Talk:Geocaching

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GA nom

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  late comment: I first heard of geocaching when i bought a smartphone a few weeks ago. I looked here first before deciding to sign up. seeing how widespread the caches were decided me. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Nope. §hepTalk 03:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Nope. Opencaching is already covered.Jason Kilgore 20:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Caches 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Opening Statement 

message: 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?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blb9556 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: This is a general geocaching page. It discusses the aspects of the sport as it applies to all public geocache listing sites, and also for private geocaches that are never listed on any site (hidden for scout training, family reunions, etc.).  Geocaching is a generic term (the activity and the term existed long before the creation of www.geocaching.com) and is not copyrighted or trademarked by anyone. It is true that Groundspeak's web site, www.geocaching.com, lists the overwhelming majority of all public geocaches and is the 800-lb gorilla of the geocaching world, but it is not the only option. Groundspeak has their own Wiki page; this page should be kept general and not specific to one site.
Logo Usage:
Groundspeak has published strict guidelines for use of their copyrighted logos (see http://www.geocaching.com/about/logousage.aspx). One of the requirements is that logos must be a link to www.geocaching.com; another is that it may not be altered in any way. Also, this logo represents a single commercial web site and not the generic sport.  It is not suitable for use at the top of this page.  Jason Kilgore 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geocaching in general vs. Groundspeak/www.Geocaching.com 

message: I'm planning on adding a new section titled "How to Geocache" or similar.  It'll include information in the last two paragraphs under "Variations" (4.2 and 4.3), which don't belong in that section.  I'll also likely shift some information from other sections. Probable paragraphs will include:
* Locating local geocache listings (searching on various web sites, etc.)
* Narrowing down list of caches; converting and filtering data (difficulty/terrain ratings, attributes, aftermarket software, etc.)
* Transferring data to hand-held receiver (manual entry, coordinate-only download, true paperless)
** Different GPS receivers (basic hand-held, mapping, auto-navigating, smart phones, etc.)
** Traditional vs. Paperless
* Going on the hunt
* Geocaching without a GPS receiver
* List of typical items useful for geocaching
** NOTE: This should not be a cumulative list of every item that every geocacher has ever used while hunting for or retrieving a cache. Instead it is a list of 10 or less items that every geocacher would find useful (GPS receiver + extra batteries, pen/pencil, compass, paper maps, etc.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkilgore (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not do this. See WP:NOTHOW. Thanks. ShepTalk 00:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I can accept that... but still the last two paragraphs under "Variations" do not belong there.  Should be information be deleted, moved somewhere else, or a new section created?  68.169.150.142 (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally feel like they could be removed. ShepTalk 18:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section: "How to Geocache" 

message: Is it only mcdondalds toys?--sillybillypiggy 17:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not necessarily, but that appears to be what they are referred to as. Regards, Rock drum Ba-dumCrash (Driving well?) 18:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Doesn't have to be an actual McDonald's toy, so I reworded it. In general the value of trade items in an easy-to-find cache drops rapidly as people trade. "McToy" is just a comparison to the general quality of McDonald's toys.Jason Kilgore 17:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard this phrase before. Could we get a ref there or something? I have also noticed numerous sentences that have more than two inline citations there which do not adhere to WP:CITE. I'll get to cleaning those up. MobileSnail 06:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This term used to be commonly used in the geocaching forums at Groundspeak. Usually in derisive reference to the typical quality of trade items and how no one follows the mantra "trade up or trade equal" anymore. But I haven't participated in those forums in some time so it might not be common anymore. I don't think I've ever heard it used in real life.Jason Kilgore 16:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mctoy/Mcjunk 

message: Hey guys. I have returned from a significant hiatus. Now that I am back, I would like to make it my goal to get this article to GA. I have never achieved a GA article before, however, and am not an experienced enough writer to do this alone (quite yet). It looks like some dubious sections could use some serious work (Terminology) while others are quite good (Geocaching). Overall though, it would be a big help if someone would like to collaborate with me or if anyone could provide additional suggestions of where this article could be reworked. While I think there is a very solid foundation aloof, there are some glaring issues that need attention. Thanks! MobileSnail 06:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another GA push 

