Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2008

Scouting WikiProject in the Signpost

We'll be in the Signpost on Wednesday, 2 Jan about 17:00 UTC, someone noticed us, be sure to read it, many of us get it, read it on my talk page if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Scoutwiki

I have just been spending some time at the Scoutwiki network and in particular at the English Scoutwiki. This is a successor of the Scouting Wikia. I do not think we should see this as a rival. For a start, a lot of Wikipedia articles were moved over there some months ago. Some were not moved and I am in the process of moving the State and other articles from Australia, the County/Area articles from UK and scouting articles from New Zealand and other places in Oceania. We need to ensure that articles from WP do not degrade with time. It is aiming for a broader coverage than we have and welcomes articles down to Troop level. It is therefore a place to help us not bite newbies with their Troop articles, often badly written. We can help them to move the articles to ScoutWiki. In moving some articles from Australia I have already undone some merges we did earlier to non-notable articles. The English ScoutWiki is however very quite. It is smaller than the French and Finish ScoutWikis, probably because the main proponents, who are bureaucrats and administrators, come from these two countries. The English ScoutWiki is only slightly larger than the Dutch ScoutWiki. In the last three days I have only seen edits in "Recent changes" from one other editor, two anon editor (one vandalizing) and one of the admins. There are therefore a number of potential problems. I think the most pressing might be living people issues and copyright violation of both text and images. General vandalism does not seem to be common. Go over and take a look. You can comment on my talk page there. I have the same user name. --Bduke (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I edited on ScoutWiki for a bit as Gadget850, but there seems to be no real challenge. I found that I actually prefer to work in a more critical environment such as Wikipedia. Yes, it can be aggravating, but it keeps us honest. I can see where ScoutWiki can end up being hagiographic. Some quotes I came across recently:

Bachmann's Law: Trolls are the driving force of Wikipedia. The worst trolls often spur the best editors into creating a brilliant article with watertight references where without the trollish ecapades we would only have a brief stub.

Sagredo's Corollary: The ability of an editor is proportional to the degree to which the editor has been trolled.

Over two years of part-time editing on Wikipedia has done more for my writing and debating skills than any of my formal courses. ScoutWiki does have its uses— local unit articles are certainly a good fit there. It might be a place to store reference material that is currently on troop websites and not suited to WikiSource. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ed, I agree with you. It is difficult to be at your best there. It is also a massive job to get it fixed up to something decent and not just a mass of articles. The categories, for example, are a mess. If it gets more English speaking editors it might improve. --Bduke (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lead coordinator

Rlevse has served most successfully in this role since we reappointed him almost exactly a year ago. That discussion is now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 3#Lead coordinator. Rlevse, after some discussion, stated "Thanks for everyone's support. I support a one year term with no limit on being reelected. Let's do it every Dec and close in early Jan, like we just did. Bduke is in charge of overseeing it. This will give folks a chance to openly voice concerns, if any exist. MILHIST does it this way and has had the same lead coord for some years but they still hold the election." I then closed the discussion with that being the process. However, we forgot to do this in early December (Alright, I forgot). I am therefore starting the process now by calling for expressions of interest or proposals for the coordinator for 2008. If someone other than Rlevse is appointed, the person concerned will be mentored by Rlevse and take over early in Febuary. I hope the process at the end of 2008 will be as described above. --Bduke (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• I would like to kick of the debate, by asking Rlevse to serve for another 12 months. During last year he has become an administrator on the English Wikipedia and on Commons, allowing him to serve the Project even better than he had done before. I see no concerns, but now is your opportunity to express concerns if they exist. --Bduke (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I accept to serve again if that is the consensus. Let's run this for 7 days like before, if that's okay. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Rlevse for another term without reservation JGHowes ^talk - 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Rlevse, and for the Oval Office if he has a workable exit strategy... :) Chris (クリス) (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Rlevse --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Rlevse - I can't think of anyone who could do the job any better. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Rlevse - Kingbird (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Rlevse -Phips (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support Rlevse (as if other could even be considered) - Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Congratulations, Rlevse, you have been reappointed as lead coordinator of the project for the rest of 2008. --Bduke (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Go Randy, it's your birthday, not for real-real, just for play-play. :) Chris (クリス) (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support everyone. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Category help

Need category help at Category_talk:Arrowman_Wikipedians — Rlevse • Talk • 21:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone can explain the problem, I will take a stab at it. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Scotland

An anon editor at Scouting in Ayrshire has indicated that in April 2008, eight new Scout Regions will replace 31 Scout Areas in Scotland. This will mean that 30 articles need to be merged into 8 (we had one - Orkneys - deleted). This will be a complex job. Can we build a team to think about it in advance? Any editors from Scotland? --Bduke (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Still need volunteers. Evidence for this change is here in a page off the Scouts Scotland web site. --Bduke (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

BSAseries template

I think it is time to retire {{BSAseries}}. I created it well before {{Infobox WorldScouting}} and {{Scouting}} were developed— those templates are more universal. We should use {{Infobox WorldScouting}} for organizations and events and {{Infobox Person}} for biographies; {{Scouting}} can be used with all of these. Further discussion on the talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that is necessary, to delete BSAseries. If the project wants to, I won't object, but I simply feel it's okay to keep using it. Either way is not a big deal to me. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep, because it is doing a good job and we have a lot of articles on BSA topics. BSA is notable enough do have it´s own template.-Phips (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Only thing I might tweak is appearance, make the bottom "see also" look like the link for Infobox WorldScouting, perhaps change the color scheme from pale blue to the gold-green of the Project... but I think Phips is right, as BSA is the 800 pound gorilla, nothing wrong with keeping it and just aligning a little. Chris (クリス) (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is when {{BSAseries}} and {{Infobox WorldScouting}} are used in the same article, such as Boy Scouts of America. I just reversed the two so that Infobox WorldScouting is on top and removed the image from BSAseries. Perhaps make the portal optional so it does not duplicate the infobox? Ideas? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a test version. Changed colors to match WorldScouting, removed some extra stuff and made the portal look like WorldScouting and optional. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I might go with gold instead, that much text gets lost on that green. Just my File:LincolnMemorialCent.jpg. Chris (クリス) (talk) 02:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Gold it is... --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Much more bueno, methinks! Chris (クリス) (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Here it is with portal=yes; I had to remove the background color else the logo disappears. More colors at List of colors is someone has different ideas. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good.-Phips (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. My opinion is that this should be used as a secondary navbox, not the main infobox. I'm going to add a box width parameter— {{Infobox WorldScouting}} is 18em wide and {{Infobox Person}} is 22 em wide. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's blue and gold, Cub colors, leaving out other programs. How about green/brown, outdoorsy colors of some kind?Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pick something from list of colors. One problem is that all of the text elements in the box are links, thus light blue. Unless someone knows how to change the link color in the box, we can't change the font color, thus the background must be something light. Some examples:

Boy Scouts of America Green is too dark

Boy Scouts of America Wheat is OK and looks like the Scout shirt

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I really like the wheat one. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, for the Wheaties lovers. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Check William D. Boyce for use with {{Infobox WorldScouting}} and Boy Scouts of America for use with {{Infobox WorldScouting}}. The optional box_width parameter lets us use it neatly with other infoboxes. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the changes live—let me know of any issues. Changes: Default width=215px; width now variable to match other boxes; background = wheat; reorganized entries; portal is optional and off by default

Secure connection

In case you don't know it, you should connect to wiki via a secure connection, which has this address: [1], if nothing else it'll keep your username and pwd hidden from the bad guys. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

actually this is problematic, I gave up on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

In SignPost

It's Jan 11 and I just got the Jan 2 SignPost that has us in it, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-01-02/WikiProject_report. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Scouting songs

I think this article should go AfD and have proposed accordingly at Talk:Scouting songs. But, before initiating the process, do other Project participants have thoughts one way or the other? JGHowes ^talk - 15:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes- see talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

BSA website updating

From the BSA webmaster:

On January 14th, the web site http://www.scouting.org will move into a new publishing platform. You will see the benefits in enhanced navigation and search, e-mail and subscription services for every page, and a consistent look and feel throughout the site. The biggest change to Scouting.org will appear in the way that URL’s are handled. For example, the URL for the Boy Scouts program on Scouting.org has previously looked something like “http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=by” whereas the new URL for the Boy Scouts program will be “http://www.scouting.org/boyscouts.aspx”. This new URL handling system will provide more intuitive URL’s and make it easier for councils and others to provide links back to Scouting.org.

So, it looks like we are going to have a bunch of busted links next week. This message only mentions the main www.scouting.org site and may not include other sites like olc.scouting.org or marketing.scouting.org. For links, see Special:Linksearch/www.scouting.org. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Only a month late, the BSA site is now updated. Every link we have is now busted. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

UGH, unless they provide a table that cross refs the new links, we have to figure it out on our own. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is a site map at http://www.scouting.org/webmasters.aspx. It is good for individual documents: http://www.scouting.org/forms/28-406.pdf is now at http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/28-406.pdf. We are going to have to drill though the site to get html pages. Search does not work. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started working these. See User:Gadget850/Scout1 for my worklist. I am only updating articles, not talk or user pages. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

alternate names for camp service article

Scouts' Own

Oh, it's a camp service, I get it. That was totally unclear in the article. Might there be a better name yet? Chris (クリス) (talk) 03:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why rename? Scouts Own is what it's called. Make a redir to it from other things it's called. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See article talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse Might Be Gone

This is most unfortunate: According to his talk page, he has quit. (Please don't shoot the messenger!) -MBK₀₀₄ 04:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I read that myself and am trying to find the background and bring him back. I've quit like four times and he's the one to rein me in. Chris (クリス) (talk) 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone figure out why Rlevse quit yet? Man it was like poof! Find the turd that caused this.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 05:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Rlevse making veiled threats about me to other users was the last straw. I have had some e-mail discussion with him, but I hope he is sleeping now and will reconsider when he wakes. Give him all the support you guys on his side of the pond can give. --Bduke (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I actually know Rlevse in the real world. I've spoken to him about this. He's very upset and frustrated. The ANI thread was the last straw, but there's more; but none of it is against the members of the Scouting Project. He loves this project as you know and its members. I don't know if he'll come back or not. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I have happy news to report. He has returned. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Returning

After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that your first act was going to be making me International Scouting Beermeister.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

template?

