Talk:Trekking pole

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Backpacking, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BackpackingWikipedia:WikiProject BackpackingTemplate:WikiProject BackpackingBackpacking articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Untitled[edit]

Hi, there wasn't a way to add a new section so I'm typing here. I came here hoping to learn about the different tips that came with my new walking poles. I assume they have different purposes but the documentation just talks about adjusting the length and nothing about the tips. Can someone explain on this page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punstress (talk • contribs) 13:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Walking stick[edit]

This article should be merged with the walking stick article. Jesse Crouch (talk) 20:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about that. You can use a walking stick on a hiking trail but you wouldn't use trekking poles on your walk down to the drugstore. Also, walking sticks are usually used singly; most hikers I know (as well as myself) use both poles in a set. And walking sticks are often individualized artistic devices of personal expression; trekking poles are purely functional and are rarely customized. Daniel Case (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact?[edit]

The Impact section along with the picture of a scratched rock is being removed. I'm not sure how scratching rocks on the ground merits a whole section and a picture. These poles are also known to russell leaves, disturb dirt and produce significant divots in sufficiently moistened mud. PMHauge (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do know that people have complained online about the scratch marks on popular above-treeline trails in the Northeast. If I can find a source for this, I'm putting it back in. Daniel Case (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for a source that verifies that people have complained about scratched rocks. The info can stay if there is something to show that these scratched rocks are a problem, environmentally detrimental or in another way noteworthy. Otherwise, I don't care if "people have complained online" about this. It's not information worthy of an encyclopedia. Period. PMHauge (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint was that it visually detracts from the wilderness experience. If it's made by someone, or somewhere notable, then it's in. If not, forget it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found a source (the Appalachian Trail Conference newsletter) and it and the picture are back in. Daniel Case (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much, much better. Good work. Connecting the "issue" to the Leave No Trace ideas makes it make sense. I do think the See Also section should stay though. Again, good work. PMHauge (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll put that back ... gives the article more content to offset that long image.

Wow, you're faster than some bots! Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not fast. Just a coincidence. PMHauge (talk) 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I've got an article quoting Brian King of the ATC from 2004 saying that they have no official stance on trekking poles. The article used as a cite in this article seems to be a newsletter article rather than a press release or statement from the ATC. Will people object wildly if I update the article to more accurately reflect this? 81.157.247.71 (talk) 12:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and if you've got the other article, cite it as well. Daniel Case (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]