message: There's a section on opencaching and another on opencaching.com. Do these refer to different websites? If so this should be clarified. Pvanheus (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they do...  opencaching.org is older, and opencaching.com was recently created by Garmin and annoyingly chose the same name. Hardaker (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you mean opencaching.us? opencaching.org is a parked domain. Looking at the list of sites mentioned, they are: geocaching.com (Alexa rank 4,501), Navicache (Alexa rank 1,158,795), opencaching (presumably .us - Alexa rank 2,129,226), Terracaching (presumably the .com site, Alexa rank 3,077,550), GPSgames (which should reference to geocaching.gpsgames.org - Alexa rank 4,427,904), opencaching.com (Alexa rank 705,383). Are these the most notable sites? Many of the regional sites (e.g. geocaching.com.au - Alex rank 1,911,532, geocaching.hu - Alexa rank 227,461) have higher site rankings, and their relationship with geocaching.com is quite complicated. Is there a reliable link directory of geocaching sites somewhere that can be linked to, instead of using this section as a link directory itself? Pvanheus (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No there isn't another reliable link.  They're all biased!  (sigh) Maybe opencaching.org went away :-( Hardaker (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opencaching vs Opencaching.com 

message: I've never heard of the other version mentioned in the article, and the article it links to is a grammatical and semantic disaster area.  Is this really notable enough to warrant inclusion? PianoDan (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: GeoCaching vs. Geocaching

message: I was about to just undo recent changes, but thought I'd discuss it first.
Amazing Race: I used to watch this show regularly (US Version). I've never seen any form of GPS receiver use in any episode. The contestants must locate large (about 4-ft tall), clearly marked, and very obvious containers, but I see very little similarity between this and geocaching. There is no mention of geocaching on the Amazing Race wiki page.  I say this link gets deleted. The only reason I'm not doing it now is that I haven't seen the show in several seasons, and it might have changed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwkilgore (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: actually there was an episode of AR when the racers had to use a GPSr. It was a few years ago during the episode they shot on Guam. However I agree that there is no connection between that episode and geocaching. Rhodesisland (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: "See Also" changes

message: I am new to Wikipedia editing so I apologize if I make a mistake.
My suggestion is that there be a deletion and an addition to this section. Within the section it mentions: 
"A former Project A.P.E. cache in Westchester County, NY has been re-listed as a traditional using the same coordinates with a smaller ammo can"
And then recently added was:
"Mission 9: Tunnel of Light, near Seattle, was archived on June 13, 2011 due to the container having been stolen."
My first suggestion is to correct the type of container, which is tupperware, not an ammo can (Smaller or otherwise). In addition this cache is not located in the same location as the old one, has a completely different name and does not appear to have been placed with the original hiders knowledge, permission or input. I would contend that would in no way make it a "former Project A.P.E. Cache". If that contention is correct, then I do not see the value of the inclusion of this sentence. All the information I have regarding the Westchester County, NY cache comes from the cache write up itself, which I would consider a primary source (I don't know if that phrase is used the same here as I mean it) http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=2980&logs=y (GCBA4) Return of the Planet of the Apes
My second suggestion is to make some mention of the only Project A.P.E. Cache Location which has had a cache published in the same exact location, with the exact type of ammo can and a very similar cache page to the original. This would be GC300N0 Mission 9: Tunnel of Light Reclaimed (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=17776f38-bf3b-411d-8167-c7e62b6fbebe) which now sits in the exact same location as the original Mission 9. This was fully cleared and approved by the original hider and long time caretaker of the original. All information here comes from the above web page and from my personal expertise (It's my cache). For fairness please note I am the hider and owner of said cache, but I do not believe that invalidates any of my points. 
Thank you for your time and please let me know what extra information I can add or how I can make this suggestion more in line with what people are looking for.
EDIT: Please note the Italicized comments I made earlier I rescind as the original GC Code was reused, therefore making it the same Cache I suppose.
Hypnopaedia (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It all seems to be far too much detail for an obscure and obsolete type of cache. I think that section on Project A.P.E. caches should be deleted, or at least trimmed down to a couple of sentences, similar to the other cache types. Or maybe change it to a section on commercial/sponsored geocaches? --Vclaw (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project A.P.E. Variation 

