Talk:The Ramblers

message: The front page of their website gives "The Ramblers" as their "public identity", and the copyright notice at the bottom reads "The Ramblers Association" (no apostrophe). Shouldn't this therefore be at one of those? Loganberry (Talk) 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The official name of the Ramblers is the Ramblers Association. It is so called in the Articles of Association which says 'The name of the company is The Ramblers' Association, called in this document "Ramblers".'. The name of the article should be The Ramblers' Association.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treesmill (talk • contribs) 16:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of this article 

message: The RA has a history of conflict with other users of rights of way and has campaigned against their use of the countryside, particularly 4x4 vehicles and motorbikes, however mountain bikes and horse riders have been targeted.
Supporters of the targeted groups have often found the evidence used by the RA to be severely flawed while the effects of walkers on the countryside is ignored. Of these single interest groups the RA has the largest political lobby and coverage in the popular press.
***end of moved material
****If this were to be brought back into the mainspace article, it would have to be accompanied by citations of the source material. Statements such as this need to be substantiated by whoever made statements to that effect, and when these conflicts occurred. Dieter Simon 17:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: This article redirects to itself. 98.169.106.88 (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A minor problem! It's sorted now, I think. :) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: The "Naked Ramblers" section talks about several naked ramblers (note the lower case 'r' here). But I see nothing in this article to suggest that any of these people were members of, or had any connection to, The Ramblers.
If there are no sources to indicate any such link, then this section does not seem relevant to the subject of this article. The paragraph should be removed (or transferred, where appropriate to naked hiking). --David Edgar (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if the sources given don't establish any connection of any naked walkers with the Ramblers, they should be removed from the article. Stephen Gough does not seem to be associated with the Ramblers in the Wiki article created about him. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Naked Ramblers section 

message: I've deleted the following section as it is opinion and speculation without references:
:One of the inherent problems with Ramblers Walking Groups is the size and number of actual Ramblers participating in the walks. Group sizes of 20+ Ramblers all walking together has led to problems with Landowners and other countryside users in the form of gates left open,litter and also open confrontation with other countryside users, this often being the case with a 'Safety in numbers' mentality of the larger walking groups and therefore it is recommended that Ramblers walking group sizes be kept to manageable numbers in order to improve the overall walking experience for members. 
If appropriate references can be found, the intended messages (i.e. that some people feel this way) may be appropriate. However, I'd be surprised if there were good evidence that larger groups leave more litter per person, or are more likely to leave gates open. StephenDawson (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I too, would be surprised. All the groups I've ever been a member of saw to it and made it their first and last task not to leave anything behind nor leaving gates or stiles open. It is part of the code of ethics of the Ramblers to take care of the countryside. Dieter Simon (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Walking group size

message: Can someone, with the expertise, correct the article's title? The organization is The Ramblers. Rwood128 (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope that I've done this correctly. Rwood128 (talk) 00:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Ramblers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120305014149/http://www.ramblers.org.uk/Celebrating+75+Years+at+the+Heart+of+Walking to http://www.ramblers.org.uk/Celebrating+75+Years+at+the+Heart+of+Walking
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Crops in fields growing or harvested, foliage on trees changing, footpaths overgrowing—all will make a difference to what Ramblers will do.
:What does this mean? Valetude (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless 

message: Having a read through I understand why the template was added - but it all seems factual so although I'd like to improve it I'm not quite sure where to start. If anyone fancies helping out it will help me in the future. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like an Ad