Talk:Geocaching/Archive 1

message: Need a word and clear definition for a point where a road, river, railroad tracks, bridge, walkway, subway, airport landing, or any other place or transportation meet.
A name for when three of the above mentioned are connected. For Example A bridge for both a train and cars go over a transportation waterway. Confluence? Intersection?
:What the government in Utah calls these places are "intermodal hubs".  They are places where you may change from one type (mode) of transportation to another (iter-).  Because there are multiple types (modes) of transportation their, they are called hubs.  Is this what you are looking for? Val42 21:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to speak for the person asking for the original question, but it sounds as though they're looking for "intersection", "junction/conjunction", or "crossing".  A bridge for both train and cars doesn't sound like a point of changeover for mode of transportation.  I'm not completely sure what relevance the question has to the article in its current state though.  ju66l3r 21:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That question was asked by a passing anon a year or so ago, and it was incredibly irrelevant then, too. - DavidWBrooks 23:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Points of Different Transportation=Word? 

message: I think there should be an appropriate category which includes at least:
* geocaching
* letterboxing
* trigpointing
* benchmarking (appropriate article not yet written)
and in addition, perhaps:
* orienteering
* treasure hunt
But what would the category be called? And would it be a subcategory of :Category:Hobbies or :Category:Sports or what? Or maybe there's already a suitable category to put them all in? --David Edgar 11:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that this is long, but what about "Outdoor locating games". Val42 14:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks for the suggestion! - I've just created it. --David Edgar 18:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Appropriate Category

message: Why was the section on commercialisation removed? The anonymous user, Special:Contributions/66.23.231.191, that deleted it left the summary "No need to talk about commercialization, just about caching." but I don't see how discussion of businesses built around the sport isn't "about caching".
Tobin Richard 10:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It also seems to me that mentioning geocaching.com specifically in this context is appropriate, the site even claims to be "The Official Global GPS Cache Hunt Site" (emphasis mine). - Tobin Richard 10:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I replaced it. - DavidWBrooks 11:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've just added some information on the one geocaching related lawsuit (or threat thereof) I know about. Perhaps some discussion of the fact that most caching sites use the word free in the sense of price not liberty would be of value. - Tobin Richard 11:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It struck me as irrelevant advertising, slapped on by an anon ("XYZ Website says it's the best!") but if you think it is pertinent, it should remain. - DavidWBrooks 22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point but the note about the lack of a governing body makes it look like it's not advertising to me. - Tobin Richard 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the second sentence is what gave it relevance. --Dogbreathcanada 01:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercialisation 

message: I've made the listings for geocaching associations consistent in format and order.  Here are the rules that I used:
#The two (by far the) most active countries are listed first in alphabetical order; Canada and the United States.
##Province/State geocaching associations are listed alphabetically under those.
##Format of listing depends on number of entries:
##*Zero: Not listed.
##*One: Listed on same line as province/state separated by colon.
##*More: Listed on following lines indented one more level.
#Continents are listed in order of geocaching participation using basically the same rules as for Canada and the U.S.
Most of this structure already existed, but this is a formalization of the rules.  If there is any objection(s) to continuing to use these rules, let's discuss it here. Val42 19:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks very nice. The only debatable point, I think, is whether we should move the whole list to a separate page so it doesn't clog up this one - I think this has the worst ratio of external links to text of any non-stub article I know. - DavidWBrooks 20:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't that just make that page have a worse ratio?  Or would that be okay because it is a page just for links?  I'm not familiar with pages like that so that's why I'm asking such questions. Val42 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but if the page was something like List of geocaching organizations nobody would be expecting anything else from the article. Right now, they may be looking for general information, and get lost scrolling around the page. - DavidWBrooks 21:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Geocaching associations format and order