message: CraigRat (talk) 02:27, 16 Sept 2011 (UTC)
The statement "In the United States, where most geocaching services are hosted" is nowadays false, there are more geocaching sevices that are non-US based than US based.
There's also a few false absolute statements further down like "Unlike other sites opencaching.com provides a free API[52] for developers that want to utilize the site's content." This comment is a statement saying no other sites have application interfaces for people to utilise data for free, which is false.
Once again, I won't edit the page directly as I have a conflict of interest as I run a listing site.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: These concerns have (eventually) been addressed. --PTMY (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websitew and Garmin Ownership 

message: Project A.P.E. was not a cache variation (ie: traditional, puzzle, multi etc...), it was just a bunch of the theme cache that had corporate sponsorship backing.  It was also only specific to www.geocaching.com and not geocaching as a whole so it has been deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.151.1 (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Project A.P.E. Cache Type 

message: The whole section seems to me more like an assortment of advertisements instead of an overview over sites. Especially the last sentence for NaviCache, but other things as well. This needs some cleanup and maybe a deletion or two depending on notability of the sites. Also, the Geocaching golf game does not belong under this heading, since it is not a really different site but just an assortment of caches from Geocaching com. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 20:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websites 

message: Hi.  I have removed, several times now, the recent addition of two claimed variations on geocaching: "Orthodox Geocaching" and "Natural Geocaching".  I understand the zealousness and good faith of the editor that keeps re-adding them, but these variations come with no WP:Verifiability for either their existence or the specific claims of trends, utterances, distances, techniques, etc.  In fact, the minor (WP:USERG) reference supplied contradicts some facts (see edit history).  I hope the material can find its way back into the article, but only via reliable sources so the reader can verify that these variations exist in some significant way within the world of geocaching.  Cheers.  --Ds13 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You did the right thing IMHO. --Biker Biker (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I like to third that opinion. I also want to commend you for the way you handled this on the user's talk page. It's nice to see a polite and concise talk instead of "troll, bugger away" once in a while. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Must assume good intentions from the editor Hankhuck. --Ds13 (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm experienced and have never really heard of either variation. I agree with removal too. Warren (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Natural Geocaching" & "Orthodox Geocaching" 

message: This material does not belong on this page, because it is only marginally related to the page, has zero independent third-party reliable sources to give any weight to the subject, and as "a marketing and rewards platform" the continual reinsertion of this material across multiple article looks promotional. - SudoGhost 15:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no question in my mind that a reference to munzee in this article is due. It was agreed that it may not be in the QR Code article because there are so many uses for those codes that mention of a particular use brought nothing to the article. But with regard to geocaching, it is the newest and fastest growing variation and certainly warrants a mention. There are over 50,000 registered users (of which I am one, but I have no affiliation with the company managing the game) and over 200,000 munzees hidden which have been found over a million times.  The game works by listing on a website the coordinates of a hidden item which are then found using a GPS, so the basic concept is the same as other types of geocaches.  All the other types of geocaches listed have no third-party source citations (where there is any citation, it is the company managing that type that is cited rather than an independent source), so my listing of the munzee is better than any of the others because it cites NFC World which is "published by SJB Research, a long-established business information publishing company that is well-known in the worldwide mobile and payment cards industries."  Munzee has also been written about in two well-regarded blogs about geocaching, so geocachers have identified munzee as a subject of interest. The fact that munzee can be used for marketing is irrelevant and munzee has been used by the Boy Scouts of America and other organizations for non-commercial activities as well.  However, the most common use is by individual geocachers as a recreational game and, as such, warrants mention as a type of geocache. GaryJGolden (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be the "newest and fastest growing variation" (which seems doubtful), but unless reliable sources give weight to the subject, it doesn't belong in this article. Anyone can create a blog and comment on something, so the fact that blogs have mentioned this isn't sufficient for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. NFC World is a brief mention in a Near field communication trade publication, not exactly the strongest source for establishing weight. There are many types of geocaching, unless you can provide reliable sources that state that this is some notable variation, it doesn't belong in the article. - SudoGhost 17:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: SudoGhost, you write that you doubt me, but I have cited sources and statistics and all you have done is express doubt and undo.  You may not have much affinity for blogs, but in geocaching they are largely the only regular source of third-party information about the activity.  Besides, I have cited a third-party media company that did give supporting mention to this geocache variation.  And the Boy Scouts of America mention it in a press release.  With such a wide diversity of mention in different realms and formats, I do not understand how it can be suggested that this is not a notable variation.  And still unanswered is why it is okay to allow all the other variations currently listed which contain no third-party citation whatsoever but require such unique requirements for this new one? GaryJGolden (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I "don't have much affinity for blogs" because they are not reliable sources for Wikipedia articles.  If the only sources you can find for a given subject are press releases and blogs, that's a fairly good indicator that the subject is not suitable for mention on Wikipedia.  That "in geocaching they are largely the only regular source of third-party information about the activity" just means that most things geocaching related are not notable enough to warrant a mention in a Wikipedia article, not that these sources are somehow reliable just because they're the only ones that can be found. - SudoGhost 23:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