What is the template to use when our articles are cited or used in other media? Chris (クリス) (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

{{Onlinesource}} --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting article modifications

I'm sorry to have to open this discussion when we have just received bad news about Rlevse, but a process has started that I have to follow through . A few days ago, I made a suggestion on Talk:Girl Guides about several pages connected with Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting (Girl Guides, Girl Guide, Girl Scout, Girl Scouts, Girl Guide and Girl Scout, Girl Guiding, Girl Scouting, Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting) The current set-up is confusing and it's difficult to know where to put information. To summarise my proposal, I suggested that if it ends in -ing, it's about the movement. If it doesn't end in -ing, it's about the section/age group. All the GG and GS pages should be brought in line with this. I will admit with hindsight that my proposal could have been clearer. Be that as it may, one user supported the suggestion. Another user opposed the suggestion so that a centralised discussion could be had about the issue. While I am nervous about reporting the opposer's arguments myself, I think this user's view was that the suggestion I had made contravened Scouting Wikiproject's guidelines and so should be discussed. I think the crux of the problem revolves around how we cope with the article with plurals in their titles. The project guidelines at the top of this page say:

Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, etc - General summary pages that have see also links to other Scouting pages. Used to avoid to lead users to more indepth articles, no longer disambiguation pages due to all the confusion of different naming conventions. All other plurals redirect to the singular per Wikipedia standard, not to Scouting or a separate organization oriented article

I had not realised this was what the guideline said when I made my initial proposal. In response, I would point out that Boy Scouts is a disambig page and so doesn't fit the guideline given. I would also point out that an article that summarises another article is not something that Wikipedia is designed to cope with. I would be happy to modify my original suggestion so that the plurals are all disambig pages. Howeve r, this is still not what the guideline suggests and so I propose we should also change the guideline. Kingbird (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines can be changed if there is consensus for it. You make good points Kingbird. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Kingbird on this. I have always found Boy Scout and Cub Scout to be rather confusing. Looking at Boy Scout again, I have the feeling it is rather BSA-centric, but for the BSA we have Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). Take a look at Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding; naming and age levels are all over the place. Perhaps we should not try to generalize the movement in this manner. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking at this in detail, and I think we are trying to maintain universal articles that just do not work. Age Groups in Scouting and Guiding is a good article in that it lists the different national Scout organizations and their sections. On the other hand, articles like Beavers (Scouting) are not really that good; they try to give a generic overview of a subject that varies greatly from one organization to another; this particular subject is better covered by a number of articles on Beavers, Joeys, Cub Scouts and the like. A big chunk of these universal articles is given to each NSO.

My recommendation is to merge these; it looks like there really is no unique content that is not in the other articles. Articles on Scouting sections are:

• Beavers (Scouting)
• Cub Scouts
• Scouts
• Rover Scout
• Venture Scout
• Rainbow (Girl Guides)
• Brownie (Girl Guides)
• Girl Guides
• Ranger (Girl Guide)

There are some similar "universal" articles that should be examined as well:

• Air Scouts
• Lone Scouts
• Scout District
• Scout Commissioner
• Scout Leader
• Scout troop
• Scout Group
• Scoutmaster
• Sea Scout

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for Ed's view but I want to look at them in detail. I have a real problem, which I raised once before, about the Boy Scout article. Cub Scout may have the problems that Ed raises but it is about the section on an international basis. Therefore it has no problem with the fact that the Cub section has girls in some countries. Boy Scout, however, is not about the section. It is supposed to be about the "boy" in a way that no other article is. It therefore does have serious problems and confusion about the fact that girls are in the Scout section in some countries. If we keep the international articles on sections, then Boy Scout should be rewritten to be about the section, the original section of the Scouting movement, and no about the boy. I think there is a similar problem with the Guide article, but I need to check that. Probably more later. --Bduke (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We should probably tackle these individually on their own merits. Why not start with Kingbird's question on Girl Scouts and go from there? We can use the results as a springboard for the others. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kingbird's suggestion and think she is agreeing with me that we have articles on the movement or articles on sections. The problem really is with articles that start "A xxx is a girl .." or "A yyy is a boy ..", because somewhere in the world a xxx is a boy and a yyy is a girl. It also means we have articles on all the later sections, but not on the first sections for Scouts and Guides. As for the general articles, there are some that can be cleaned up but you are probably right that some should go. Should we discuss these separately on their talk pages? --Bduke (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I have just looked again at Sea Scout and Air Scouts. First and of course, the titles should be comparable, either both plural or both singular. Second, the Sea Scout article seems fine. It has a good introduction and good history. The world differences are carefully set out with real information in a table. The Air Scouts article is a mess with sections on different countries at different levels with no guidelines for what should be included. The amount just depends on the enthusiasm of an editor from a particular country. I suggest that both be kept but "Sea Scout" should be renamed to "Sea Scouts" (now a redirect), and "Air Scouts" should be rewritten to conform to the same pattern as "Sea Scouts". --Bduke (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sea Scout implies a person, Sea Scouting the movement, c.f. Scouting and Girl Guiding. These should be laid out like Scouting- a worldwide history and overview without just being a list of sections. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I am not sure what you are suggesting. Sea scout certainly is not about a person. Are you suggesting the two articles be renamed to Sea Scouting and Air Scouting, both of which are redirects. I would not oppose that. As I indicate above, I do not think we should have articles about the person, in general. We should write about the movement and its branches and sections, along with about named individuals. --Bduke (talk) 07:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sea Scout "Sea Scouts are members of the international Scouting movement..."
• Boy Scouts "Boy Scout is a boy, usually 11 to 17 years of age, participating in the worldwide...

These articles try to describe the persons as opposed to the movement. You can't separate the two. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can not separate the two, how can you write about one as opposed to the other? My key point is that we should not be writing about the person, but about this part of the Scouting movement. With that emphasis it will cover what the members do, but we can not talk about the members unless there is research that has studied the members. I propose a renaming to Sea Scouting and Air Scouting. It avoids confusion. --Bduke (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My point exactly. Thank you! --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I'm unclear as to what various courses of action are being proposed. Kingbird (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingbird, could you please take a look at what I wrote at Talk:Boy Scout as it is more general that the particular problem there? --Bduke (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Tooth of Time work at GraphicsLab

• File:ToothofTime.jpg
• 
• 

Article(s): Boy Scouts of America

Request: lighten for detail -- Chris (クリス) (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Graphist opinion: Adjusting Brightness/contrast to see the mountain results in a washed out sky. Which can be fixed, although a close examination of the skyline might reveal some flaws. Most of which disappeared with downsampling (3000px to 1500). Sagredo^{⊙☿♀♁♂♃♄} 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I need to let the Graphics Lab know what we want to do. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If no one has any thoughts, I'm going to tell them to call it good and to overwrite. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Youth images

Background

Wikia is a wiki farm stated by Jimmy Wales and associated with the Wikimedia Foundation. They host an assortment of wikis, including The Spanking Art Wiki. A fellow WP editor found that Image:ScoutFun.png, uploaded by by Rlevse, was being used in the Boy Scout article on Spanking Art (which is creepy in itself). After much discussion,[2] the Boy Scout page was chopped, Wales deleted the image from their site and the SA folks created a new policy on images.

Images

Those of use involved in the discussions quickly realized that uploading photos of youth may not be a good idea. There is no way to control reuse once an image is released as free. I have drafted a guideline at User:Gadget850/Sandbox4; once this is polished, I will merge it into WP:S-IMG.

Wikipedia is not censored, but we do need to understand the ramifications outside of WP. There are so many laws and rules that may cover this that we cannot make specific rules of our own, just guidelines and recommendations.

We were lucky here in that Wikia had close ties to WP and the issue was resolved quickly; this may not hold true for other web sites.

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion

The entire spanking art wiki has been removed, but Ed's suggestion is still valid. See [3]. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline has now been updated to Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Images#Image reuse. Please let me know if there are any questions. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement by WOSM

Resolved

 – Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

WOSM's article on the admission of OSMK [4] uses large sections of Organization of the Scout Movement of Kazakhstan, but it neither mentions the Wikipedia as source nor the authors nor the GDFL. Does anybody know how this is handled on the English Wikipedia (I'm only firm with the German way...) and could take the necessary steps? --jergen (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What about http://n2zgu.50megs.com/KAZ.htm? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the misspellings they use mirror that site, which we did receive permission from the author (personal friend) to use as our own source material. That makes sense. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

This one keeps coming back

Once again someone uninvolved with our Project decides they know what's best for us, and changes a whole bunch of our stuff without discussion. Once again they're our navigation boxes for the bottoms of articles. I have undone the unwelcome changes, and let the user know they are welcome to join the ongoing discussion here. We've done this before. As I understand it, very few of our navigation boxes are meant to be used with each other, and those that are, we've already made collapsible. Those that are meant to be standalone, we've left uncollapsible as they add to instead of distract from the article. I'm just tired of others unrelated trying to decide what's best for us, though I know that will be a perennial battle. Thoughts? Anyone is most welcome. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How about if we use the navbox template, but suppress the hide feature with state=plain? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of having the hide feature on our templates, if those templates are not meant ever to be collapsed? The only Scout template I can think of that is meant to be collapsed is the monstrous green tiered one that shows several major categories, which requires the reader's interest to open and see what's there. The others are standalone and help navigate single specific topics. That other Wiki templates use that syntax is not justification for changing ours, unless there is a valid reason those ones should ever be collapsed, and those ones are never stacked to begin with. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason for the edits was that I was randomly browsing around and encounterd Polish_Scouting_Association#External_links_and_references where three Scouting navigation boxes are stacked one on top of the other. So I decided to implement standardized navbox so it would look better (I am a very visual person). If your only complain is that they are not supposed to collapse, you can suppress that feature (as suggested by Gadget850). That way everyone would be happy, no? Renata (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Chris- I reverted {{WOSM Regions}} back to the navbox, but added the state parameter so that hide does not show. In my opinion, the use of {{navbox}} creates a standard and makes it easier for editors to make minor updates without having to understand a bunch of code. If you don't like it, that's OK; just revert as it really should not be a big issue. If it does work for you, then we should update the other templates --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Technical note: I believe that {{!}} will stop working in such cases pretty soon because of the m:migration to the new preprocessor (I might be wrong). (not loggen in Renata3) 150.210.226.2 (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We are now running the new pre-processor. The issue with {{!}} was in its use as a template delimiter in Parserfunctions. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So what's the outcome? Renata (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

See below.

Certain Userbox

While i have no problem with Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes/Scouts Australia adding me to a category (Wikipedians interested in Scouting) but its for current and past members and i know a few past members like myself that aren't interested in scouts anymore like the category implies. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 09:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to use the userbox but not be in the category, subst the userbox in your page and save. then edit to remove the inclusion in the category. It is pretty obvious. I might comment that is likely the name of the category is due to pressure from epeole at User Categories for deletion. "Interest in" sounds like being useful for collaboration. "Member or former member" does not. --Bduke (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, use the category suppression option; I updated all the userboxes with this feature some time back. Just end the userbox template with |categories=no}}.

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Historic Scouting images

Found and uploaded some good PD images of B-P, W.W. Head, Dan Beard, and E.T. Seton in the George Grantham Bain collection at the Library of Congress. They are better and clearer than the Non-Free images previously used, which I've tagged {{orfud}}. JGHowes ^talk - 18:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

These images, ad PD should be on Commons with Bain tags. See Image:LadyBadenPowell39191bain.jpg for samples of how to do it. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

They are. JGHowes ^talk - 19:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, usually people say "on commons" if it's commons vice here. What are the names of the pics? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here:

Image:Ernest Thompson Seton.jpg

Image:Scouting pioneers.jpg

Image:Walter W Head.jpg                — JGHowes ^talk - 20:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Navboxes

I took on the task of updating our navboxes in category:WikiProject Scouting templates to use the standard {{navbox}}. The navbox template has a lot of options, so I think I did a pretty good job. There is room for a few tweaks:

• Some templates such as {{WorldJamborees}} use the hat icon. This is no big deal, but it throws off text centering when multiple navboxes are used and it is not really apparent as to what the image is at this size, especially for non-Scouts.
• Some templates originally had the links centered, when using the group parameter to create fields on the left side, the centered links looked odd so I returned them to the navbox default of left justify.
• The group parameter simply did not work well with {{Scouts UK Counties}} as the group names were so long.
• The group column does not have a standard width, so using multiple templates as in Polish Scouting and Guiding Association is not particularly aesthetic.

Please let me know what you think on this. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I foresee supporting whatever Gadget wants to do here. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Now, now... there are tradeoffs between a standard look and aesthetics. I really would like input. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Samples of standard looks vs aesthetics please? My old brain is not getting this methinks. ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 03:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's look at what I did:

• I did most of these like {{AfricaScout}}, with a group column on the left and the list of links left justified. Centering the links here just did not look right to me.
• On {{Scouts UK Counties}}, the group names would have been way too long, so I just left them bolded and did a line break to the list.
• Other templates like {{IntlScoutsGuides}} did not have a group name, so I left them centered.
• In all the templates, I replaced | with a {{·}}; this automatically adds a non-breaking space so that line wraps are consistent and you don't get a dot at the beginning of a line; this appears to be the more standard way to do this.

Now that these templates have been converted, further changes are relatively trivial Some possibilities:

• Dump the hat icon as used in a handful of templates like {{Scouts UK Counties}}; it is purely decorative and I really think that most readers will not understand what it is.
• Redo all the templates like {{Scouts UK Counties}} without a group column and center everything- this makes all of the navboxes look the same.
• Some of the original templates had the v·d·e links at the top left and some did not; I kept the original style; this should be made consistent across the line- one way or the other.

So, let me know what you think on this. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I like all three of your ideas. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK- I'm done with this. Now that they use navbox, it will be very easy for anyone to update as needed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have done a test update of {{Scouting}} 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. Leave commens on the template talk page. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Scouting is done and articles are updated. The new template is more flexible- we can add, delete or rearrange groups and the only articles we would have to update are the ones using new groups.

I just found {{AmScoutbystate}}; it was not in Categories: WikiProject Scouting templates. I made only minor changes to this as it uses a different base template that does not allow changes like the other templates. I might come back to this one. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Portal candidates help

I just selected the Feb 2008 portal items. This gets harder every month. It'd be a great help if people would nominate items/articles. To do so, just click on the "candidates" link in each section. Kudos to User:Kingbird who does a great job keeping up the current news section. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll makwe an effort to remember. --evrik ^(talk) 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bronze Wolf hybrid image

• File:Bronze Wolf.jpg:
• 
  hybrid image

A hybrid image has been created so there don't need to be two images of the same badge on the article, is this acceptable? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Love it. Replace where needed. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Scouting in Poland

Oh Thou Ed Gadget the Template God, :) what do you think of standardizing {{Scouting in Poland}} to be horizontal rather than vertical, meant to be placed at the bottom of articles rather than competing with our broader infobox, and standardized with our color scheme? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be very easy to convert to a navbox, but it bears some further thought. Polish Scouting Association is already over-navigated with six navboxes. It looks like {{ZHP}} has most of the links used in {{Scouting in Poland}}. Both have a lot of redlinks in Polish , so I'm not sure what they all mean. Should we convert {{Scouting in Poland}} from an infobox to a navbox as is, try to merge it with {{ZHP}} or create another navbox with the extra info? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, heck! Thank you for pointing that out! That is infobox creep. :( I vote then we merge {{ZHP}} into {{Scouting in Poland}} as someone didn't finish the articles they intended to write, or else they were deleted for notability before our Project came along. Anyway, on the English language Wikipedia, we don't need two like that for Poland or any non-predominantly English-speaking country. I think the Poles just got here the fu'stest with the mostest. I remember three years ago, most example Scouting photos were Polish. That was fine for then, but outside of pl:Wiki, it's really not justified. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Merge{{ZHP}} into {{Scouting in Poland}}-Phips (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Awards and decorations, Anthem and Terminology redlinks can be removed from {{Scouting in Poland}} as unwritten; all redlinks in {{ZHP}} may be removed, and for the three articles that actually exist, replace Hufiec with Szare Szeregi, replace Naczelnik ZHP with Chief Scouts of the Polish Scouting Association (just did a rename), and replace Przewodniczący ZHP with Presidents of the Polish Scouting Association (just did a rename). Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not clear- do we want Scouting in Poland as an infobox (on the side) or navbox (bottom)? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

my vote is bottom, horizontal; as a vertical one, it interferes with our existing infobox, no need for two tall ones. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I did it as a navbox, merged the two, updated the names and removed redlinks. See Template:Scouting in Poland/sandbox. Please edit this as you see fit. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I put back in two notable but as-yet-unwritten national organizations, and the Scout Cross, as it appears to be used by all organizations equally, interestingly. Ready when you want to put it into the regular namespace, I think, and we can AfD the ZHP template. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I did it myself, but now it has a little coding doohickey that shouldn't be there. Help? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean the extra line break and |} that I just fixed? --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't know whether it needed the stuff at the bottom, so I tried to merge the two. Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I would also suggest merging {{Polish scouting ranks}} into our new improved template. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we even need this template? {{Scouting in Poland}} has a link to Polish Scouts rank insignia, which in turn links to each article. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would actually argue (in fact I did a couple of years ago) that all the Polish ranks should be merged back into their parent article, they're stubs and haven't gone anywhere for years. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not drill down to the articles, but you are right. Merge proposed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Should we then also put {{Polish scouting ranks}} up for TfD, or wait until after the merge? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:ZHP

Template:ZHP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Creation of 2 documents on Wikipedia Commons

I propose to create 2 new articles/documents on the Wikipedia Commons (not wikipedia itself); namely "Assembly of a mini survival kit" and "Tying the only knots you'll ever need". The latter would include no more than 8 knots which are helpful in survival situations and in low-tech construction (eg in the developing world). These knots are:

• thedouble overhand knot
• the reef knot
• double sheet bend
• marline hitch
• bowline
• clove hitch
• diagonal lashing
• round lashing

Some examples of the knots described

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashing_%28ropework%29
• http://www.realknots.com/knots/bends.htm
• http://www.realknots.com/knots/stoppers.htm

Example on how the "Assembly of a mini survival kit-article is to look like at Wikipedia Commons" should look like:

• http://www.wikihow.com/Make-an-Improvised-Mini-Survival-Kit

As these documents simplify the knots one should learn to the bare minimum, they are easier to remember/use in situations when they are needed. I am guessing that with these 2 documents, we may do allot of good for the developing world (humanitarian advantage) and help the scouting effort aswell.

Can I get support on this and is it possible the WikiProject Scouting community may undertake action to make the documents ?

Thanks in advance. KVDP (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "documents?" Wikimedia Commons is a "repository of free content images, sound and other multimedia files." If you want to write a how-to on this, I think Wikibooks would be more appropriate. I wikilinked items in your list that have articles—you might want to take a look at those and see how you could improve them. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have the question too, Commons is for images (pictures and sound files). I'm ad admin there too. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikibooks has b:Scouting/Knots and b:Outdoor Survival that you might want to look at. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't understand what you want since you call it document but Commons doesn't have docs. Please be more explicit. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Baden-Powell Peak

As part of the 2007 Centenary, Nepal renamed Urkema Peak in the Himalayas to Baden-Powell Peak. [5] [6] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• Should that go here: List of mountains in Nepal 28.256111°N 85.519444°E / 28.256111; 85.519444? [7] --evrik ^(talk) 19:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

left handshake

On the Spanish Wikipedia, I found this character, translated crudely but in whole: "Prempeh was a head Ashanti that defended his ethnic group from the English invasion in 1893. He was captured and pardoned by Robert Baden-Powell and exiled later. His legacy is the left-handed Scout handshake."

The English Wiki has a space for him at

• Otumfuo Nana Prempeh I 26 March 1888 to 12 May 1931

Does anyone else come up with background on the veracity of this? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I"ve seen various versions of this story. They all center around African warriors using the left hand to hold their shields and to lower it showed they trusted each other. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the same in Walter Hansen (in German):Der Wolf, der nie schläft-Das abenteuerliche Leben des Lord Baden-Powell, published by Herder Freiburg-Basel-Vienna, 1985, p.162 (Gruß, Pfiff und System der kleinen Gruppe) and p.124 (Die Krobos:Geheimbund an der Goldküste). Also there p.126/27 Prepeh became founder member and president of Scouting in Ghana in 1919. The left hanshake was used by the Krobos a special unit of the Ashantis.-Phips (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

And here is another origin story- that B-P copied it from Seton. [8] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we have the seed of an article for Scout handshake! :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:EurScout

Infobox {{EurScout}} is used only in WOSM-Eurasian Region. I suggest we deprecate this in favor of navbox {{EurAsiaScout}}. The image should be reused in the body of the article similar to WOSM-European Region. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I would argue for leaving this particular template as it is, for several reasons:

1. This is the smallest of the regions, so such a template is not obtrusive
2. This is a unique region, as there is no WAGGGS equivalent, and is only used on this one article
3. This is the newest region, and as such is constantly in flux, with nations not only gaining WOSM recognition, but also losing it on two occasions
4. Because of the unique status of the region, this template is an immediate visual representation of conditions as they change, and draw the reader's interest and attention

Just my File:LincolnMemorialCent.jpg. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

UK Scout County/Area articles

Please take a look at some general comments on all these articles that I have written at Talk:The Scout Association#County/Area articles. Comments there are welcome. There are are also issues there that affect similar articles in other parts of the world, but I want to concentrate on the UK at this time. --Bduke (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Scouting Sections Infobox

{{Scouting Sections Infobox}} is currently used in only a handful of articles— {{Infobox WorldScouting}} has been extended to the same functionality. See Template:Infobox WorldScouting/testcases for examples, including how affiliation can be used for the parent section of a sub-section like Young Leaders. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Boyce photos

A mom in my troop grew up in Ottawa, Illinois, where William D. Boyce grew up and is buried. She sent me 7 photos of the grave site and I've put them on commons, see Image:BoyceGrave1.jpg though Image:BoyceGrave7.jpg. I made a category for Boyce on Commons too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

One of your high-importance articles has been prodded

Viz Boy Scout Literature. Anyone care to do something to bring it up to scratch? --Paularblaster (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I put it on out watchlist for a a week with no comments. It is just a list of literature; I have no idea why it is rated as high. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

As you say, it's just a list - and not even a very thorough one (you'll have noticed that I'm not unprodding it), but when I saw that this project had rated it for importance I thought it should be mentioned. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gadget850, At least the ref should be saved, can you move it to the best place and then I'll delete the article. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If you mean :

• Scout Courtesy, Customs and Drills: A manual for Troop and Council Leaders ©1942, Boy Scouts of America, 2 Park Ave, NY, NY (20000342)

I have no idea where we would use it, nor would I use a reference I had not personally read. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll just delete it. Any admin can always retrieve it if we ever need it. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mahdi Scouts again

It has been suggested that this article be removed from our project scope, and I would like to open the discourse to our members for wider input. POV pushers on both sides have finally found Imam al-Mahdi Scouts, I think it should be watchdogged, perhaps locked down tight until we do have all necessary facts, but I do not think removal from our project is in order.

