Talk:Philmont Scout Ranch camps

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Philmont Scout Ranch
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Philmont Scout Ranch

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 November, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

United States: New Mexico

	United States portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
	New Mexico portal This redirect is supported by WikiProject New Mexico.

Scouting

	Scouting portal Philmont Scout Ranch camps is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles
	This redirect is supported by the Philmont Scout Ranch task force.

Delink Camps

Should we start the process of delinking the individual campsites? Radagast83 20:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we do this? Many have been AFDd and all were kept; there is much to say about each camp; I know several people who might be interested in writing the articles (I'll try to contact Rock Rohrbacher about it).

All the camps are also linked from the main Pmont article, so one of the two lists is probably superfluous. Also, this article (if there's any reason to keep it) should be moved to List of camps at Philmont Scout Ranch. — Dan | talk 20:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As it was, the former List of camps at Philmont... wasn't a very accurate name. It was hardly a list in it's current state. If it was a list, it wouldn't include ANY additional information, like it has now. The list of camps on the main Philmont page cluttered up the page and probably would keep it from ever reaching good article status, let alone Featured.

It really doesn't matter if the information was notable or not, it's the viability to get quality articles written about each camp that really mattters. It doesn't look like a single one has been really worked on or written about for months and months. There has been a sister project: Philwiki started for people intrested in Philmont, and not to use that as a guage for intrest, but there has been little to no effort by anyone outside myself in writing camp articles (It has been linked on the main Philmont page for months, and was discussed on the WikiProject Philmont Scout Ranch page. The project also has shown that it's nearly impossible to actually write an article on an idividual campsite that will ever get beyond stub status (unless it is full of NN cruft, as are some of the current camp articles). So as I say it is more about getting a more clear and concise article on the indivudual camps (sans cruft) then about whether or not they are notable as standalone articles. Radagast83 22:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the AFDs were all no consensus, not exactly keep decisions. Radagast83 22:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said on the Philmont WikiProject Discussion Page, I think all info about the trail camps can go in a list like this. The Staff camps are a bit more iffy. Zybthranger 01:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Proposal Stub articles about camps should be merged into this article. If they can become at least "start" class, they can be moved out of the article. --NThurston 21:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged Baldy Town, pls review for accuracy and conformity. All votes were to merge. I vote to merge the rest that are stubs too, make them redirects to here. If they get enough info to stand on their own, leave a summary here with a link back to the main article. Rlevse 10:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was planning on doing some of that but just didn't get around to it in time. Thanks! Radagast83 23:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New to this, but want to contribute

I like the concept of this page, but it is very disjointed. I put in a few edits to staffed camps and would like to do more. It seems that there is little to no agreement on exactly what information should be included for each camp. Until this is standardized and agreed upon, any description of Philmont's backcountry camps will seem incoherent and a real disservice to the subject. A few suggestions:

1. Dump the lists of Camp Directors. This seems cumbersome, will always be incomplete (how far do you want to go back?), and seems irrelevant to all but a very small group of people (including me and I was a CD for three years).

2. I like the inclusion of map coordinates. This can easily be expanded to all camps and I will be willing to work on this. The same goes for elevations.

3. Include physiographic information for all camps (i.e. is it in a canyon or on a mesa?). Give the reader (most likely a prospective camper or prospective staff member) some idea of what the place is like.

4. For staffed camps, a good summary of the program and, in the case of interp camps, how that program is relevant to the history of the region and/or the ranch.

5. History of the name of the camp, if known.

6. A run-down of "amenities" at staffed camps, i.e. wood stoked or propane showers, night programs, fishing license availablity, etc. Also, any unique considerations such as camps where all trash must be packed out.

7. All descriptions should be written with first consideration to the intended audience- the prospective or past camper or advisor, i.e. the customers of the ranch.

I could probably come up with more, but this is an evolving process, right? I appreciate the work done on this page so far and look forward to participating in and improving it. (My resume for this: Camper for 3 years, PC for 3 years, CD for 3 years, Backcountry Manager for 2 years, Autumn Adventure for 3 years.)

Wildtech 04:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Dump the camp directors. Map coordinates would be great. The rest of your suggestions are good. Radagast83 03:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need some set outline to put all of the information in. Zybthranger 01:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

closed camps

would it be a good idea to add another section in here for closed camps? I don't know too many, but if we could identify most or all of them, I think it would make a good addition. Mikeboatlake 23:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Philmont Scout Ranch.png

The image Image:Philmont Scout Ranch.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UTM Coordinates

Question. How do I list coordinates as UTM? From the article, I can see that lat/long is done like 36°30′11″N 105°03′34″W / 36.50306°N 105.05944°W / 36.50306; -105.05944. However, all the coordinates at Philmont are done in UTM, so I think it should be changed over to that. Also, I should be able to add UTM coordinates for all of the camps (I plan on cleaning up this page so it looks nicer when I have the time). Zybthranger (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! The {{coord}} does not handle UTM, and I don't see any templates that do. There some conversion utilities, such as Geographic/UTM Coordinate Converter ; I cannot attest as to the accuracy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GeoHack has UTM coords, as well as DMS and decimal degrees. E.g. the above coord gives

WGS84 	36° 30′ 11″ N, 105° 3′ 34″ W
        36.503056, -105.059444 	
UTM 	13S 494677 4039749

So you can do a lot of copy&pasting.

—WWoods (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The resolution on Degrees/Minutes/(whole)Seconds is coarser than UTM. So anything that starts out as UTM will be more accurate than something created by a conversion from such. Conversely, converting such to UTM yields a number that is less accurate than it appears. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed reply - What I wanted to do (and still want to do) is to list everything by UTM coordinates. And not just convert Lat/Long into UTM, but take the official UTM coordinates from the Conservation Department's GIS subdepartment. I think I should still have the coordinates somewhere, otherwise I'll have to ask somebody at the Ranch to get them for me. ZybthRanger^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you noted, UTM is more precise. This is particularly important when the data is being created, I.E. determining positions of things using a GPS, e.g. for making or adding to a map or set of information. Conversion is complex because it is not a unified grid for the world, it is a mathematical grid within defined blocks. But at a smaller scale that makes it an elegantly simple system.....meters along orthogonal axises. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting Lodge

Slightly offended to see the Hunting Lodge, a staffed camp since 2000, not on the list. I added it with a brief explination and corrected the total of staffed camps.

It was probably left off because few people actually camp there. Many just pass through and never even know that it has campsites. I didn't know that it was a camp untill I read it. Don't be offended, it was a simple oversite.

Facilities Section

I took it out because all trail camps have latrines and sumps except trail camps in the Valle. Zybthranger (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. I think it was overly detailed for an encyclopedia article anyway. North8000 (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI tag (June 2023)

Huge article with almost nothing but primary sources, reinstated by editor who seems to have a COI. Drmies (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you're not seeing the {{ping}} notices, but we're talking about you and your edits over here Talk:Philmont_Scout_Ranch#Major_changes_made. --evrik ^(talk) 22:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to ask, who has the COI and how are you defining that? --evrik ^(talk) 17:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EranBot flagged some content

Eranbot flagged this edit as problematic. I checked with [ https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Philmont+Scout+Ranch+camps&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 earwig] which shows the opening paragraph is the issue. --evrik ^(talk) 22:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]