Jump to content

Talk:New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge, Rename etc

[edit]

Should the article Sea Cadet Association of New Zealand be merged with New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps? j-beda 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There has just been a lot of work done just recently to split and merge the old article "Sea Cadets". This proposed merge makes sense. Unifying See Cadets, linking to Sea Scouts, and tying in Navy Leagues (and similar guiding hands) globally will make for an excellent set of multi cultural multi-faceted articles. If these are the same organisations, go ahead and merge, redirect and disambiguate. I created the article form which the merge should happen simply because that was the title in the old Sea Cadets page, not from any knowledge of the organisation. It was a technical exercise in editing, not a research project. There was a lot to do, and I was bound to make an error somewhere. :) Fiddle Faddle 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm nervous of performing this merge myself as a "text editing exercise". I feel it requires a content expert. There is extra history in the source article, but it requires factual checking Fiddle Faddle 17:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should the final article not be called (moved to?) Sea Cadet Corps (New Zealand) as a naming convention since pretty much all such corps are called by the same generic name? Fiddle Faddle 18:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote most of the NZCF article, and the SCC and NZCC articles. To say the SCC and SCANZ is the same thing is incorrect, the SCC is an arm where the youth, (and cadet officers) are part of, while the SCANZ is the arm where the parents are in a national Association of supporting the SCC. Similar ones exist for the NZCC, (CCANZ).

The History of the SCC could be merged in (and I was about to add it, I’m currently rewriting the NZCF article now and including it in there) so imo we could merge them.

In fact when I created the article I was not aware that it was on the Sea Cadets page, or I would have merged sooner (I think it must have been added later)

I am oppose renaming it (SCC (NZ) as NZSCC fits better imo Brian | (Talk) 23:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is where you, as a content expert can do the job so much better than others. If the articles are to remain separate, great. If they should be merged also great. In either case please make sure Sea Cadets (disambiguation) is brought up to date with whatever the outcome is. It probably also makes sense, since you are opposed to "Sea Cadet Corps (New Zealand)" to create that as a redirect (or disambig?) page to the right point
Looking forward to the rewrite - they are never the easiest thing to do.
Fiddle Faddle 06:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling a bit to understand the diff between NZSCC and SCANZ. Will you be making this crystal clear in the article(s)? I think I see that one is a supporters' group and the other is the force itself? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? Fiddle Faddle 06:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, one (SCANZ) is the "supporters' group" while the other (NZSCC) is the "force itself"
I'll have a look in the morning about merging/expanding them Brian | (Talk) 07:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The SCANZ article should be merged into the main NZSCC page. However the SCANZ article should be kept and refer to the suppot group rather than SCC. I as a Sea Cadet see this as the best way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.167.131.194 (talk • contribs)

nod, that's we are doing. Brian | (Talk) 05:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE BE AWARE, AS A MEMBER OF THE SCC IN NEW ZEALAND, FIRSTLY, IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE TO MERGE NZSCC PAGES WITH SCANZ PAGES AS SCANZ IS A SUPPORT ORGANISATION FOR THE NZSCC NOT A PART OF OUR ORGANISATION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.88.74 (talk • contribs)

We know that, if you read the above you will see that that has been disused, just no ones got around to doing it yet Brian | (Talk) 00:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is for separate articles - if SCANZ is anything like the Navy League of Canada, then it needs its own article. If nobody replies in the next few days, I'll ditch the "merge" tag. Quadra 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

[edit]

I am trying to get someone who understands templates to knit us a "Naval Cadet" template. See Wikipedia:Requested templates for the specification. Fiddle Faddle 22:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have one :) Template:Naval cadets Easy to use and in use. We also have a new category Category:Naval Cadet Organisations both easy to use. The template ensures the pages are entered into the category Fiddle Faddle 22:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice :) Brian | (Talk) 23:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposed (TS Bellona)

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge TS Bellona into New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps, and move the entire "Units around the country" section into a new page New Zealand SCC units . --B. Wolterding 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge the content of TS Bellona into here, since the notability of that article is unclear: No independent references are cited. Generally, individual units would not be considered notable by the guidelines.

