Talk:Whitewater

message: I made a substantial change to this page because it had the usual east coast bias towards rivers in the west.  Having been a guide on both coasts (CA and WA in the west, W.Va. in the east), I've run most of the rivers mentioned in the original article and just want to say that the rivers on both coasts are fun and require the same skill, until you get to the big water rivers, which require a diffrent set of skills.  To say one coast requires more technical expertise than the other is based on a lack of knowledge of what is available on both coasts.
Plus, this was only about the US,the rest of the world has some amazing rivers to run.  It would be nice to get some descriptions of those in here.srlasky 23:15, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)
:The U.S. section need work. It does not provide a balanced overview - still neglecting the West Coast, no mention of Alaska, Midwest, etc. Not written from NPOV and too personal a style. Rmhermen 23:24, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
::I think this article still needs a serious overhaul. In particular, the "guidebook-like" sections are getting long, and they're of spotty quality. In the US, New York, Washington state, and Maine (which together comprise over 700 whitewater runs!) have no mention at all; nor do I see Nepal or Corsica, both famous worldwide as paddling destinations.
::If all those "omissions" were corrected, the article would blow up to...well, to encyclopedic size. I'd recommend separating out the "guidebook-like" sections to individual articles focused on whitewater in the referenced regions. I don't expect to get to that, myself, anytime soon.--RattBoy 10:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Same content. Detailed description of classification will be moved to the matching section. Redirect Rapid to Whitewater.  P199 15:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merge with Rapid 

message: I propose to split off the list of whitewater rivers and make it into a separate article (List of whitewater rivers). It is already getting quite long, and a separate article no longer needs to be limited to just the notable or famous whitewater rivers. It could become a comprehensive resource for people who are only interested in whitewater locations. -- P199 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Agreed. Remember 18:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. It's just cluttering up the page. Plus, almost every other topic on Wikipedia also does this: Main Page about subject, then separate page for list of items relating to subject. DevAnubis 13:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *Agreed. It would be a nice resource with subs for each river with descriptions of runs on each river.Ryanx7 06:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *We've got to be careful NOT to become a river guide book though... there are books and sites for that (and Wiki's too). Descriptions of the rivers, and main/prominent features, popularity, culture references, ect should be fine... just not guides. DevAnubis 09:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split proposal

message: Hello, I believe that the description under Classification of whitewater does not correspond to International Scale of River Difficulty. For example, class 2 - "Skill Level: Basic Paddling Skill" surely is not true speaking about anything else than big inflatable rafts which are really hard to sink (so you do not have to control it at all). Between class 2 and 3, there is the limit for solid (laminate, plastic) open canoes, you really have to know how to "read" the water, how the boat will interact with it, and how to get the boat on the correct path and under correct angle. I mean, this is really much more than simply to be able to move ship forward and turn left/right, which I would describe as "basic skills". In addition, I guess an opposition to whitewater should be mentioned - I do not know how to say it in English (that is why I visited Wikipedia ...), but in Europe, it is commonly reffered as "ZW" from German "Zahnwasser". --62.40.79.66 12:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. That's misunderstanding. Things you talk about - ZW and hard limit for open canoes between WW II and WW III - are part of Inernational Canoe Federation classification (aka "Alpen system"), not American Whitewater Association scale. Also note the difference in naming "Class 1" vs "WW I" etc. This article uses AWA's scale. Be aware that "International" in its name means that Americans use it for describing rivers all over the world, not that other nations would use this system (to my best knowledge, all of Europe plus Russian parts of Asia, and also Australia use the ICF classification). --kavol, 213.175.37.10 (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification of whitewater 

message: The article Scouting rapids should be merged and redirected to Whitewater. It is just a copy of material already here and if we delete the redundancy and irrelevant material, there is nothing left. It could never become a decent article because it would describe how to scout and that would violate WP:NOTGUIDE. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scouting rapids

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Whitewater. 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 https://web.archive.org/20150722232134/http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/white+water?q=whitewater to http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/white%2Bwater?q=whitewater
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive is of 403 to a 404. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified