Talk:Travel Bug

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Travel Bug/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article does not meet the standard of "reasonably well written." Example:

   A travel bug is an item which is trackable which looks similar to a dog tag.

   A travel bug can be attached to another item by use of the chain on the travel bug if required, examples of such items include teddy bears, toy cars, or golf balls.

   During the registration of the bug on the website, the owner may create a assign a name and also create a purpose or mission for the bug.

   Travel bugs move from cache to cache by Geocachers picking up the bug and physically moving them.

   There is no obligation to pick up a bug from a cache as Geocachers can simply "discover" the bug on the website. This is where the cacher finds the travel bug and logs it as remaining in the cache it is already in and does not move it on.

   Each year from 2004 to 2007, Jeep had sponsored a contest, ...

   but every finder was entered into a drawing for a new Jeep and other prizes.

   An advertising campaigned promoting the travel bugs with adverts in such magazines as Women's Health.

   I think this needs a thorough copy-edit by someone with a good command of plain English; you may be able to get help at WP:Guild of copyeditors

   The hatnote: For the Travel Channel's "Travel Bug", see Travel Channel#Promotion. is linked to a non-existent section on the target page.

   The lead is sparse and does not fully cover the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Ref #9 is a wiki not a reliable source.

   Ref #10 facebook is not a reliable source.

   geocaching.com appears to be a wiki and thus is not an RS

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article does little to explain the subject. This is partly due to poor prose, but also it does not appear the cover the subject thoroughly. It would perhaps be better suited as a section of the geocaching page as it stands. Howver if futher developed it may have the potential to become a good artcile.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is currently a long way away from meeting the good article criteria. It needs comprehensive re-writing to become a good example of plain English, further expansion is required to explain the subject, dimensions of the dog-tag, etc. Please take it to WP:Peer review before re-nominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Geokrety promotion

In lieu of starting an edit war with PTMY, let's discuss this. On a page that discusses the travel bug, which is a proprietary term associated with geocaching.com, is there a need for three separate mentions of the geokrety in the name of "balance?" My vote is no. The page on Internet Explorer doesn't need to link thrice to Google Chrom or other browsers; one mention for geokrety should be gracious plenty. Hzoi (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I count 5 mentions of Google "Chrom" (sic) in the Internet Explorer article. Three brief mentions of another similar service seems OK here. The real question is whether TBs are actually notable enough for a separate (advertisement) article, or should only get a brief mention on the Geocaching article. PTMY (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

"Trackable" instead of "Travel Bug"?

Shouldn't this article be re-named "Trackable" rather than "Travel Bug"? Travel Bug is a very specific term for one type of trackable tag used in geocaching, whereas trackable is more of a blanket term for all trackable items used through geocaching, including geocoins and other brands of trackable items that are valid in geocaching. Also, Geocaching.com themselves refer to them as "trackables". Mojo0306 (talk) 12:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, or even better, delete this article and only include a brief mention of trackables in the main geocaching article or elsewhere. As TB is a Trademark term, this article is clearly primarily advertising. PTMY (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I was going to make a new section on this, but after seeing this one, I'd thought I just place it here instead. So that this article is not confused with advertising as the previous user said, how about an additional section be added that talks more about trackables or travel bugs, so as to educate people about them? The main geocaching article briefly mentions muggles. Trackables are "muggled" all of the time, and many of their owners end up losing their particular item because there are people that find these things and they don't know enough about them. Some of them may even try to look up what a travel bug is, to know more about it. This is where this page could be helpful by educating the do's and don'ts when it comes to trackables. Such as don't leave them places where there is high traffic of people who don't play the game, such as local libraries. If the item is of particular high value to you as the owner, don't send it out as is. Make a copy or proxy of it, send out a laminated post card with a picture of the item and information about it. So if it does get stolen or lost, you still have the original. And follow the item's instructions or goal, and try not to hang onto it for too long. If you find one, log it effectively, noting whether you take it from the cache or if you left it. Even seasoned geocachers tend to screw this up when it comes to travel bugs. Aidensdaddy2k9 (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There is many other trackable promotions out there

Should all the other trackable promotions be added to the article? groundspeak has partnered with groups like GEICO, Airstream, TMNT, and even JackLinks. https://www.geocaching.com/help/index.php?pg=kb.chapter&id=126&pgid=852#findandgo Dragonhawk12 (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Ready for GA?

The article has definitely improved over the last 15 years, maybe it's finally time? Dragonhawk12 (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Peer review

Travel Bug

This is the best section I could think of for this article. I've listed this article for peer review because... I would like to get this article to GA status. I would just like a peer review to see what could be improved.

Thanks, Dragonhawk12 (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Comments by AdaCiccone

Since you're trying to raise the level to GA quality, I'll try reviewing it from some of the GA criteria.

• Well-written: the prose is okay but feels like a guide sometimes (e.g., create and assign a name..., can then search the trackable...). The article could be better if it is polished with a more encyclopedic tone.
• Verifiability: there are sources yes, but a lot of them seems to come from geocaching.com and ones that are very closely related to the subject. For GA, the article could be better if there's more diversity in the sources, and ones that not only speaks about/touches on the basics of Travel Bug but also its history, development over time, significance and the broader context.
• Broad coverage: this one is crucial. The article now gives the basics of what Travel Bug is and there are some examples of promotional use, but there's nothing on origins or history, its place within geocaching culture, comparisons with similar trackables or competition (if there's any), and points about how Travel Bugs are used or understood within the community that uses it.

So in a nutshell, the article is a good place to start but it needs broad coverage, better sources and encyclopedic tone. Those three aspects are decent starting points for article improvement. AdaCiccone (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll see what I can do. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 23:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Is there a standard for the amount of primary sources to secondary sources? There are little secondary sources on Travel Bugs. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 18:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Which claim are you working on/trying to find the sources for? Maybe I can help. AdaCiccone (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I mostly need help with "how Travel Bugs are used or understood within the community that uses it". I feel like other aspects covers that, but I also don't really know how to interpret it. Also all the other sections I feel need help too. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 04:08, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll try looking for them and come back within a week. AdaCiccone (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Since this is a such a niche subject, I've only got a few so far.

• Figueiredo and Scaraboto, “The Systemic Creation of Value Through Circulation in Collaborative Consumer Networks,” Journal of Consumer Research, 2016
• Neustaedter et al., “The Role of Community and Groupware in Geocache Creation and Maintenance,” CHI 2010
• Ihamäki and Heljakka, “Toys Traveling through Geocaching: Mobile, Social and Hybrid Values of Play,” DiGRA 2020

AdaCiccone (talk) 03:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! I'll take a look at these soon Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 17:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Is there anything else that could be improved in the article? Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 23:43, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

My hands are a bit full now on another article. I'll try making the time to take another look. AdaCiccone (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2026 (UTC)