I think the best option would be to merge all relevant information here, then redirect the article TS Bellona to the subsection here. Some parts of TS Bellona seem to be advertisement, though, and should rather not be merged.

Please add your comments below. Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 10:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In principle I agree that theres room for this, however what we would more likely wind up with is a generic article describing the Sea Cadet Corps and then a listing of all Units (including TS Bellona). Caution needs to be exercised that the article doesn't then become too big all over again. Another point is that any big-moves made here would also likely be applicable to the Army-aligned and AirForce-aligned New Zealand Cadet Forces articles, so i'd discourage making changes which would cause the articles to become too dissimilar. My 2c. BlakJakNZ 01:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding articles growing too long: Of course, one should first try to condense the content and leave out anything that would not be relevant. If that doesn't help, it's always possible to break out the section "Units around the Country" into a separate article "NZSCC units" (or similar), which would decsribe all units in one article; cf. WP:SUMMARY. --B. Wolterding 11:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support a combined unit page based on the following points:
  • I'm not sure that a unit itself can have enough information attached to make it notable.
  • There exists a large crossover in intent, and content that would make a general
  • The TS Bellona article looks to be both advertorial and unencyclopedic, something that as a member of the overall organisation I have been trying to avoid.
  • The consolidation of any unit pages into a units page (note plurality) would make a lot of sense. Together, some combined unit histories would be notable and encyclopedic.
Liberator 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger performed + "units" article

[edit]

As discussed, I moved the "Units around the country" section into a separate article New Zealand SCC units, and merged the "TS Bellona" content there. I also tried to remove unencyclopedic content and shorten the text where appropriate. Still the article needs a lot of cleanup; but I think I should better leave that to the experts. --B. Wolterding 15:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look, and see if I can make any useful changes. Liberator 02:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i've only had a very quick look so far, but can I suggest you look at renaming the article in accordance with Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(abbreviations)#Acronyms_as_words_in_article_titles ? Use of an Acronym in the Name is confusing. I work in IT and recognise 'SCC' as 'Southern Cross Cable' among other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlakJakNZ (talk • contribs)
As you like, renaming the page is easy. Does everybody agree with "New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps units" as the title? --B. Wolterding 07:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been renamed now. --B. Wolterding 16:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ISCA logo.gif

[edit]

Image:ISCA logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio or not

[edit]

The text has now twice been removed as a copyright violation by the same editor, even though they were unable to prove any copyvio when this was discussed on my user talk page (see User_talk:Fram#New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps, where I also indicated that if it was a copyvio, they would need to remove other sections as well). Removing copyright violations is a good thing, but removing text from 2005 only because you suspect ir may be a copyvio, even though the source given does now have the same text as our article but did not in 2005, and repeating this when the change has been opposed, is not good, even ignoring whichever further motives may play a role in pursuing this.

If some stronger arguments can be made that the 2005 text is a copyvio, then of course removing it is the right and necessary course. But accusing people of copyright violations without providing such arguments is a personal attack. Fram (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest revisions archived online dont match at all and earwigs only detects current matches - which it would do if the website has copied from ENWP. Cart before the horse. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a secondary note, except in certain jurisdictions and under specific circumstances, you cant copyright lists of facts. So the part about the courses offered cant be a copyvio regardless. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The evidence for the copyright violation is here, a comparison I made before rewriting the lead section. With such precise duplication, it would seem one copied from the other, or they both copied a common source. It is difficult to imagine that the New Zealand Sea Cadet Corps website would resort to copying Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that earwigs is showing information that was in the articles creation in 2005 as substantially matching the website now (and not its earliest revisions) it is more likely that the website maintainer has just copied from wikipedia. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Zealand_Sea_Cadet_Corps&oldid=1202922440"