Talk:Rafting

message: It would be great to add some photos and a bit more meat to this.
Mark Richards 01:40, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I'm thinking this classification system should really be in the whitewater article, since Kayaking & canoeing uses exactly the same system right? But then there'd be nothing left of the rafting article!
Nojer2 12:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: You can take ideas from it to enlarge this article and if you can to add rafting rivers in USA and other countries I going to thanks you so much.
Regards, river team!
--Gengiskanhg 23:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I had created the spanish article. 

message: The safety section seems to imply that rafting without a paid guide is inherently more dangerous than a commercial trip:
: "In the past there have been many accidents, but predominantly in private travel."
While a discussion of commercial outfitter certifications and licenses is certainly appropriate, I think this section should focus on "the usual safety precautions" that are alluded to but not explained as it currently stands (i.e. knowledge of current conditions, river route, ability to read rapids and pick lines, avoidance of large recirculating holes and undercuts, strainers, rescue equipment, personal safety gear including throw ropes, wetsuits, helmets, PFDs, etc).  Also, the reference to the Colorado River "swallowing whole expeditions in the past" is a pretty exceptional claim to make without specific wiki links to historical examples. -- BlueCanoe 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV in safety section 

message: This article has a tendency to attract external links.  For the general Wikipedia policy on external links, see WP:LINKS, and in particular this section.  See also conflict of interest and what Wikipedia is not.  This talk page is the appropriate place to ask other wiki users what their opinion is of any potential changes in this article. -- BlueCanoe 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that idahowhitewater.com is too commercial to be linked from Wikipedia, as it is essentially a directory of businesses with services for sale (Wikipedia guidelines here and here).  I suggest removal. -- BlueCanoe 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: whitewatercampsites.com is, in my opinion, close to the line between too-commercial and acceptable.  Looking through the website it appears that nothing is for sale, and the only advertisements are the sponsors on the home page and the text Google Ads throughout.  On a commercial basis, I'm willing to accept this link.  However, we must also ask: is this website directly related to the article's subject? And again, I think it is debatable, but ultimately the fact that the website is focused on rivers in the U.S. Southwest, Rocky Mountains, and Pacific Northwest (a very small subset of the popular rafting locations in the article), and focuses on river campsites rather than the act of rafting itself (which is the subject of this article) makes me think that this link would be appropriate in a different article more closely aligned with the focus of the website.  Overall I would suggest removal.  -- BlueCanoe 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding external links 

message: Hi 
I am working an information web page about the rafting on the Main Salmon River and the surrounding area.  The site is idahowhitewater.com.  I am wondering if this could be added as a link to this page?
Thanks SalmonWeb 19:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that idahowhitewater.com is too commercial to be linked from Wikipedia, as it is essentially a directory of businesses with services for sale (Wikipedia guidelines here and here).  I suggest removal. -- BlueCanoe 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  idahowhitewater.com 

message: Hi rafting editors,
I have a site whitewatercampsites.com that, while it does have some advertising to offset costs, is a valuable resource of the rafting community.  The link was on the Rafting topic until Katr67 deleted it last night.  She suggested that I appeal here.  See her talk page for our discussion. In trying to figure out why my link got deleted, I blundered into signing up as an editor.  I just want to get the link restored because it was serving people.
Thanks for taking a look at my case, Will
 
:whitewatercampsites.com is, in my opinion, close to the line between too-commercial and acceptable.  Looking through the website it appears that nothing is for sale, and the only advertisements are the sponsors on the home page and the text Google Ads throughout.  On a commercial basis, I'm willing to accept this link.  However, we must also ask: is this website directly related to the article's subject? And again, I think it is debatable, but ultimately the fact that the website is focused on rivers in the U.S. Southwest, Rocky Mountains, and Pacific Northwest (a very small subset of the popular rafting locations in the article), and focuses on river campsites rather than the act of rafting itself (which is the subject of this article) makes me think that this link would be appropriate in a different article more closely aligned with the focus of the website.  Overall I would suggest removal.  -- BlueCanoe 01:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  whitewatercampsites.com 

message: Here's a rafting user box that you can use. Just copy this piece of code on your user page:
    
This will produce this: 
Bu b0y2007 09:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rafting Userbox 

message: I'd suggest that the Popular rafting locations section is a problem for a couple of reasons. Firstly, "popular" is, by definition, a blatantly POV term. How does one objectively measure popularity in such a way as to decide if a location is "popular" enough to be included? Secondly, sections such as this generally become magnets for people to put in their own personal favourite spot and for jokesters to sneak in silly puns, etc, in the hope of not being discovered. I note that that section now takes up almost half the article space. It's hard to say how this should be treated in the long run. I can tell you that we had a similar problem at the Fly fishing article and it was resolved quite nicely by removing the section and by creating a category for destinations that could collect the various location articles under a common heading. Perhaps something similar might work here? — Dave (Talk | contribs) 15:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[Rafting#Popular rafting locations|Popular rafting locations]] section

message: I am deleting the entire "History" section, as well as several sentences in the "Whitewater rafts" section due to plagiarism issues; this text has been taken with minimal re-writing from the website Rafting History @ ABC-of-Rafting, which is clearly labeled as "© 2003-2009 ABC of Rafting, part of MaxLifestyle International Inc. All rights reserved." See WP:Plagiarism for guidelines and Wikipedia policy. --BlueCanoe (talk) 16:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: There were a couple of rubbish edits followed by a couple of crude edits that had the effect of highlighting Nepal as a rafting tourism destination, all now reverted. BenevolentUncle (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubbish edits 

message: I removed the list item on Troying, with my following comment:
:/* Tricks */ Removed troying, created by 130.215.124.122 in 2013/April, almost certainly vandalism. a google of rafting troying only returned articles that have mindlessly ripped off wp. This article needs review for other subtle vandalisms.
I found who entered it by doing a manual binary search. But there are probably tools for identifying small changes made by anonymous or one-off editors. I've got to get back to my day job, but if someone could arrange to get help on how to efficiently check thru the edit history for subtle vandalisms, I would be happy to help later.
BenevolentUncle (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: rafting troying
the first several entries were commercial websites that probably had mindlessly plagiarised wp, rather than vice versa. There is an interesting case study there for anyone who has time.
BenevolentUncle (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Jalcomulco River in Mexico, which has swallowed whole expeditions in the past, leaving only fragments of boats
was inserted by a one-off editor then I would pull it as a plug for that river, and I have no idea re Russian rafting and USA catamarans, so if they were inserted by one-off editors I suggest reverting those too.
BenevolentUncle (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive subtle vandalism 

message: #make Zimbabwe a better place  economically
102.128.79.65 (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nk breezy