message: The links really need to be trimmed down to the ones that actually add information to the article. They have been discussed several times over a period of months, but nothing has been done to reduce their number. I'll probably give it a few more days, then visit each site linked and take a chainsaw to the list. I would prefer it if somebody with an interest in the subject did the cleanup, but the current situation is ridiculous. --GraemeL (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created List of geocaching organizations and moved all the local groups there. (That was the easy part!) - DavidWBrooks 17:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspected a little external nudge might be enough to push you into making that decision. ;-) --GraemeL (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links (yet again) 

message: Different anonymous IPs occasionally add the phrase that non-geocachers (that is, about 6.49999 billion of the world's 6.5 billion people) are called "muggles", as in Harry Potter terminology. While this may be true for certain clusters of pre-teen geocachers, as far as I can tell it is not widespread, so I have removed it. - DavidWBrooks 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muggles? 

message: Last I checked 44 does not qualify me as a pre-teen, and, yes, Muggles is a term used in geocaching as is muggles, geo-muggles and a cache being "muggled".  I will refer you to the book by by Joel McNamara "Geocaching for Dummies" page 18, page 125, & page 128 and several aritcles on geocaching.com for example the article from the UK newspaper the Telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=P8&xml=/health/2005/10/04/hgeo01.xml.  I'm sorry if you hadn't heard about it but it is real.
: I stand corrected - my apologies. - DavidWBrooks 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, Muggles 

message: Is someone who is aware of geocaching, but does not actually participate in the activity a Squib?
:I take it you mean it along the lines of blood purity - squibs, as compared to muggles? Personally I've never heard the term used. --David Edgar 17:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't see why we would have to use it. Let's not start using it. --Dogbreathcanada 21:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squibs? 

message: It seems to me that this article is extremely centered around www.geocaching.com, rather than geoacaching in general. I know that www.geocaching.com is, as the article states, the "most popular" site. But it is far from the only site. And their recent move of most non-traditional caches to a seperate site seems to be reflected here in that locationless or virtual caches are relegated to a brief mention as a "variation". Also there is no mention of point systems or how caches are approved for listing (which varies considerably on other sites. I think it would be appropriate to include these things in the article.
Any thoughts?
--Headybrew 00:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I'm not sure what that sentence means. Can we elaborate here on what it means, and maybe we can rephrase it in the article to make it more clear?--Sonjaaa 12:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some variations of the game include a point system to enhance game play.

message: How about adding:
Geocaching has enjoyed impressive growth and popularity with, for example, the number of geocaches placed in Connecticut doubling annually from 2001-2006.
(This is based on my records starting in 2002, and Geocaching.com listings, showing that there were 100 in Spring 2002, 200 Spring '03, 400 Winter '04, 800 Spring '05, and now 1600 Spring-Summer '06.)  -RJFerret 05:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, RJF, unfortunately, we need a reputable independent source to meet the "no original research" policy of wikipedia to include something like that.  Has there been a newspaper article that references the growth rate that GC.com listings have experienced since 2001?  That would be our best bet for inclusion in the article.  ju66l3r 20:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth? 

message: We've got two regular size, and a micro cache picture? I think we should replace one of the tupperware pics with an ammo box cache, show a greater spread of caches.--Grand Edgemaster Talk 14:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

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)
thread_title:  Number of Caches 

message: I've added a line here mentioning the availability of Windows Mobile solutions as well as adding one example software here (I know of 2 for the WM platform, but the other one just comes in German). 
Maybe is would be a good idea to have a whole software section (or even a own article), as there are numerous tools for paperless caching and Geocaching in general.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.125.224.159 (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paperless Caching 