text: It's odd that this source wasn't written until after concerns were brought up about the lack of sources on the subject.  At any rate, that single source would not warrant this much prose on this article; a single source about a minor game marginally related to geocaching does not warrant mentioning it on the article. - SudoGhost 05:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Telegram & Gazette article is merely the most recent article; earlier newspaper articles were found, but I believe it is good practice to cite the most recent source since it is presumably the most up-to-date source.  31 words hardly seems excessive prose since most other geocache variants described use a similar amount of prose, however, in an effort to gain your approval I'll follow the exact format of the geocache variant already listed to which the munzee variant is most similar (BIT Cache, 29 words).  17:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The content is WP:UNDUE and it doesn't belong in this article.  This article is about geocaching, not promotional spam that is only marginally relevant to the article's subject.  It doesn't belong here. - SudoGhost 20:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, that's the right call. One reference doesn't make it notable for inclusion in here. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Munzee" 

message: I think the article right now is overloaded with Images. I think the problem specifically is that we have five pictures of geocaches and two pictures of travel bugs. 
Would anyone object to removing , , , , , and ? I think one picture of a traditional geocache and one picture of a Travel Bug is enough, we don't need five. For the one that illustrates Geocaching.com, we could just use the official logo. I think the GPS Receivers picture also needs to go on the basis that it is extremely outdated. If we could get another picture to replace it, that'd be great, but as it stand I don't think a picture is a necessity there. Thoughts? Deflagro (talk) 06:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Deflagro (talk) 23:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I think we should delete the Terminology section per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It adds very little to the article and it keeps getting added onto. I think the problem is cachers add phrases they've used locally and there's no way to cite everything. I propose we delete the entire section and instead define any terms as they are used in the article. The acronyms alao do not add to the understanding of geocaching as a whole. Thoughts? Deflagro (talk) 05:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Gets my support, too --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deleting the terminology section, and agree the cache type section would be better as less of a catalog list. Some comparisons and contrasts, and trends/changes in types of "caches" is an interesting part to keep, however. I was wondering if a table with some brief, summary information might be good. --PTMY (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait a day or two in case someone opposing it would like to chime in. I'm also splitting off the cache type discussion to a seperate section to make it easier to follow. Deflagro (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't hurt to leave a brief statement that, like most things, a lingo and acronyms are used; and link to a decent (3rd party) reference for more info'. --PTMY (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Terminology Section 

message: Come to think about it, the cache type section could use some heavy editing, too. To get the general idea about geocaching, description of the traditional type, with mentions of possibilities (multi, mystery, earthcache, event - maybe even no event) should suffice. An in-depth of every single variation seems overdoing it. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with deleting the terminology section, and agree the cache type section would be better as less of a catalog list. Some comparisons and contrasts, and trends/changes in types of "caches" is an interesting part to keep, however. I was wondering if a table with some brief, summary information might be good. --PTMY (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think tables would be a pretty good idea to clean up that section. I tried to put something together on my sandbox so we can see how it looks. I put the three main types in one table (could maybe add event or virtual to that?) and then put variations in a separate collapsed table right below it. That way we still have the information, but it doesn't bog down the main points. I initially thought about having a fourth column for saying which sites the specific type is listed on, but I don't know how feasible it would be. I didn't put everything in there, just did a few to give an idea. Deflagro (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the basic table approach. If a collapsed table is used, it should be one table for all types, in my opinion, rather than 2 tables. I support highlighting which sites support different types. I think the changes and trends in cache types, and who supports what is interesting. For example, realizing munzees have been discussed previously... they are somewhat similar to virtuals, or nanos, fast becoming popular among some cachers; and highlight technology advances, and rapid adoption versus slow adoption among geocaching sites. Of course they're very similar to BIT caches. :-) Since I recently added some cache types to the article, obviously I don't agree with gutting them. One 2nd thought on tables, though I suggested it, is how well it displays on phones, versus a shortened "discussion" type presentation. --PTMY (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up Cache Type section