It is precisely because they use the name and symbols that they have to fall under our scope. There have historically been and are now Scout groups, even within WOSM, that abuse the name and heritage, but because they use the name "Scout" and not "Pioneer" or something else, they are still within our purview. Like a tailbone, not sure what really to do with it, but there it is. We don't have to condone it to have it within our scope.

Our mission on our tags says "as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting," of starting to disinclude those distasteful to us if there is evidence that we should not.

My points are these

• They have the outward trappings of Scouts, to include the name itself, the basic uniform and even the fleur-de-lis, which pioneer, Royal Ranger, Boys Brigade et.al. do not
• There are countries, as Randy pointed out to me two years ago, that not only have _miliarist_ WOSM Scouting, but _compulsory_ in many circumstances. Some religions have adopted Scouting as their formal youth movement, and pressure unwilling boys to join anyway, I've heard that since 1981. Things are fishy in our own Denmark, they just stink differently
• Near as Jergen and I have been able to find, if they are not a member of the Lebanese Scout Federation, they _are_ somehow closely aligned.

In short, if there were a Cheeseburger WikiProject, and if some place had something they called a "cheeseburger", but it was goat meat, and hummus instead of ketchup, and came with pickled radishes instead of fries, though that is nauseous, because enough of the basics are there, it should be included because it still has enough of the basics for its parentage to be recognized.

I agree it is a problematic article, but we should keep it under our purview lest those POV pushers claim things in Scouting's name and our Project's name that will blemish us. This way we can still control the content from going POV either direction, because we're the best WP going and we do care about what is out there.

Of course, these are just my views, trying to be impartial, please everyone let us know what you think! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The basic question here is, do they use the Scout method? Or are they more akin to Young Pioneers, Red Falcons and/or Hitler Youth? I don't know. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging from their website [9], the Al-Mahdi-Scouts are a member of the Lebanese Scouting Federation and thus of WOSM. The website actually displays informations on the project Rebirth of the Phoenix, which is the main project of the Lebanese federation [10]. Pictures on the Al-Mahdi-site include one [11] of Atif Abdelmageed, director of the Arab Regional Office.

The structures of the Lebanese federation are quite complicated. I tried to get some information on this during the WSJ last summer, but did not get something real. There seems to be a number of subfederations organizing their membership following their own rules. The total number of member organizations of the LSF is about 20. --jergen (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Imam al-Mahdi Scouts does not make it clear that they are members of the Lebanese Scouting Federation; the LSF article has IMS as a See also link. If the IMS is a verifiable member of the LSF and the LSF is a WOSM member, then they are certainly within our scope. If this can't be verified, but there is reason for belief, then the article should state this more clearly; the article is within our scope on a "monitor" basis. If it can be shown that the IMS is not a member of a recognized federation, then given their political and military related programs, I would classify the IMS as a rogue Scouting organization outside our scope. Even then, we should monitor the article and the group. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Gadget850 and Rlevse are correct, we need to find out better, if possible, just what the nature and affiliation of this organization is. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

just found this...

Take a look at The Dangerous Book for Boys, and let nobody tell you Scoutcraft and ideals are irrelevant in the 21st Century. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I gave this to my 14-year old nephew for Christmas. He found it quite fascinating, especially when he found the section on dating. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 09:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this pertinent enought to Scouting to tag it? Have not previously heard of this book. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a Scouting book, but any young Scout would enjoy it. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thinking Day

Hello tomorrow is World Thinking Day or just Thinking Day, so I send my Greetings to you all out there in the whole world as a brother scout. With the best wishes for you, your family and your Scout group

Yours in Worldwide Brotherhood and Scouting-Phips (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, to all! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Scout Green

I would love to know how this one got its name. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I know where it is and have seen it from the M6 going over Shap as it is between the carriageways as the article says. I have no idea why it is so named but it might be due to scouts in the English or Scottish armies, as it is one of the areas they fought over. It would be nice if the article had some references. --Bduke (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

image deletionists again, aargh...

Image:ZR250MillionScouts.jpg has been listed for deletion. Please visit Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 25#Image:ZR250MillionScouts.jpg and vote against the deletion of this image. This image was placed in the article specifically to show that an image was taken during a specific less-than-a-year period in which the nation was known as Zimbabwe Rhodesia from June 1 to December 12, 1979, preceded by Rhodesia and followed by Zimbabwe, and as such cannot be replaced. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention, 'cause I would have missed it. It should be a Speedy Keep and I've added my 2 cents worth at the deletion discussion. JGHowes ^talk - 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you JG, glad everyone sees why this one is important! :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed "Top" Importance articles

I'm proposing that we take a look at the importance assessments of certain articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Assessment#Proposed update of Importance ratings. JGHowes ^talk - 20:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AH, I encourage anyone interested to particiapate. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

template creep

Do we really need {{GSLAC Camp System}}? In the long run these damn camp articles are just going to be more and more problematic. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WOSM

Will someone please keep an eye on, perhaps lock WOSM, the acronym? The disambig doesn't apparently suffice for some, so it keeps getting changed back from the redirect to our article. It is far more important than the radio station in Mississippi. Thanks Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ireland

Would someone knowledgeable look at Sea Scout (Ireland) and see what images should be retained? The images have no source and are incorrectly licensed, but some should probably not be used. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Scouting userbox MfD

Just thought you should be aware of this userbox up for deletion since it's categorized under scouting users: CFIREUSA MfD. Dreadstar † 22:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Boy Scout Handbook image

I took the new hazardous weather course offered online by the BSA.[12] When I get to the hypothermia section, I noticed a familiar image— the ripple in the cover is unique.[13] Compare it to Image:Handbook.jpg. I checked with Scoutersig and verified that he had scanned the handbook image at home and uploaded it. Looks like we are starting to get noticed. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Dragonskin

Dragonskin is a Venture Scout activity in New South Wales. User:Francis.conroy wrote an article on it at the end of Dragon Skin, which is a disambiguation page. I removed it from there and added it to his talk page, where I also suggested a much contracted rewrite free of POV, that might be added to Scouting in New South Wales. Please keep an eye on it. --Bduke (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cabals

You BSA guys have made it at the Boy Scouts Cabal. Us non-USA folks do not get a look in. I'll have to be content with the Australian Cabal. --Bduke (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange that the Jews aren't on there, I mean, they did sink the Titanic... Iceberg-think about it. Oy, vey! :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

<groan> But the Australian Cabal doesn't mention vegemite, Foster's, Mel Gibson or The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, vegemite! How to get that here? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't stand the stuff. BTW, do not think we all drink Foster's. It is brewed overseas for overseas folks. You hardly ever see a Blue Tin here. Now a Green Tin, that's different. --Bduke (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What does the green one signify? If you'll go ahead and send me your ration of vegemite... hey, since Japan is closer, maybe I can put in a request... :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It was in the Northern Territory that we ordered beer by the colour of the tin. A Green Tin or if 24, a slab of greenies, is a VB = Victoria Bitter. It is one of the better cheaper beers.

Gadget850, is there a userbox for the Boy Scout Cabal? JGHowes ^talk - 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This user is a member of the Boy Scout Cabal and is experienced at tying up discussions and truculent users.

For personal amusement only. Anyone stuffing this into the userbox list is going to get the Scout Stave of Justice administered. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Recently found articles

I've been adding them one or two at a time as I've been finding them, but today I took a look at all the biographies of astronauts here, and there are quite a few that are not tagged. When I get done tagging, should I add them to the section on the project main-page, or should I just list them here, because there is at least 10. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's the list, feel free to move it to the project page if you see fit:

• Gordon Cooper - Life Scout
• William Anders - Life Scout
• Buzz Aldrin - Tenderfoot
• Edgar Mitchell - Life Scout
• Gerald P. Carr - Eagle Scout & DESA recipient
• John M. Fabian - Life Scout
• James van Hoften - Life Scout
• Guy Gardner - Life Scout
• Stephen S. Oswald - Eagle Scout & DESA recipient
• William G. Gregory - Eagle Scout
• Gregory Chamitoff - Eagle Scout
• Charles Duke - Eagle Scout

-MBK₀₀₄ 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we really want to tag all of these folks with only a passing relationship to Scouting? For example; Buzz Aldrin was a Tenderfoot but does not appear to have done anything with Scout since. Those with the DESA, Silver Buffalo or the like should be included. I think it would be better to create a List of astronauts who were Scouts. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Eagles (at least) are notable because of List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America), and they can be referenced from existing refs on that page. As for the others, I'm not sure, I just do the gnome-type tasks and tag them. I'll leave policy up to you and Rlevse. Also, I didn't tag Harrison Schmitt because he was only a 1st class scout, and it isn't mentioned on that page, but it is on a ref I've read and mentioned above. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Ed's on to something. Support creation. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support creation, but also think the individual tagging is justified. Also, the BSA and NASA have made our job of creating the page easy: Astronauts and the BSA. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And here is the GSUSA list. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, _where's_ the Girl Scout list? There's no link. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooops- [14] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I support creation of a List of astronauts who were Scouts (which include the Girl Scouts). I am working on tagging the Eagle Scouts and but references about their involvement in the articles. Some help would be nice. If I rated to low just change the ratings.-Yours in Scouting Phips (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"First-Ever National Eagle Scout Search"

I don't really know what they are doing with this, but NESA is sending out a mass-mailer this last week. It looks like they will be planning to publish a registry of some sort. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes- see NESA Eagle Scout Search. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Scouts in Poland

I'm looking at this list and thinking, is there any reason we are keeping the redlinks with no explanation on them, or may I delete them and snug this up? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Was bold, did it, merged into parent article. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Gadgets

Various tools keep quietly appearing under My Preferences > Gadgets. Some that I recommend enabling:

• Twinkle— a really great set of anti-vandalism and maintenance tools.
• Friendly— adds tabs for welcome, shared IP, tag and so forth.

If you do a lot of image work, I also recommend:

• FURMe— a tool that helps with fair use rationales in a "fill in the blank" approach.