message: There are 2 sections (Appeal and Geocaching as a sport) that I have marked for requiring references.  There are many weasel words ("some geocachers", "others", "a small group", etc.) in these sections and absolutely no references to where these opinions are coming from.  Both sections are on border of being total POV junk to be deleted.
Also, the Geocaching websites section needs more of the non-U.S. websites listed.
Finally, I would like some opinions on how to better keep this article about "Geocaching" and not about Geocaching.com.  Editors of this article need to filter everything they want to say here through a neutral PoV better, because this article should be about the activity and not about any specific website's influence on that activity.  ju66l3r 20:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree on ditching those two sections. They appear to serve no purpose other than to sell geocaching to the reader. ikes 01:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I vote to keep Appeal because that was exactly what I was looking for when I looked up geocaching, I knew what it was, I wanted to know why people did it. I also suggest removing the reference needed tags.  Yes, it uses words like "some" and "others" but those are legitimate words when there is disagreement within a group. As an example, '"some" americans voted for Bush "others" did not, "a small group" is very vocal about the election' is a perfectly valid statement.  As to expertise, the opinions are coming from the author who is presumably a geocacher and therefore has the only qualification required to write about why people do it.  I actually agree with ikes that some cites would be nice, but I take a less strict view because if I marked everything that really needed it with a "needs citation" tag I'd have marked 90% of the articles in Wikipedia.Jerdwyer 04:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly the reason that references/citations for "some" and "other" (aka weasel words) are necessary.  If "some" Americans voted for Bush, then there must be a good reference showing that they did.  Provide it.  Otherwise, you are exactly right; the reader must presume expertise on behalf of the editor and that presumption could easily be wrong.  If 90% of Wikipedia is missing a citation, then so be it...hopefully, by bringing the need to attention, these things will be verified and verifiable by the next person or removed (as there's no basis to find them as fact).  WP:V and WP:OR are good places to read up on why you shouldn't just presume the editor is always right.  ju66l3r 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry to bump an old topic. Wanted to check here to make sure it was OK with regular contributers to this article if I go ahead and convert all references to footnote format. Currently, two citation styles are used, (predominately) HTML and also a single footnote. OK to convert to all footnotes? thanks and regards, --guyzero | talk 20:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be great!  Thanks!  ju66l3r 23:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea.  Go ahead and do it. Val42 05:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, done. Suggestions and corrections are welcome! regards, --guyzero | talk 00:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References Needed 

message: I moved all of the pre-September discussion to the archive box.  This way we don't have wierd conversations coming up randomly from the past where a number of the contributions were unsigned/timestamped.  ju66l3r 23:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival of talk page 

message: Links area was defluffed again.  In the process I've found that there are articles for Paperless Geocaching and Geocaching software, so there's no need for most of the software links that were here before (and those pages may need their own defluffing/merging).  ju66l3r 20:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vigorous defluffing 

message: The information stating "xxx is the most popular", "xxx is the second most popular" etc - who is justifying this. OK geocaching.com is the biggest, but does that make it the most popular, or the best?  And what statistics are there for the positions of the next two? Sounds like somebody's making stuff up, again from a US-centric POV. Cached 07:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to a degree.  Geocaching.com is the largest and best known.  That's hardly disagreeable considering its geocache data quantity (largest), net traffic and linkage (which can be found on alexa, google, etc.).  It's also larger than most regional websites outside the U.S.  As for who would be considered "second" or "third", I can agree in disagreement and US-centricity there.  The section you're talking about has bothered me for some time, but I've been a bit too busy to make sure it's worded right instead of just not worded...which would be preferable (better to edit/replace than simply delete).  ju66l3r 18:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, yes it would by the very definition of "popular."  By the way, learn how to punctuate and don't use rhetorical questions if you want anyone to take your opinions seriously. Oh yeah people are just making things up just so you have something to talk about on here.  We all have that kind of time to spend editing Wikipedia articles so we can be "US-centric," so we just invent statistics.  You really hit the nail on the head there, buster. User:12.41.171.140 03:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL andWP:TALK. cheers, --guyzero | talk 18:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity of Websites 