message: Breaking this off for specific discussion. The "policy" links say blogs, i.e. "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." --PTMY (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So where are the reliable third-party publications?  Linking to other blogs and some forums don't cut it, because those are not reliable sources. - SudoGhost 00:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s not about the numbers at a multi-magazine site with editorial oversight, where they stated among other things, "of particular note, Peter is a committee member on the New Zealand Recreational GPS Society and both Walkers are helping to organise the country’s first mega geocaching event being held in Dunedin next Labour Weekend. Some 500 geocachers, hailing from as afar afield as Australia and the United States, will descend on the southern city for this three-day event." Another mention - It's Not About The Numbers at an ezine with editorial oversight. If you do the slightest searching, you will probably find Kylie Walker is or was Sub-editor/Paginator at The Dominion Post, Co-owner at It's Not About The Numbers, Education: Victoria University of Wellington.  --PTMY (talk) 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: An "about" article on a local magazine's website is not the same as actually publishing their work, quite a few blogs get mentioned by local news, that might go towards creating an article about the blog, but certainly doesn't somehow make the blog a reliable source.  None of these blogs and forums are not reliable sources.  The fact that you can only find blogs and forums to support the content you're trying to put into the article means it doesn't belong in the article.  Everything imaginable can be supported by blogs and forums, that's why they are not reliable sources. - SudoGhost 04:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To be clear, specifically which of the following facts do you dispute, if any, about this one blog in particular, in this context? Both owners are very experienced Geocachers, both owners are experts about Geocaching, the blog articles are well written, the blog articles focus specifically on Geocaching, the articles reference independent sources including academic studies, one owner has a journalism background including professional editing experience, they solicit and publish article contributions from others, they exercise editorial oversight, they invite different opinions and viewpoints, the blog and owners have been noticed and commented on by 2 reliable publications, the owners have positions on a regional GPS hobby society which sponsored a Geocaching event drawing over 500 attendees. --PTMY (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Their blog is not a reliable source, they are not experts in the field, no matter how they claim otherwise.  That they went to college and one had a minor job in a publishing field means absolutely nothing.  Find another source for the advertisement you're trying to push on the article, one that isn't a blog or forum, because if these are the only sources that can verify the information, it certainly does not belong in the article. - SudoGhost 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So on this particular source, the only thing you dispute is the interpretation of whether the owners are "experts." You don't dispute other items in the list of facts given just above. --PTMY (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of what you said is completely irrelevant to whether this blog is a reliable source or not.  Unless the bloggers are established experts (self-claimed experts that have been mentioned in a local vanity piece don't count), and relevant work has been previously published in an actual reliable source, then there's no chance that it could be considered a reliable source.  However, even that isn't a guarantee that the blog is reliable, it just means that it warrants looking closer at; blogs that do not meet this requirement don't even warrant that.  I'm also afraid you're trying to scrape together something that ultimately won't matter; even if this blog were a reliable source, I would still say that a single questionable blog source makes for poor WP:WEIGHT for an advertisement to be reproduced in a Wikipedia article.  Wikipedia's purpose is to a summary of the subject, not any old thing we can scrape together to mention what we want the article to mention.  If that advertisement truly belonged on the article, there shouldn't be any problem finding reliable sources for it.  The fact that reliable sources do not mention it means it doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  If Opencaching.com had a Wikipedia article that blog might make this advertisement relevant there, if the blog were a reliable source, but for the wider scope of a geocaching article it doesn't even come close to being prominent enough to mention here. - SudoGhost 17:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate if you would move most of what you just said to the topic above, as it does not address reliability of this particular source. --PTMY (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It does apply here and this section is just a reiteration of your previous section; starting a new section isn't going to get you new answers to the same questions.  This blog is not a reliable source, and on the off-chance that there are sources that could show it being a reliable source, it still would not warrant putting the advertisement in the article, or even so much as mentioning it.  That advertisement is completely insignificant in the scope of a geocaching article, so while the information may be relevant somewhere (and that's assuming that the blog is somehow a reliable source), it doesn't belong here. - SudoGhost 18:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In an attempt to less muddy the waters, will you concur with the following, regarding this one source? Both owners are very experienced Geocachers, the blog articles are well written, the blog articles focus specifically on Geocaching, the articles reference independent sources including academic studies, one owner has a journalism background including professional editing experience, they solicit and publish article contributions from others, they exercise editorial oversight, they invite different opinions and viewpoints, the blog and owners have been noticed and commented on by 2 reliable publications, the owners have positions on a regional GPS hobby society which sponsored a Geocaching event drawing over 500 attendees. --PTMY (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were in any way relevant, it'd be one thing, but that all looks like puffed up claims at best.  How does this blog have editorial oversight?  Is there someone over these bloggers that approve the posts they make before the posts gets approved?  If the bloggers are the ones deciding what gets put on the blog, that's not editorial oversight, even if they approve user submissions.  This does not equate to editorial oversight.  Can these bloggers get fired from the blog if they "mess up"?  I don't see any evidence for editorial oversight on this blog, which makes the rest of those claims look dubious as well; a blog's "About" page saying one of them is "a journalist" without actually showing the credentials of that claim doesn't exactly inspire confidence. - SudoGhost 19:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for finally considering some of the details. Our interpretations differ. Other opinions are welcomed. --PTMY (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  notaboutthenumbers.com as a reliable source 