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Today's featured article-E. Urner Goodman

:-) I´m happy about that.-Phips (talk) 15:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

general question

is there a "move from Commons" tag, for images which are not appropriate there but which can be fairly used on the English Wikipedia? I am trying to save some images which were put on Commons but have no business there. Thanks. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Reload it on en.wiki if it's FU. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

TCOd, thanks! :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, now that I have, I find there is a not-quite-duplicated image I uploaded some time ago.

• 
  graphic image saved from Commons:
• 
  photograph of badge, right coloring

Should we keep both, or choose one? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

GSUSA megamerges

Today I went to go check a local Girl Scout website, and it redirected me thus: "Thank you for visiting the Girl Scouts of Colorado, Western Slope Service Center website. As of October 1, 2007, we are joined together with our sister Girl Scouts from the state as one Girl Scouts of Colorado council, where we will build girls of courage, confidence and character who make the world a better place. To learn more about Girl Scouting on the Western Slope, please visit our new website at www.girlscoutsofcolorado.org." After I got over the mild diabetic shock from the writing style, ;) I wondered. Are such state-wide mergers going on throughout the GSUSA, and where would all this be documented? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Girl Scouts of the USA#Organizational structure: "As part of the 26 August 2006 reorganization, the National Board of Directors decided to restructure the 312 councils into 109 councils." --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WOSM applicants

WOSM is considering the applications of four NSOs:

• National Association of Cambodian Scouts [15]
• Scouts of Syria [16]
• National Organization of Scouts of Ukraine [17]
• Association of Scouts of Montenegro [18]

--— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks interesting.

National Organization of Scouts of Ukraine: Who is SICH? Which organisation is this? Is this organisation already included in our article Scouting in Ukraine? Yours in Scouting-Phips (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(SICH may not actually be an acronym, it seems to point here: Ukrainian Sich Riflemen) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Sich" seems to mean "fortified settlement", maybe it is something like the German Stamm (tribe) concept.--Egel _Reaction? 14:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

From the reference:

National Organization of Scouts of Ukraine (NOSU)
Following the recommendations of Resolution 2/05 adopted by the 37th World Scout Conference in Tunisia, the constitutive congress of the National Organization of Scouts of Ukraine (NOSU) was held on 27 March 2007. The congress, which gathered Scout representatives from most regions of Ukraine, approved the Constitution of NOSU and elected its governing bodies. This event was made possible thanks to efforts of three Scout associations (PLAST, SPOK and SICH) to work towards unification of Scouting in Ukraine in a new single NSO so as to be able to join WOSM.

It is not quite clear to me if PLAST, SPOK and SICH are actually merging or are forming a federation. The document also references the WP article on Ukraine. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I understand, NOSU has actually both individual and corporate membership with PLAST, SPOK and SICH as corporate members, so it is kind of a mixture between a federation and a single organization. But the paper is not very clear on this point. If I was to decide in my association I would request a clarification.

I wonder if Ukraine will be admitted with this presentation; five percent opposition means only eight NSOs. Could also be tricky for Syria, there may be doubts on its independence when receiving state fundings. --jergen (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Updates-Montenegro

• WOSM referred to this organization as the Scout Association of Serbia and Montenegro
• The organization split after the separation of Montenegro from Serbia
• WOSM membership remained with the Serbia organization
• Association of Scouts of Montenegro was founded on 19 November 2006

Reference: [19] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Right now we have Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore, Savez Izviđača Srbije and Savez Izviđača Crne Gore. I calved the Serb one off the S&M (no, stop that) one two years ago. If we should integrate, would someone with a good eye make sure all changes are included for that period? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Headings

Is there a reason why three of the major headings on the main project page are Computer Science, Relational algebra, and Economics? Why is "New Scouting Articles" a subsection of "Economics"? Why the disambig page tag floating in the middle of what is clearly not a disambig page? Did I miss something? Kingbird (talk) 04:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like someone added something we didn't catch...-MBK₀₀₄ 04:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris changed a template, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Scouting%2FArticle_watchlist&diff=202701781&oldid=202682388, and inadvertently caused this. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Scouts Canada

Someone who knows more about the situation in Canada needs to keep an eye on this article. I reverted an anon's continued removal of materials, and semi-protected to get discussion on the talk page. It looks like the anon has come back using a little used username, but he is explaining his changes. However sources are needed. --Bduke (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have a long term member from Canada, but hopefully one will appear. Has the user engaged in talk? If it continues the page may need full protection. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It is looking OK now so I have removed the semi-protection. The new editor is commenting fine on the talk page. --Bduke (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Bhutan Scout Tshogpa article

This article dealing with the Bhutan Scout Association has some POV problems which needs to be sorted out. As Bhutan is an independent sovereign nation, the sections on scouting in Tibet and Sikkim should be removed from this article, and placed within the respective Chinese and Indian scouting articles. The inclusion of Tibet on this article is especially troubling, due not only to it being unreferenced, but also because the PRC, with which Bhutan does not have any diplomatic relations, has embarked on a campaign to have Dzongkha renamed by firms such as Microsoft to 'Tibetan - Bhutanese' - whilst Bhutan and Tibet share similar cultures, they are different and distinct cultures all the same. Additionally, due to a border dispute between Bhutan and China, and the lack of formal diplomatic relations between the two, the Chinese actively lead incursions into Bhutan and build roads and the like in Bhutanese territory. Having Tibet and Sikkim on the Bhutan page is opening a big can of worms which I don't believe that Wikipedia should be opening, and hence they should be split out of the article altogether. On another note, the Bhutan Scouts Association as it is officially known (English is an official language of Bhutan) is overseen by the Scouts and Cultural Education Division of the Department of Youth, Culture and Sports, which comes under the umbrella of the Ministry of Education. The BSA has an online presence at http://www.education.gov.bt, with the specific pages at http://www.education.gov.bt/Departments/Dept_YCS/SCED/SCED.html, with a multitude of information, including various handbooks and guides which might be beneficial for this project and development of the Bhutan SA page. Note, the association page on the page is incorrect, the correct badge can be seen in documents such as the scoutmaster handbook which can be downloaded from their site. Anyway, if someone from within the project can look at the Tibet and Sikkim issue, and make any necessary changes; not being familiar with the setup of scout articles on WP, I am hesitant to do it myself. --Россавиа ^Диалог 10:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I intentionally put Tibet and Sikkim there, as just as politically and culturally, if they had gone into the separate Chinese and Indian articles, they would have gotten buried or trashed by the persistent Chinese POV pushers. This article is a fine incubator for such sections, as three related cultures, and I am not inclined to move or rewrite as I seem to be the near-only contributor (and nearly only visitor) to that article. There are far vaster POV issues elsewhere to deal with. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The source at http://www.education.gov.bt/Departments/Dept_YCS/SCED/SCED.html contains valuable material that should be included.
2. The illustrations are too bad to be used. I prefer a slightly differing emblem which has been published by the WOSM in a good quality to bad jpgs.
3. I do not understand why Tibet and Sikkim are included, especially as both paragraphs are mere speculation.
4. As English is an official language in Bhutan the article should be moved to Bhutan Scout Association. --jergen (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want to keep the parts together, better rename to Scouting in the Himalayas. --Egel _Reaction? 09:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the official Bhutan site, it's Bhutan Scouts Association - with the 's', not "Scout" (without the 's'), so I've made the rename. I also think including Tibet and Sikkim is off the track. My suggestion to Chris is to take Egel's suggestion and make a topical article with the name Egel suggested or a similar name, leaving the Bhutan article strictly dealing with Bhutan. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am a little surprised at the reply from Chris above, so I have made the decision to move the sections dealing with Tibet and Sikkim to the Chinese and Indian articles respectively. This stops the Bhutan article from being POV in this regard; if there is POV in the Chinese article, this is not reason to dump it in the Bhutan article, for the reasons I mentioned above. One thing I did forget to mention is that the Chinese government has done what they have done to Bhutan due to the ridiculous claim that Bhutan has territorial designs on Tibet (an incredulous claim considering Bhutan is still emerging from isolation, and doesn't have the ability to defend itself against Chinese incursions). I also removed speculation of Bhutan being involved in Tibet for 2 main reasons; 1) It is assuming that Tibet will (or is going) to gain independence from China, or that China will allow scouting in Tibet with outside assistance and 2) scouting in Bhutan is run under the Bhutan Ministry of Education, and whilst it comes under govermment, the Bhutan MoE is run on a tight budget as it is (with the country as a whole being a recipient of foreign development aid) and what money the Ministry does have would likely be spent on projects within Bhutan first. Whilst there may be more important POV issues to deal with, articles dealing with Bhutan are the poster child of why WP:BIAS was set up. I see that Rlevse has moved the article, thanks, the old name seemed somewhat problematic to me; not knowing Dzongkha, this is guestimation on my part, but Bhutan Scout Tshogpa is part Dzongkha-part English, and it most likely is not known as Bhutan Scout Tshogpa in Dzongkha - tshopga seems to mean party, group, and probably also association - the Dzongkha word for Bhutan is Druk Yul (commonly abbreviated to simply Druk in some settings, so the transliterated name would likely be 'Druk (whatever the Dzongkha word for Scouts is) Tshogpa'. In regards to images in the article, perhaps contact with the BSA on the email listed on the website (ygcdhead@druknet.bt) would be beneficial; it is my experience the Bhutanese are more than happy to answer questions and will go the extra yard to assist in matters such as this (just going by my own experience in researching the Drukair article which I am currently redoing and expanding). --Россавиа ^Диалог 11:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the changes and now deletions over the last two days, and some people are just busybodies. >:^{ Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. --jergen (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Chris, keep it cool. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There was no proper discussion, there were pronouncements and then everyone did what they wanted to do. It's hard enough to find good information about most of these smaller countries, and often I am the only one who adds any content. I work very hard on these, please explain why I should be civil to such editors. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of {{Asia topic}} and {{Europe topic}} etc. in Scouting articles

Is this really necessary and helpful? Chris included the template in the respective Asian and European articles yesterday (or created the necessary redirects), but I'm not quite sure if I'm happy with it: Most of the articles are mere disambiguitions (as Scouting in Austria or Scouting in Armenia) and are blown up by the template. --jergen (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I put them there because I find it useful to have links between the "Scouting in..." articles, right now the only ones linked one to another are the WOSM and WAGGGS specific articles, but there is nothing to tie the non-aligned or alternately-aligned organizations. How are you meaning "blown up"? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

With "Blown up" I ment pages with only three or four lines and (now) an infobox that's far bigger than the article itself (as in Scouting in Albania). --jergen (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can think of a way to close them, I would be happy to work with you on them. I just think it is a useful way of linking them. I found one untagged, and am going through them now as another graphic editor has offered cleanup on some of our images. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You can use {{Europe topic|Scouting in|state=collapsed}} etc. --Egel _Reaction? 08:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Splendid! Thank you! I will go back over them! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

refToolbar

• refToolbar will add a "cite" button to the right side of the editing toolbar for citation templates. Can be enabled from Special:Preferences > Gadgets. Allows "fill in the blank" editing for references. — Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