message: I contest the accuracy of the offsite "History" page linked from the geocaching topic. Since this Wikipedia entry is meant to be an accurate page which already includes a history, the biased and less than factual link off this site to a  "history" page should be stricken from the entry.
I do not suggest that it be replaced with the history page located at http://www.geocaching.com/about/history.aspx but that it should be removed entirely. For Wikipedia to be a useful site the bias should be left at the door.
I also want to ensure that there is a record on the entry stating that the link should be stricken. I'm well aware there are biased (re)writers of this entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.251.6.105 (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the link should be removed and was bold and removed it.  The simple fact is that the link was a personal webpage and therefore is a "link to be avoided" per the external link policy.  While parts of the link were well-sourced, there were also many conclusions or inferences drawn that were not sourced making it fail the reliable source policy as a primary source with unsourced claims.  If someone wants to reinsert the link, I ask that they discuss it here first.  I do take exception though to the previous editor's lack of good faith on the part of the "(re)writers" that are claimed to be biased.  I don't see any evidence to make bad faith assumptions about any of the editors of this article.  ju66l3r 05:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Striking the Off-site "History" Page 

message: If one is in the main article, then both should be.  Just because Benchmarking is on Groundspeak does not in any way devalue the equivalent Trigpointing. --PopUpPirate 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trigpointing vs Benchmarking 

message: An editor has recently wanted to add a very specific location as an example of a mystery/puzzle cache.  Unfortunately, there's nothing contextual about the coordinates or text added and so it seems ill-placed and somewhat like they are attempting to highlight their own cache (or planned cache).  Neither the text nor coordinates fits the general description of the cache variations and I have even gone so far as to modify their original edit to give a fuller description of the variation than was there before.  Any other discussion on this?  I'd like to hear from the editor, but they have not yet responded on their talk page, mine, or this page as I suggested on their talk page.  ju66l3r 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery/Puzzle cache variation text 

message: What appears to be a single editor (likely a WP:COI problem) has been attempting to insert a link to a service called "Geographing".  This is essentially a "virtual cache" only listing service of new design for an old concept.  The link itself fails the external link policy (namely it is only used to promote this new website, probably a conflict of interest by the submitter, and finally WP is not a repository of links and the EL section is long enough as it is without every Johnny-come-lately listing service being added).  I do not see how this link furthers the knowledge of "what is geocaching".  Please discuss the issue here instead of continually adding the link to the article ad nauseum.  Thanks.  ju66l3r 11:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems as though that only ju66l3r has a problem with the link.  I thought it was a very interesting take on geocaching with a lot of interesting content.  Are you applying the same standard to all links?  A quick check does not seem as though you are.  Thank you.  Faust13 20:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because I am the only one to quickly remove it does not mean that I am the only one who feels it should be removed.  It is also not appropriate per WP:EL and you have not shown it to be otherwise.  Other links presence is not precedent.  Maybe I just haven't gotten to those links yet.  ju66l3r 16:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographing link 

message: Paperless geocaching seems like such a minor detail of geocaching that I think it would make perfect sense to merge it into this article. Dave Foster 03:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - merge it Kabads 10:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. Jjasi 14:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree. — Val42 03:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I'm going to delete the word nerdy from the first sentense as it seems slightly unnessecery. The SOAD Fan 11:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geocaching is a "nerdy" outdoor treasure-hunting game 

message: My mentor in my new job is a geocacher, presumably having picked it up from his father-in-law. It sounds very interesting, I'd like to try it too. But I don't have any GPS equipment. Do I need it, or can I rely on Google Maps coordinates in large cities? JIP | Talk 18:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many many people start out finding a few without a GPS.  There have been some people that have found quite a few without one.  I know there was one that had found over 800 without a GPS at all; so yes it can definitely be done.  Generally, of course, it can be harder but it's very possible. Hardaker 20:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: The article on Dave Ulmer, after some discussion at WP Oregon, was removed and changed to a redirect to this article, mainly due to lack of reliable sources on Ulmer.  Reasons are more clearly set forth on Talk:Dave Ulmer.
If anyone objects to this move, feel free to revert and give reasons at the talk page there.
Thanks,
--EngineerScotty (talk) 00:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on [[Dave Ulmer]] 