message: Why does microcache redirect here? A Microcache is supposed to be an Espionage Equipment. --Snowman25 (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect from Microcache 

message: The history of this part of town is fascinating! GC5098H (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  GC5098H 

message: [d͡ʒi:oʊkæʃ|ɪŋ̩]AptitudeDesign (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  phonetics  

message: I have removed links for the above and edited the article Waymarking. This article didn't really engage with the geocaching term. If there is a need for a separate article on this type of geocaching, perhaps it could be named Waymarking (geocaching) for the sake of clarity. Rwood128 (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waymarking  

message: The information in the section "Opencaching Network" is in some details not true for the original Opencaching site, Opencaching.de. Opencaching.de was founded in August 2005, and the other sites are direct or indirect spinoffs/forks of OC.de.
Opencaching.de does not review caches, and cross listings are not discouraged. Most of the OC.de listings (about 2/3) are crosslistings. There are no USB or MP3 cache types at OC.de, while OC.de has introduced "Safari Caches" as special form of reverse caches which have become very popular. Opencaching.de has no rating system, but only recommendations (which has been copied by geocaching.com as "blue ribbons").
OKAPI is available at most OC "nodes", but not at Opencaching.cz, which started in 2006 as second OC site.
The Swedish and Norwegian OC site are out of service. There is a new site in Romania. OC.de and OC.pl are the largest sites by far. Opencaching.it and Opencaching-Spain.es are local "views" based on the Opencaching.de database.
Information on OC.de can be found at wiki.opencaching.de and blog.opencaching.de.
It may be worth to mention that there actually is no Opencaching network and there are no nodes. These terms are reminscent of early Opencaching.de plans to interconnect with the spinned-off sites and share database contents. However this networking was never implemented. Hoewever there is a shared code base between OC.pl-derived sites, and the OKAPI code is shared between all sites (except .cz). --PM3 (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opencaching Network and Opencaching.de 

message: Currently the game 'Ingress' is listed as a Variant of Geocaching.
I would say this is incorrect.
The use of GPS and hence or course location is the only real similarities. The game creators do not appear affirm this as a variation of geocaching.
"This is somewhat like virtual geocaches, or geodashing, with addition of more advanced game characteristics." as in it-has-a-location. There's no logging or anything similar to geodashing or geocaching.
Thoughts?
--121.223.166.94 (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ingress 

message: My edit putting Geocaching.com as the contact for the geocaching sport was reverted as "promotional."  While it is true that Groundspeak is a business and not a national federation, they are also indisputably the keepers and contact point for pretty much everything related to geocaching, so it would seem to me my edit was accurate.  Other viewpoints? Possums (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand the point about their centrality, I disagree that they should be listed as the contact. Prof. Mc (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have an alternate contact to recommend? Possums (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a reason there has to be one? This is an encyclopedia entry on a sport/hobby, not something about a company or industry member. This also isn't an advertisement for the hobby/sport. Several geocaching websites are already listed under "Websites and data ownership," so if someone is looking to learn about the various organizations that support geocaching, it's there. Adding a "contact" would make it seem as if Groundspeak is the contact point for geocaching, which it is not. Prof. Mc (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Contact Point

