7 days of operation the new site opencaching.us boasts "Total of caches 86 Active Caches 86 | Finds: 17 | Number of active users: 38". Is this meaningful? 87.187.6.4 (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. §hep ^Talk 03:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Opencaching is already covered.Jason Kilgore 20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Opening Statement

The current opening stament says "Geocaching is a project organized by a Groundspeak that holds trademark for the word/activity[1]." This is Not what geocaching is. Groundspeak may have the trademark on the name, but they didn't a) Invent the sport, or b) invent the name. Should this be placed elswhere in the article? (I am not willing to change it as I am a dev on another geocaching site and I have a conflict of interest)

There is another statement the article under Websites stating:" In the United States, where most geocaching services are hosted, only a cache's coordinates are in public domain." this is not nessesarily true, it IS at geocaching.com, but there are plenty of other sites have more liberal licensing. Should it be changed to somethign more specific, rather than an incorrect generalisation?CraigRat —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed ----

Photos

I believe several photos need updated, including the one titled "Common GPS units" None of those devices are available for purchase. Should be updated with a garmin and maybe a magellan. Thoughts?