Talk:Rogaining

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move to Rogaining. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC) The '(sport)' was for disambiguation with the pharmaceutical Rogaine, but is now unnecessary. jonon 08:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Sensible move. Rogaineboy008 07:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect spelling from the entry on the WP:RM page. Freakytoe 05:58, 11 October 2005


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support. Definitely the spelling used in Australia. Mark 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree with Mark. Felix Dance 13:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Be bold and move cases like this yourself. Except I have done this one for you. --Henrygb 21:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * All well and good, except "Sport" should be lowercase: Rogaine (sport). 24.17.48.241 06:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pubgaine

 * Pubgaines are not mythical, I competed in one a couple of weeks ago! See Shogun 01:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy history
After finding a rather pathetic and lackluster history here on the wiki and then finding a substantial and well refenced version of the sport elsewhere, I brought over much of the history to add to the Historical section of the page, overwriting the sparse paragraph history. There is an external link with a much more in depth history, but I felt the added information was most relevant to the development of the sport on a worldwide level, without adding other countries histories. Anyone else have input on how much history is appropriate? I'd just love to see this get past start article status. --Bendavis97140 23:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright violations are not accepted on wikipedia. If you are interested in writing this section properly I will help you. :: maelgwn - talk 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of reverting, how about (1) asking the source site for permission to use it here and/or (2) rewriting? --Una Smith 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. The source site does not assert notability. As for 2. well um errr ... I probably should :-P. Either way it needed reverting. :: maelgwn - talk 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

"The source site does not assert notability." What does that mean? --Una Smith 03:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:Notability says A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Using the Australia Rogaining website does not count as independent of the subject. Agreed it is better than nothing in some ways - but is not enough in itself. :: maelgwn - talk 03:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Rogaining itself is without question notable: international federation, international competitions, and independent magazine articles and newspaper stories about it.  There also is the matter of reliable sources (WP:RS).  For the history of rogaining, you cannot get more reliable than that site. --Una Smith 13:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Reliability does not mean notability. Even if the subject of the article is notable, everything on the website of the subject is not notable. 3rd party references give some idea of the notability of certain aspects.
 * 2) First party references are of themselves unreliable because they are written from a certain point of view. It is written pushing the success of the founders and the organisation and not seeing all points of view. Your link above says Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. :: maelgwn - talk 12:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Orienteering
WikiProject Orienteering has begun; please stop by. --Una Smith (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Team size
I do not think minimal team of 2 is always required. I run rogaines alone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.214.97.255 (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Surrey-Thomas Rover Crew
The sources about the involvement of the Surrey-Thomas Rover Crew in rogaining are now longer working and that articles is being proposed for merging. That Rover Crew is certainly notable if it was heavily involved in the creation of rogaining, but it needs good sources. Does anyone have such sources? They are needed at Surrey-Thomas Rover Crew and here. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)