message: Geocaches have been blown up, just look at: This google news search.  Trying to find a non-subscription one with an active link. §hep  •  ¡Talk to me! 01:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb 

message: Is there a Wikiproject for Geocaching? Zef (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I know of, but is the scope really large enough for a WikiProject? As it stands, the only articles of relevance to it would be a small subset of those in :Category:Outdoor locating games (I guess just 5-10 in total). Maybe a task force would be more appropriate, or a wikiproject with a wider scope. --David Edgar (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not find one. Just wondering. Zef (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There would be geocaching, geocoin, travel bug, Benchmarking (geolocating) and perhaps a few more.  This wouldn't be enough for a project, but they should all be in the suggested category.  I don't know why you'd want to create a project for these few articles. — Val42 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Geocaching 

message: Why is geocaching banned in certain wild life management areas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.39.131 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 October 2008
:Presumably to avoid disturbing places like nesting / breeding sites. Searching for a cache can have quite a noticeable impact on natural areas. It also seems that in some areas where hunting takes place, another reason for such rules is to ensure the safety of geocachers. --David Edgar (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geocaching bans 

message: In the  "The Future is Wild", the  Animated version episode 17 "Around the World In 80 Minutes", one of the characters starts what he considers the ultimate geocache game. I thought this would be worth mentioning in the article as it shows how the game has been adopted for nature documentary style speculative fiction. --198.85.212.10 (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Future Is Wild 

message: I added TextCaching to the multi-caching section. I looked around for the best place to put information about this and that seems to be the best place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.110.226 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing showing up on GoogleNews...again. Removing as not notable enough for inclusion for now. §hep • Talk 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

text: No, but an "innvoation" has be to covered in multiple reliable third-party sources before being listed. Currently it appears that it is not; when there is sufficient referencing from thrid-part sources the information can be readded, §hep • Talk 03:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TextCaching 

message: There should be more anti-geocache, pro-geotrashing information in this article. -Axmann8 (Talk) 00:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No there shouldn't as only a moron would do that. What there should be is more virtual caching. 72.154.166.139 (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Geocache (Geotrashing)

message: Friends, Big Brothers Big Sisters of Canada has created what we believe to be the world's first application of the geocaching activity to charitable fund-raising.  Once upon a time, a gala was a just gala, a run was just a run, and a golf tournament was just a golf tournament...  until they were applied to fundraising.  We are doing this on September 11th 2009 in four cities simultaneously.  When the time nears, would anyone be willing to help me post a modest entry about it in Wikipedia?  We would love to establish credit for being the first to combine these things (assuming we truly are), for both pride, posterity, and giving credit to our cash-poor, idea-rich charitable organization.  I also believe we have developed a new team-based game variant worth a line or two as well.  
Please drop me a line if you are willing to help us make this entry.
Thanks!  Joel Porter:     
WikiBigBrother (talk) 03:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, there are many Geovents held each year that go towards chairty. A specific event going on in just 4 cities doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion on the encyclopedia. Sorry to disappoint, §hepTalk 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geocaching + fundraising combined for the first time 

message: Is it a valid 'term' really?Aranesp (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geotrashing? 

message: I recommend this reference be removed.  It is a link to another wiki stub which basically says "nobody actually does this, but I am thinking about starting it someday, so I want to have a name placeholder here until I have the details worked out."  In what way, specifically, does this kind of thing add to a layperson's encyclopedic understanding of geocaching?  --Mroesler (talk) 16:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's bull. I'm going to remove the reference, and if somehow a riot is started and everyone wants to keep it, go ahead. This should have been removed a long time ago. It's not real, and could offend some readers, as it is not what they expect to read on this article. MobileSnail 14:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted it after a brief discussion with User:Smashville on his talk page. Consider this subject closed. :) MobileSnail 15:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geosexing