COOL! — Rlevse • Talk • 01:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is excellent! Now when I actually get back to writing articles, this will come in handy. :) -MBK₀₀₄ 21:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OA and wikilinks

Did you know that Chingachgook and Uncas have articles? I doubt that they deserve to be part of the Scouting WP, but should there be any linking between them and other OA pages? —ScouterSig 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if the OA article refers to them as there literary characters and not as OA roles. My two cents. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability for Local council camps of the BSA

See Category talk:Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America#notablity

Is there a standard, guideline or policy for gauging the notability of a local council camp? What is the minimal standard needed for a local council camp to be considered notable? Or are all local council camps just inheriantly notable? I tagged many articles for lacking of assertion of notability and/or lack of citing sources. I'm not saying these camps are not a notable subjects, but many of these articles (as they are written now) don't show or explain any notability. What makes a camp notable? ScoutCruft (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm comfortable discussing this with a single-purpose-account user with a negative username that was created less than a day ago. Watch for sockpuppets. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you noticed the edits by User:R00m c? --evrik ^(talk) 19:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a vaid question that should be addressed, reguardless of who is asking it and whatever you may assume about them. I would like nothing more than to see these articles flourish, prosper and become quality encyclopedic articles. I would love to see the coverage of individual scout camps grow and become even better. I would like to spend time expanding the articles in this category and I also want to create some new articles covering other local camps that are not yet covered here -- but before I do all this I want to make sure my efforts won't be in vein. Before I spend a lot of time working on cleaning-up and expanding articles, I want to know that my work won't be for nothing because the articles will eventualy be deleted for not meeting Wikipedia's standards of notability. So I ask again... What makes a camp notable? -- ScoutCruft (talk) 05:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I know little of the BSA situation in the USA, but here is a view from outside. In the UK there are articles for the four Scout Activity Centres. I think all other camp sites are only mentioned in articles on Scout Counties or Areas. In Australia I do not think there are any stand-alone articles. Camp sites are mentioned in the State and Territory articles. I have no thoughts on how you organise it in the USA. I thought you might like this information however. --Bduke (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A similar question periodically arises concerning notability of local churches and middle schools etc. per WP:ORG. Having participated a little in AfD's about those subjects, I'd say that most articles about Scout camps are unlikely to have the required reliable sources to pass WP:N and would need to assert special notability. Even a very prominent Council camp such as New York's Ten Mile River Boy Scout Camp, which certainly has special notability because of Franklin D. Roosevelt's involvement, doesn't have a whole lot of secondary reliable sources. As to a "standard guideline for Scout camps", we have WP:SCOUTMOS#Non-national articles.JGHowes ^talk - 19:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would disagree. Notability is a subjective thing. The fact is, all the information in these camp articles can't be rolled up into the state articles. That would make the state articles too unwieldy. The camp information is important, and I think it's preferable to have them there, even if in a linited form. I prefer to see all the "cruft" trimmed out. --evrik ^(talk) 19:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jim Howes, notability standards exist throughout Wikipedia, and apply to our project as much as they do to others, hence our standards have been aligned to WP:ORG. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SCOUTMOS says in part... "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included."

And:

"Local chapter articles should start as a section of the parent organization article. If the parent article grows to the point where it may be split to a new article, and notability can be demonstrated using the general notability guideline, then it can be split."

If these articles can't stand on their own, they should roll into the council article or secondarily the state article. Cruft definitely needs to come out. Everyone wants to write about their favorite camp, but no one works much on the state and council articles; which is a separate issue, albeit related. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to add a further comment and a question from outside the USA. How big are the Councils? I have taken the view that we go to one level of organisation below national. In Australia that is the State or Territory. This has lead to some reasonable articles, even for the Australian Capital Territory, although the very small Territories are a problem. In the UK, the Counties in England and Areas in Scotland and Wales are too small and there are too many. There are 7 in Northern Ireland, 12 in Wales, 31 in Scotland and 57 in England. This is far too many with the population covered being far too small. This leads to these articles being full of unsourced cruft; lists of Groups etc. Scotland has just reorganized to 7 regions and I am planning to merge the 31 Areas into 7 Region articles. In fact I have one in my sandbox when I get around to adding it. Unfortunately we do not seem to have any Project members from Scotland. The experience is that small levels of organization attract cruft. I intend in the process to remove the lists of Groups, etc. However, I am also adding them to the Scoutwiki with the lists. That is the place for them. I am probably going to need some support when I start wholesale removal of cruft. --Bduke (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe BSA has about 500 councils. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Within the BSA, National has four areas, then 308 councils. Within those councils are 307 OA lodges and over 500 local camps. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a council list at User:Gadget850/Scout2. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This seems to put the USA Councils as about the same size as UK Counties/Areas or perhaps a bit larger. You may well attract the same kind of cruft that the UK articles attract, although you may have more editors watching them. The UK articles are hardly watched, but just attract edits from anons and others with an interest in only one of them. --Bduke (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

off-topic but near-topic ;)

My father finally found the Christmas present he had for me, and it was actually pretty neat, a 1920s-1930s Eagle Scout ribbon, plus what we found may be an old BSA silver Scout hat badge. Are you folks familiar with the large old brass First Class badges? It looks like that, it was tarnished almost burnt-looking, he test-cleaned the back and it is silver, and he just lightly polished the front. Two questions-

1. did you even know such a thing existed? I did not.
2. should we clean the front or leave the age patina on? Are there rules like there are for coins?

Thanks, folks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think hat pins have been around from the start. Collar pins were used up to the 1960s. Some good info: [20] I like the current pewter hat pin— I use it on my comfy summer straw hat. [21] A new pin was just introduced for Venturing. [22] --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Deletionpedia

Looking for information from that deleted article? Check out Deletionpedia. --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins can pull up the entire history of a deleted article or page, unless it's been oversighted. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

New Scotland Regions

I have started the process of merging the old area articles in Scotland to a smaller number of articles for the new Regions. See a longer discussion about it at Talk:The Scout Association#New Scotland Regions. Help is very much needed. I started that one new article on a sandbox weeks ago, and created the new articles and all the redirects today. --Bduke (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a little help

I'm trying to improve the Jamboree 2008 (Ireland) article, can anyone tell me the appropriate infobox to use, is there an infobox for Jamborees, much appreciated.Seanor3 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Template:Infobox WorldScouting with type= event --Egel _Reaction? 18:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• I added the template for you, and copy-edited the article a bit. Go ahead and add more info/references, and have a nice camp too. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC).
• Thanks for the help! Seanor3 (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Tobasco Donkeys

If you have information to add to The Tobasco Donkeys, it is currently nominated for deletion, and at the moment, it meets the criteria for deletion for bands. —ScouterSig 14:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Exported to http://en.scoutwiki.org/The_Tobasco_Donkeys --— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The situation about keeping the license trail on ScoutWiki is confused but I think you have to do more than your did. There is a page somewhere that says you have to give the link to the version number in the edit summary on SW. You go to "Permanant link" of the left column of the WP article and click on "Copy Link Location". The admin on ScoutWiki seems to think you should add {{From Wikipedia}} to the talk page and that is all that is needed. I do both. I have added the version and the template to the talk page. --Bduke (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Country templates

What is the view about the recent bold changes to country templates such as Template:Scouts UK Counties, Template:InteramericanScout and many others by User:Fred Bradstadt. See the question I raised at User talk:Fred Bradstadt#Scout country templates. --Bduke (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't like them either. There's a lot of wasted space in them. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of the mentioned templates – and most of the other Scout templates I edited – have actually decreased in vertical size after being edited (except when using a very small browser window). –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 11:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The wasted space is in the left on the new one and you should have brought this up before making wholesale changes. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold too and placed some extra linebreaks in Template:Scouts UK Counties. Is it better this way? --Egel _Reaction? 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Scouts UK Counties}} was 167 mm high on Bduke's last edit, Fred Bradstadt made it 162 mm, then Egel made it 178 mm. Results will vary with screen and window sizes.

When I converted these to {{navbox}}, I looked at using groups, but it is ugly when some of the navboxes are stacked and the group columns are different widths. See Polish Scouting Association and show all the navboxes for example. We since defaulted most of these to autocollapsed.

Looking at the navbox template, we could set the groupstyle and liststyle so that the group column is the same width on all of the templates.

--— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Gadget makes good points. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody want to do something here, or are we just going to drop it? LEt me know and I'll make it happen. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Implement your plan. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

On {{Scouts UK Counties}}, I agree that there is too much text in the last 2 groups. I hoped that someone more knowledgeable on scouting could shorten it down a bit. Otherwise, I have no problem with keeping the templates as they are – but I’m also not gonna protest an implementation of the Gadget850’s proposal. –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see any virtue in the changes made by Fred Bradstadt. In particular for {{Scouts UK Counties}} I would like to see it reverted back to what, as it happens, was my last version after I started the process of changing the Scotland articles. --Bduke (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Gadget850's proposal. JGHowes ^talk - 01:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is clearly to undo Fred's changes and to accept Gadget's proposal. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted Fred's changes per this talk and am ok with Gadget850's changes. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My proposal was to basically keep Fred's changes but make the groupcolumn on the left a consistent width on all of the templates. Bduke had objections to the change to groupstyle, so I was waiting to see where this was going. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That was also my interpretation of your proposal. I was a bit disappointed to see all my edits reverted “per talk at WT:SCOUT”… I’d prefer that 1) the text for the last group parameters of {{Scouts UK Counties}} is shortened, and that 2) the groupstyle parameter on all the templates in question is set to a specific width. –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, looks like group confusion here. Can you take one of the templates, make a sample of each proposal, and then we can see them? Just a thought. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Start afresh

Let's start afresh and reach a consensus here. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept the proposal by User:Gadget850 to have the group columns a uniform size. However, the reduction of the amount of text in the left column in {{Scouts UK Counties}} is unclear and this raises another issue. The heading is "Scouting in the United Kingdom". It is nothing of the sort. It does not cover traditional Scouts or Guides. It is about the Scout Association. If the heading was changed to "The Scout Association", the reduced wording would be clear. --Bduke (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts as well, especially since {{Scouting}} has a section for "Scouting in the United Kingdom" (which needs reorganizing). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I can support this. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I did three templates. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Templates/Navbox and check out Scouts Canada, Scouting in Canada and Scouting in the United Kingdom. Lets get these tweaked before we go any further. I also added a state parameter so that they can be set to collapsed or expanded as needed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The group column is a bit wider (48mm instead of 45mm) in "Scouting in the United Kingdom" because "Non-sovereign territories" doesn't fit in the standard width. So there must be a break in long groupnames or the group column must be wider. --Egel _Reaction? 10:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You added a break to shorten the line. Groupstyle now sets the column to a fixed width, so I changed it from 13em to 10em to accommodate. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And the UK is wider than Canada again. I think it depends on the bowser: in Opera the UK and Canada have the same width and in Mozilla the UK is wider because the longest groupname doesn't fit in the standard width. I think we mustn't try to have a tied fit, but to give it a bit "moving" space, so I changed it from 10em to 12em to accommodate --Egel _Reaction? 22:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The column width is going to be a compromise that we can work out. Look at the navboxes for Scouts Canada— they are now all consistent. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I like this. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it too. Though already, the navboxes for Scouts Canada aren’t the same size anymore – 2 of them got change to 12em while the 3rd still is 10em. But when they were the same size, they looked great. –Fred Bradstadt (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Scouts Canada. Again, we may need more tweaking as this goes on. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I have consulted with another editor - outside of Scouting - on the Scouting In Counties pages. Assuming good faith, I'm afraid that I cannot see that these new sites fit in with Wikipedia as they appear effectively nothing more than a list of branches of The Scout Association. For further information on this please see the section Wikipedia is not a soapbox on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, notably the section on advertising. Even before they were amended, when open to Groups of all Associations, these pages were of suspect standard, and closing them to independent Groups has not helped in any way.