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Geocaching. 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/20131105015835/http://www.kxly.com/news/Man-dies-in-cliff-fall-at-Dishman-Hills-Natural-Area/-/101270/696060/-/7qx0ps/-/index.html to http://www.kxly.com/news/Man-dies-in-cliff-fall-at-Dishman-Hills-Natural-Area/-/101270/696060/-/7qx0ps/-/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There will be 4000 new virtual caches placed over the next year.5thMDSS (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virtual Caches 

message: Can pictures be added of the larger bucket or truck-sized caches?5thMDSS (talk) 01:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Geocaching. 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/20081220202659/http://www.connect.de/themen_spezial/Outdoor-Navigation-mit-dem-Garmin-Colorado-300_1596951.html to http://www.connect.de/themen_spezial/Outdoor-Navigation-mit-dem-Garmin-Colorado-300_1596951.html
*Added  tag to http://www.mywesttexas.com/articles/2010/01/08/news/top_stories/pipe_bomb_geochaching_geocache_midland_academy_sports.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202115708/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c7628126-a0f6-4a9e-a396-a40fa1948eab to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c7628126-a0f6-4a9e-a396-a40fa1948eab
*Added  tag to http://www.13wham.com/mostpopular/story/Seth-Green-Drive-Rochester-people-trapped-cave/5Q1BsL-HmkWb7LJJRGJhTw.cspx?p=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The two sentences:
The South Carolina House of Representatives passed Bill 3777[69] in 2005, stating, "It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery or in an historic or archeological site or property publicly identified by an historical marker without the express written consent of the owner or entity which oversees that cemetery site or property." The bill was referred to committee on first reading in the Senate and has been there ever since.[70]
Contradict each other.  I do not know which is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.215.160.252 (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Unfortunately, the International Space Station (article mentions it) geocache has been archived (taken out of order permanently). See https://coord.info/GC1BE91
2001:14BB:81:3C7B:A94A:FFF0:28DF:359B (talk) 08:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting that the listing was locked rather than archived. I’ll update the article. Mojo0306 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival of the ISS geocache 

message: Should a section describing "reverse geocaching" be added? Reverse geocaching is where the cache is a mobile container carried by the "seeker" and has to be taken to a specific location before the cache will unlock. Usually this is achieved electronically through GPS location detection, although could also be done by caching a key to the container at the target location.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.169.126 (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverse Geocachine 

message: I stumbled across this word (in the references of this article), but the video does not seem to work for me. Hence, I still don't know what is meant by this. Thanks for giving more information. Bernburgerin (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello . Cache In Trash Out is a type of event cache whereby geocachers participate in environmental projects to help the planet. See . Mojo0306 (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Can somebody explain wat Cache In Trash Out (CITO) means?

message: I believe that the Globalize template in the 'Reception' subheading should be removed, as the section now directly mentions examples from the UK, USA, and North Korea, and further references citations from New Zealand and Canada. It is always going to have some lean towards American sources, being an American game! Any thoughts? Mojo0306 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As it has been nearly a month with no comment, I shall remove it. Mojo0306 (talk) 08:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the  Globalize template in the 'Reception' subheading 

message: Have some class, please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:E6B0:CD80:1BF1:84F4:91E4:51B (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What promotional content in the article are you referring to? If you feel there is advertising as per WP:PROMO, then feel free to share your concerns here. Mojo0306 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Promotional Content Wikipedia Is Not For Advertising 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I'd like to have a order of magnitude for the numbers of active players / caches / finds in the introduction. That is far more relevant than e.g. the geocache in space. Schrauber5 (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Last year NPR said there was 1.6 million active players in the U.S. ––Formal (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity