Template talk:Scouting

Arrangement?

Not being in the project itself, I might add a comment here: At the moment, the template is not well arranged at all, I think. Maybe you could order the topics as follows:

1. Organisations (BSA, GSUSA, Eagles, Associations etc.)
2. People (B-P, Green Bar Bill, Gidney, Boyce etc. and - well, if you really think so - Pilecki)
3. Places (Gilwell, B-P House, Philmont, Chalet, Kandersteg etc.)

These could also allow to candidate smaller Featured Topics (as already proposed over there). Yours in Scouting, FloK 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We have already spent some effort in the categorization process. Perhaps the same taxonomy should apply. Here are some proposed topics that might have a chance (now or in the future) with the currently listed articles. There would obviously be more articles under each topic, just not FA/A/GA.

• Scouting - "Origins, foundations, and structure of the Scouting movement"

Boy Scout

Gilwell Park

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

Wood Badge

• Guiding

Girl Scouts of the USA

• BSA

Arthur Rose Eldred

Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)

Boy Scouts of America

Boy Scouts of America membership controversies

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)

George Thomas Coker

History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)

List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)

• Scouting people

Arthur Rose Eldred

George Thomas Coker

Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell

Witold Pilecki

• Awards

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)

• Scout Campsites
• Organizations/Associations

South African Scout Association

The Scout Association of Hong Kong

• Scouting Events

--NThurston 19:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This template

This template doesn't really make much sense to me, and I don't see much encyclopedic value in its current form. We're just slapping together any FA/GA with a Scouting Wikiproject tag on it. If it's a guide to Scouting articles, articles like George Thomas Coker and Witold Pilecki are only tangentially related and certainly don't belong at all. The criticisms at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates are quite valid — the selections are certainly arbitrary from an encyclopedic standpoint.

If we want a generic Scouting template, it has to be internationally-relevant and include only the core articles regarding international Scouting as a whole — Scouting, Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell, World Organization of the Scout Movement, etc. With such a generic title, I feel even some of our best articles like Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) might be too narrow, lest we start listing every top award of every gender's organization in every country. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 09:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the majority of articles which have received FA and GA status are related to the BSA, but looking at this "generic" template on the main international Scouting article makes it seem that BSA is the only game in town... I agree with Rebelguys2 that the template should contain only internationally important articles - Scouting, general programme sections like Boy Scout and Rover Scout, and the List of notable Scouts. Horus Kol 10:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This all came about because I was trying to get us Featured Topic, but being the first experience with that, I didn't understand what they wanted. I thought listing all our FAs was the trick, but it's not. The reason most of our better articles are BSA related is simply that most project members are from the BSA, so that's where the expertise is knowledge-wise. If we want FT, we need to cut the scope and renom.Rlevse 11:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand why BSA is a major feature - but I don't think that the template should include national level articles... there are over 200 NSO's and almost as many NGO's. I've knocked up a quick list of what I think should be in there User:Horus_Kol/Template:Scouting - feel free to add to it. I can see that there are many articles not at GA or higher, and there is one missing, too. I think we should take the opporrunity to push these articles up a grade, where possible. Horus Kol 12:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Also - there is nothing to stop the BSA articles being placed into their own topic - but this should not be confused as an overall Scouting topic. Horus Kol 12:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What article is missing from what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rlevse (talk • contribs) 12:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Rainbow (Girl Guides) does not yet exist. Horus Kol 13:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the ratings, they are what they should be execpt I raised GG/GS to B, but note: Scout method could be GA with a little work, Cub Scout could be B with some refs, Rover Scout could be B with a little tweaking and some refs inline, List of awards need lots of work, List of notable Scouts really shouldn't be a B because it has no lead to speak of, Brownie is borderline stub/start, flesh out Girl Guide and it'd be a GA. Rlevse 13:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It sounds to me like most of us support having different topic templates to link related articles. In the previous section, I have put forward some suggested topic areas based on our current categorization. Any interest in any of those? Also, what if we changed this particular topics title to "Scouting FA/A/GA Articles"?--NThurston 14:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Of course, any topic list that we create should include some of the lower quality, but related, articles. Maybe we set the cut-off as B-class, or "no Stubs." --NThurston 14:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Horus Kol's template looks very, very good. Stubs are fine; this template should be as comprehensive as possible. Another issue I see is with the GA/FA symbols on the template. If you look at the list of Featured Topics, you'll notice that none of those articles actually use the templates with GA/FA symbols on their actual pages — it's just a template used on Featured Topics, not a project-wide issue. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Stubs and Start, no way. B, only if essential for the coverage of the topic and we should improve to GA. Rebelguys2 makes good points.Rlevse 18:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the format {{Navbox generic}} as used in {{Dilbert}}? That's another solution for 'organizational' issues that doesn't rely on creating multiple linking templates. --NThurston 18:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions of articles to be added to the template

The eventual goal is to create sets of articles ("topics") that can be nominated for Featured Topic. Please make your suggestions here. I think the preliminary decision is 'no stubs.' I am not clear on "Start" class articles. --NThurston 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be able to nominate any article (or article that should be there) regardless of status - remember, FT requires no obvious gaps... if we cherry pick out of only certain classes of articles, I think we will quickly find such gaps. Horus Kol Talk 17:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I invite all to recommend articles that should (or should not) be included in the several Scouting Topics that are beginning to coalesce. The discussion should happen here. Please keep in mind:

1. Only 'mature' topics that have enough articles to be considered a topic are included. New topics can be added later, when there are enough articles to justify a topic.
2. Not every article has to be part of a topic.
3. Articles can be part of more than one topic.
4. The end goal is for a topic to be a featured topic - a collection of good articles on a subject that leave no obvious gaps. This process may help us identify needed articles as well as articles that should be prioritized for improvement.--NThurston 20:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that WAGGGS' four World Centres should go somewhere. (Our Chalet, Sangam, Pax Lodge, Our Cabaña). Kingbird 15:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, how about putting Three-finger salute (Scouts) in The Scouting Movement topic? It would fit in as a commonality and mark of Scouting and Guiding worldwide. Kingbird 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, but see my comments on the talk page under Expand and rename. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

B-P four times listed here?

I see that [[Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell|Baden-Powell]] is mentioned four times. I recommend that three be deleted. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

• bump. No views here? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
• Thank, Nicolas. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Missing FA Star?

When I view the template, the FA star for the BSA Membership Controversies is missing (but a larger space is there). When I look at the template, it looks OK, any ideas? Naraht 18:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I see it fine. –Pomte 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, it seems to be the browser. IE7 shows it just fine, Opera doesn't. *wierd* Naraht 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not weird, just inconsistent browser standards. Rlevse 20:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Works with FireFox. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Omni-links

All of the articles in this template now link together. For example, Varsity Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) now links to Brownie (Girl Guides) and vice versa. The problem comes in when an article is moved, merged or redirected and we need to check for double redirects or do other maintenance. Is there a way to include the links so they don't backlink? Like using : in categories and tl in templates. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to illustrate: bots are still fixing double redirects to Cub Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) that I missed. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the problem. If an article is moved, etc. we only need to update the template and everything else should be ok. That's the beauty of using a template instead of hard-coding a hundred links into a hundred pages. I seem to be missing something, but would be happy to help fix it. Please explain more. --NThurston 19:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Cub Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) and select What Links Here. You will see that there are now a plethora of links that you would not expect such as Olave Baden-Powell and the The Scout Association of Hong Kong. This makes it much harder to clean up redirects. There may be no way around this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see the redirects, but if you change just one link in the Scouting template they all get updated. So, I guess it's a question of knowing to do the template first before embarking on the remaining redirects. But that is self-explanatory - the first time someone tries to update the link from Olave Baden-Powell to Cub Scouting, they will realize that it is through the template not inline, fix the template, and be surprised that they just took care of nearly 100 links. So, "harder" I guess because you could get confused (or daunted) by the large number of links. But a relatively minor issue in practice, unless I am missing something. --NThurston 21:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

More Selective

In light of the discussions about BP being listed 4 times, and about Omni-Links, I'm going to bring up an issue that I tried to air earlier on the development of this template -

What is the purpose of having every topic in every one of these 100 or so articles? It doesn't make sense to have links to BSA articles from most of the UK articles, and vice versa... I agree having the world Scouting template makes sense for some of either BSA and UK, but still not all...