I suggest returning them to their original format, a new format that allows all Scouting in a County to be reported, or, alternatively, deleted as inappropriate. -- DiverScout (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This really belongs in the related discussion below. No article should contain lists of groups or units (discussed below) and the plan is to do away with these and develop full and proper articles. Dividing countries into their geopolitical regions (states, counties, etc.) was a good idea at the time, but I consider it a failure. The county and state articles were supposed to act as incubators to expand on and then split, but have mainly attracted cruft and were definitely problematic— they need to be fixed or deleted, and we are working on a fix. Please review the structure changes and the comments below and help us come to a proper solution. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ranks

I was trying to make some userboxes that showed what rank a user was, but I couldn't find any pics of the rank badges. I will try to upload some stuff to the commons, but I would like everyone to help out. Thanks! Wyatt915

Rank badges are copyrighted and Fair Use, so not eligible for commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And you can't use non-free images in userboxes. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes for a full explanation and a list of current userboxes. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Template maintenance

While looking at the templates, there are some other things that need to be done:

• {{Polish scouting ranks}}: delete; template is unused and all links redirect to the same page since we merged all the articles

Y Put up for TfD.

* WOSM regions templates: retitle from "Members of the xxx Scout Region" to "xxx Scout Region of the World Organization of the Scout Movement"

Y Done

• WAGGS templates:
  • Retitle from "Members of the xxx Region of WAGGGS" to "xxx Scout Region of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts"
  • Change "Countries working towards WAGGGS" to "Potential members"; shorter and consistent with WOSM templates

Y Done

• {{Scouts Canada}}: SCOUT eh! is not part of Scouts Canada; Toronto Police Service Rover Crew is a local unit.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not with you on the proposals for the WAGGGS templates:

• Both "Countries working towards WAGGGS" and "Potential members" (of WOSM) are defined by the respective worldwide organization and not interchangeable. There is no possibility to reach consistency when speaking of different facts.
• It is very insensible to propose a renaming in "...Scout region ...". Only WOSM has Scout regions, WAGGGS has a totally different structure (and speaks always of "Girl Guides and Girl Scouts").

I also oppose the renaming of the WOSM templates. None of the templates defines the respective region, they only list the member (and non-member) countries. --jergen (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Please revert your changes immediatly as there is no consensus. --20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

All templates rolled back. Project abandoned. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to abandon the project completely - but there was also no need to put matters forward without discussion. Especially when the creator of the templates is regularly active and contributing.

I appreciate the idea of a consistent style and I'm - at the same time - against the changes in the wording:

• I just had a look around, eg at Template:Members of the European Union (EU) and Template:Arab League: There is actually no consistent naming for these templates but I'd prefer the style used on the EU-template: Member organizations of the NN Region of WAGGGS/WOSM. In my eyes this is more helpful to the readers, because it says clearly the the links lead to articles on organizations and not on countries.
• Concerning Potential members and Countries working towards WAGGGS: WOSM just lists all countries with one or more known independent Scout movement and does not set any standards for listing them, while Working towards WAGGGS is an official status with WAGGGS and can also be revoked. That are real differences that should also show up in the templates. --jergen (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct and I apologize. Too many frustrations at once and I blew some steam in the wrong place. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Done the less-controversial changes. Now you can do the more controversial ones. I have only renamed "Scouting in Australia" to "Scouts Australia". --Egel _Reaction? 14:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Structural changes

We have discussed this in depth, now it is time to make some decisions on structure and levels. My proposals:

• Definitions
  • National Scouting organization (NSO): An organization that delivers a particular program within the broad outlines of the Scouting movement.
  • Sections are membership divisions within an NSO, usually defined by age or specialty.
  • Unit: The group of an NSO that delivers Scouting directly to youth.
  • Federation: A group of NSOs, generally formed within a country or political union; often formed to present a single group for representation in an affiliate that recognizes only one NSO within a country or political union
  • Affiliate: A supra-national umbrella group of NSOs and federations.

• General
  • Each article must show notability on its own.
  • Each NSO must be given equal weight, regardless of size or representation.

• Scouting affiliates and federations
  • Each affiliate or federation may have an article. Articles should include a list of all of the affiliated NSOs or federations thereof; long lists may be in a subarticle.
  • Each affiliate or federation may have articles on the top level operational sub-organizations and geopolitical sub-regions.

• NSOs
  • Each NSO may have an article
  • Each NSO may have subarticles on sections, national camps and other national level subgroups.
  • Each NSO may have subarticles on operational regions one level from the national organization; there will be no lower level articles. Example: The BSA may have council articles that includes districts, lodges and camps, but no articles on districts, lodges and camps.
  • NSO articles will not try to cover other NSOs.
  • Units should not have articles.

• Scouting by country or political union
  • Each country or political union shall have an article outlining the various NSOs, federations and related organizations; if there is only one NSO in a country, then the article shall be on the NSO and "Scouting in country" will redirect to the NSO; the article will state that there are no other NSOs.
  • There will be no articles on geopolitical sub-regions. Example: No articles on U.S. states or UK political counties.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please give examples for each of your proposals? I am not sure if my English is to bad to understand your ideas or if I just cannot see the background.

In special I have problems with the points "Scouting by federation" and "Scouting by NSO": If I understand these right, you are proposing ("Scouting by federation") to merge Bund der Pfadfinderinnen und Pfadfinder, Deutsche Pfadfinderschaft Sankt Georg and Verband Christlicher Pfadfinderinnen und Pfadfinder into Ring Deutscher Pfadfinderverbände, but we should likewise have ("Scouting by NSO") 12 different articles for the 12 German members of WFIS who do not form a federation. That seems quite strange to me: The three organizations put up for merger have 30,000 to 95,000 individual members (and are thus notable as association on their own), while the twelve WFIS' organizations have less then 4,000 members altogether (and onbly one is perhaps notable). --jergen (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing that the NSOs within Ring deutscher Pfadfinderverbände or any federation be merged. All articles follow standard policies and guidelines, especially notability. If a federation consists of NSOs that are essentially local units, then they probably do not meet notability. What I am proposing is that:

• We can have afilliations articles (WOSM, WAGGS, WFIS, etc), we can have federation articles (Ring deutscher Pfadfinderverbände, Ring Deutscher Pfadfinderinnenverbände) and we can have NSO articles as long as each meets notability. This is not a change, but is included as part of the overall structure.
• We do away with geopolitical sub-regions of a country that try to cover all of the types of Scouting in the region. We replace these with one and only one sub-level of the NSO. This mainly applies to the BSA and TSA articles, the German-related articles have never been by länder. This is the big change.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"There will be no articles on geopolitical sub-regions; this includes US states, UK counties, Canadian provinces and territories, Australian territories and the like". Are you really saying that these hundreds of articles should be deleted? If not, what criteria do you have for inclusion? My own view, which I thought had consensus, was that articles for levels of organizations one below national for large associations would contain material that was notable. Of course many of them need cleaning up and lists of Troops/Groups/Units need removing (they need removing from some country articles like Singapore also). Please clarify, Ed. --Bduke (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

UK counties as a geopolitical region, not TSA Scout counties as a national sublevel; BSA councils instead of Scouting by state. Articles by geopolitical region artificially shove different NSOs together (BSA/GSUSA, TSA/B-PSA, etc.) and by doing so they usually appear unbalanced towards one NSO or the other. See "Each NSO may have articles on organizational regions one level from the national organization: Councils for the BSA, area/county/region for TSA and so forth; there will be no lower sub-regions."

So- the TSA articles are already working towards this. The BSA would go from 50 by state articles to 305 council articles, but would subsume the lodge (potentially 304) and camp articles (potentially 500+). As another example, Scouting in Norfolk included the TSA and the B-PSA; we reworked this to Norfolk Scout County (The Scout Association) and if there needs to be a B-PSA article for the same geographic area it would be East Anglia District (Baden-Powell Scouts' Association).

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that clarifies it, but it raises other issues and I am not sure I entirely agree with you. One example is the case of Northern Ireland where I suggested merging the SA areas into one on the SA in NI. However looking at the area articles, about half of what should be retained in a merge is actually about the Scouting Ireland troops and structure. Why not lump everything, including Guides, into Scouting in Northern Ireland, rather than several articles. If we do not, we will need one on SI in NI as well as SA in NI. Another case is Australia where the States are a very clear subdivision. We could easily add material on Guiding and BPSA etc to the State and Territory articles. The articles should be renamed to Scouting and Guiding in Victoria etc. Yes, I know this is against our guidelines, but nobody in Australia describes Guides as Scouts. The coverage of Guiding is poor is far. There is only Guides Australia and that says nothing about structure in the States. Are the US State articles only about Boy Scouts or do they cover Girl scouts? If not, why not? Nevertheless, I am happy to go along with your view if it is clear that everybody actually understands it and that there is more consensus than I see right now. At the same time let us try to clarify what can go into these articles, including but not restricted to "no list of Troops, Groups, Units, etc. --Bduke (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Lumping NSOs together, other than a country article seems to give undue weight to one of the NSOs, depending on the editors. The US by state articles try to cover the BSA and the GSUSA in one go, but gives the impression that the BSA is bigger simply because there are more BSA editors— see Scouting in New York for an example. Separate articles give the same weight, even if they are unequally developed. And yes, as we develop the article structure, units and the like should not be listed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, you are convincing me for now. Scouting in New York is very BSA biased. When are you going to delete these? A small point, but the term country is not clear. England, Scotland and Wales are countries, while I take it you want to think of the UK only under what you are saying about countries. --Bduke (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We really need more editors to participate in this discussion for such sweeping changes. I changed country to country or union. Please feel free to edit my proposal where you see something that is not clear. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

{{Infobox WorldScouting}} has been updated with types for council, area, region and county. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal has been refactored in response to comments, please review. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't one level down with the BSA the 4 regions?