Could we have a rethink about the organisation of this template? -- Horus Kol Talk 02:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

See similar issues I noted at Talk:Boy Scouts of America#Navigation creep. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 09:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

True, Scouting articles are getting overnavigated. Reference for navigations templates is WP:NAV, where it seems that navigation templates are typically used in limited lists, e.g., all keys of a keyboard, all states of a country, or similar. Using it to assist in a topic is not common: typically a portal is mentioned in the See Also article space. Although I can't find an actual reference, I do know that meta-information (e.g. links to wikiprojects) and its derivatives (e.g., navigational templates to navigate in the articles of a wikiprojects) are definitely frowned upon in article space. Albeit that this template definitely looks nice. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Removed FA stars and GA plus signs

The FA star does not belong in reader-facing templates. It's fine to use in the userspace and project space, but not just when you link to a featured article. It is self-referential and decreases the reusability of our content. Savidan 00:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• "decreases the reusability of our content"??? that's a stretch.Rlevse 02:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• PLus--see WP:FT.Rlevse 02:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Order?

What's the order within the sections? I'd think alphabetic, but it apparently isn't? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Originally, they were sort of grouped by sub-topic, to flow a little bit. With the removal of the line breaks, that is somewhat lost. I don't have a preference, although alpha probably doesn't make sense in every case (like Cubs, Boy Scouts, Varsity, Venturing). Suggestions? --NThurston 21:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

How about alphabetic where it does make sense, e.g, the people section? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Sounds reasonable to me.Rlevse 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a reasonable guy, most of the time ;-). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Foxlease

Can the new article Foxlease be added to the UK section? Kingbird 21:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Gilwell is in there, Our Chalet should be too.Rlevse 22:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. If Our Chalet is going in, then the other 3 World Centres should be in their as well. Kingbird 20:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done by Wim and me. Rlevse 22:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't done yet, when Randy already also dug in, but in the end Yes, done. May I humbly suggest that the long list of US-oriented articles gets a little bit of re-assessment whether they all need to be in this template? E.g., is 'advancement and recognition' 'history of merit badges' really to top important to be drawn attention to on this top level? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for doing a splendid rearrangement and update . I hate to have to write this, but actually, Our Chalet is still missing from the template. Kingbird 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I put it in there, see this diff. It must have been accidentally cut in the rearranging. I'll put it back in now.Rlevse 02:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oops. Sorry about this. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 09:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Edith Macy Conference Center

Here's another one - Edith Macy Conference Center. Could some put this is the USA section? Thank you. Kingbird 21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done.Rlevse 21:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)...actually, I put it in "Major Places".Rlevse 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Update

As part of my project to update templates to uses standard navboxes, I have done a test update using {{Navigation with collapsible groups}}. Please see Template:Scouting/sandbox for the test version and Template:Scouting/testcases for examples. The new version differs from the old in that it uses named parameters. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• It also looks better! Let me have it for real. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC).

On the way. I have to update each article for the new syntax. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave B-P House the sandbox version. Looks smashing, and no switcheroo problems when an groups happens to move forward or backward or so. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated all 'places' for you. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC).

And 'other'. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC).

Finished. Yes- if we add, delete or rearrange groups we don't have to fix every article again; just update any articles using a new group. It took me almost an hour just to find {{Navigation with collapsible groups}} and about thirty minutes to sandbox it. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Major changes

Per discussions at WT:SCOUT:

• Y Merge {{IntlScoutsGuides}}
• Y Split the section articles to a separate group
• Y Remove Scouting in the United States; now covered by {{Scouting in the United States}}
• Y Remove Scouting in the United Kingdom; to be covered by {{Scouting in the UK}}
• Founders: include only those of international importance
• Prominent places: include only those of international importance
• Y Other Scouting articles: remove

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does Template:Scouting deserve an image, yet Template:Scoutorg BSA does not?

Why does Template:Scouting deserve an image, yet Template:Scoutorg BSA does not? Image was deleted with the reasoning of “Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Content no relevance or necessity for the image there.” So why is a copyright free logo relevant and necessity for one template but another copyright free logo is not relevant or necessity for another template? Abel (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No one is interested in getting mired in a debate with you on this or any other Scouting topic. You can stop trolling Scouting articles at any time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)