Or maybe it is beter to make a exception for NSO with more than 5,000,000 members: allow two levels down for Gerakan Pramuka and Boy Scouts of America -> So 24? BSA area articles.

"Before" writing a subarticle on an single section, national camp or an other national level subgroup there should be an overall article or good section describing the sections, (national) camps or national level subgroups in the NSO: what are the tasks and where can we find which area, region, national camp etc. In that way less-notable areas, regions, national camps can stay there or can be merged (back) to.

--Egel _Reaction? 11:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• WAIT, NEED CLARIFICATION are you saying abandon the 50 "Scouting in x state" articles in favor of 300+ council articles? Why, for god's sake? What makes any but a handful (and I do mean a dozen or less) particularly notable? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Levels: Let's make that operational levels. In the BSA, regions and areas are direct divisions and have little to do with delivering the actual program, whereas councils are distinctly separate and legally incorporated entities. If anyone can figure out how an area can deliver a program, let me know. Take a look at the areas in the Southern Region and you will understand that comment.[23] Southern Region is divided into ten non-contiguous areas, so you would still end up with 40-50 articles for the U.S. if you just went with areas. And I am not drawing goofy area maps. With the varying terminology, it might be best if we had a list:

Boy Scouts of America: councils

Girl Scouts of the USA: councils

The Scout Associations: counties (England and Northern Ireland), areas (Wales), regions (Scotland)

Scouts Australia: branches

Subarticles: See WP:SCOUTMOS#Non-national articles: "Editors are encouraged to use a top-down approach; expanding high-level articles to the point where they can be split into smaller articles of good quality. Thus, a national article may beget a regional article that begets a camp article." Some of this needs to be reworked if we go forward. The article layout section can readily be updated.

Gerakan Pramuka: I know it is a huge NSO, but the article really does not reflect it well. I have no sense of the organization, but I would expect some similarities with the BSA.

BSA states/councils: The original concept was that the state articles would act as incubators towards council articles— this has failed. Editors are churning out council camp (500+ possible) and lodge (300+ possible) articles with no regard to the fact that the linking council article is nonexistent. The state articles try to consolidate BSA and GSUSA information and do a very poor job— the BSA has every appearance of being bigger than the GSUSA in these articles simply because we have more BSA editors. We already have 19 council articles, 54 council camp and 8 lodge articles and 3 unit articles and they are not going to fit into the state articles. You may recall a few months back when MinsiPatches AfDed ten different camp articles and they were all kept. These articles are here and we need to deal with them. Now— go back and review the proposal- "Each article must show notability on its own"; "Each NSO may have subarticles". We do not have to have an article on each council.

A prime example of a state article is Scouting in New York. Both the BSA and the GSUSA started in New York, so you would think that this would be highly developed. Instead, the GSUSA material looks like an afterthought, simply because we don't have the editors with expertise. It would be better to not even have that GSUSA section than to have that limp list. Neither the BSA or GSUSA are divided by states and we are wrong in trying to force that.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

So the BSA will have 4 region articles if area articles can't be writen.;-) The first "distinctly separate and legally incorporated entity" down rule don't work or isn't universal enough, for example in FOS Open Scouting the first distinctly separate level is the grouplevel and even those aren't (always) legally incorporated entities. I am not even sure all NSO are distinctly separate and legally incorporated entities. I think it better to keep the top-down approach: BSA region articles, area articles plus some council articles for the councils that are notable, the others have to "stay" in their area article. It shouldn't be to difficult to write an article about a region and most area articles will be filled with lines about the less notable councils. 40-50 articles for the U.S. looks like a good number to me, 300+ is far to much.--Egel _Reaction? 11:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The majority of people in the BSA, especially the youth, have no identification with region or area. If we want to stick the number at 50, we might as well keep it by state, as there is more identity, even though the BSA is not organized by state. If the number is 50, then that should be the limit for each NSO, regardless of organization and size. BTW, the Order of the Arrow is also administrated by region and area; the OA regions match the National regions, but areas do not. For example: Southern Region (BSA) Southern Region (OA)

Structural changes UK

Sorry, but with regard to the UK counties I think that you have accidentally created a problem. As I have indicated on the pages, I have consulted with another editor - outside of Scouting. Assuming good faith, I'm afraid that I cannot see that these new sites fit in with Wikipedia as they appear effectively nothing more than an advert for branches of The Scout Association. For further information on this please see the section Wikipedia is not a soapbox on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, notably the section on advertising. Even when open to Groups of all Associations these pages were of suspect standard, and closing them to independent Groups and rebuilding them to reflect internal TSA boundaries has not helped in any way. This is especially when the TSA counties often share their name with the regional county and can easily mislead casual readers, and just removing the list of Groups will not help resolve this.

I suggest returning them to their original regional county format, although without the long lists of Groups, or, alternatively, that they are deleted as being inappropriate to Wikipedia. I cannot see any reason why the nationally accepted regional boundaries cannot be employed, with each TSA county serving them included as appropriate, with links to TSA county pages and District pages, and independent Associations provision included where required. This would allow users of Wikipedia to see what is happening in terms of Scouting in a county, without being accidentally mislead into thinking that only TSA Scouting is available to them in their area. -- DiverScout (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you address the inherent imbalance caused by the comparison of the various NSOs in a geopolitical region? And that geopolitical regions do not match the Scouting regions. Lets look at Scouting in Norfolk:

• TSA: 128 groups; the Scout county only generally matches the English county
• BPSA: 1 groups; Norfolk County is part of the BPSA East Anglia District that includes two counties
• BBS: 2 defunct groups
• Girlguiding UK: not listed

The articles need a lot of work, but the changes are a step towards trying to resolve these issues. Greater Manchester West Scout County (The Scout Association) is an article that has been cleaned up to a point.

Let me illustrate the BSA issues: The BSA currently has 54 by state articles, 19 council articles, 54 council camp articles, 8 Order of the Arrow lodges articles and 3 unit articles. Most of the camp articles do not have articles for the council they are located in; ten of the camps recently survived AfD, so they aren't going away. The state articles are crap (see Scouting in New York), the camp articles are bad (see Yawgoog Scout Reservation) as are the lodge articles (see Tamegonit Lodge, which looks like it was copied from some website. I would just as soon yank the whole system- delete the state articles and let council articles develop naturally and merge the camps and lodges. Merging camps and lodges into the state article won't work— they just won't fit. Stonewall Jackson Area Council is a better council article that includes the camp and the lodge. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing will ever be perfect, and one size will not fit all - especially internationally - but using the recognised political boundaries within the UK is better than what is being created. If I type in "Scouting in Suffolk" because I want to know about Scout Groups in the county of Suffolk I am taken to "Suffolk Scout County" and only shown TSA Groups. What about the Rover Explorer Scout Group that operates there? Please also note that the Geopolitical map of Britain appears on each of these pages, which further encourages readers to believe that they are reading about something other than an internal Scout Association region.

If the US state articles are of, erm, poor quality, then perhaps they need to be developed properly? Yes, it takes time and effort - but when I spent ages typing in all the details of all the Groups in Norfolk (to reflect the style of the other pages at that time) I did not exclude the Scout Association ones. If the proper regional pages are restored I will not be ignoring any association when researching content for the East Anglian counties. Each will be given fair and equal treatment in a NPOV and non-COI manner.

It is, I'm afraid, really unacceptable for one organisation - no matter that is is bigger than the others or has more members working on this WikiProject than the others - to attempt to give the impression that it is the sole provider in areas where that is actually not the case. Hopefully this is unintentional, but that is exactly what is happening with these changes. -- DiverScout (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that you are right- there is no acceptable solution. The only way to do this and keep it properly weighted is to not have regional articles below the national level. We aren't a directory— if someone want to know what groups are in their regional area, the NSO website will lead them there. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

DiverScout makes some good points. For example, the Geopolitical map of Britain should be removed because I think it refers to areas that are different from the SA Counties. Nevertheless, I think he is too swayed by East Anglia where the SA counties and the administrative counties are the same. This is not the case in other parts of the UK. I too am beginning to think that these articles should be deleted. We have to recognize that, while in earlier years we had keen experienced editors such as User:Horus Kol who worked on these County articles to improve them, we mostly no longer have good editors working on them. They get a lot of edits but they are mostly by IP editors who edit just one article and add or remove Groups or links to Group web sits. Mostly this is original research and the material is not encyclopedic. Nevertheless, there are some geographical regions of countries that are suitable for articles. In Australia for example, everything hinges around the States and Territories. The articles on Scouting in the States and Territories are not perfect but they do not contain cruft. Scouting in the Australian Capital Territory is a good example. I strongly support leaving these articles as covering everything including Guiding and not restricting them the Scouts Australia. I am surprised that the USA State articles are so bad. Like in Australia, the States are long established and their boundaries do not alter like those for Councils. Scout Counties etc. The emphasis should not be on organizational structure but on the history and the influence of Scouting on the community. I think the BSA folks should look at the State articles again. The UK is another matter. I think there could well be a good article on Scouting in Scotland (note currently redirected to Scouting in the United Kingdom) that covered both Scouting and Guiding. The SA in Scotland has its own Scout HQ and is own Scottish Commissioners for the sections and specialized duties. Wales is more combined with England, but nevertheless I think a good article could be written on Scouting in Wales (also a redirect). I am even more convinced that we merge the articles about SA Areas in Northern Ireland, but perhaps it should be to a single article Scouting in Northern Ireland rather than one on Scouting Ireland and one on the SA in NI (I'm not sure there are any BPSA Groups in NA). If these work out, we could perhaps have an article about Scouting in England. A major problem is that those talking here about the UK Counties are small in number. If we suddenly started deleting them, it might cause a bush fire. Maybe that would be a good idea. Finally, let me suggest that we should transwiki all these articles to the ScoutWiki. I think we owe it to Scouting and to all those editors who want lists of Groups etc. to do this. Also if and when we make changes we can point to the fact that the information is not lost. The general articles can have an external link to a page on ScoutWiki that links to all the area articles in a particular country.

I guess this is the appropriate time to introduce the {{scoutwiki}} template that I created last week. For example:

• Groups:8th Portsmouth at ScoutWiki --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd go for that. The ScoutWiki move would make a lot more sense, being a more specialist site. Your suggestion to relocate the Counties entries from here to there gets my support. -- DiverScout (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to do this, we need to:

• Canvas for more editors to join the discussion and gain consensus
• Create a cohesive plan
• Tag the articles in question as "candidates for a transwiki to ScoutWiki"
• After an appropriate period, copy the articles in question and redirect them to a list of subregions (list of councils, list of areas and counties, etc.)

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The issue is whether we transwiki (i.e move) the UK County articles to ScoutWiki or whether we copy them there. We do not need a consensus to copy them and in my opinion this should be done in order to keep the long lists of Scout Groups. When it is done we can then remove the lists on WP if we want to keep them or delete them if that is what is wanted. We need more editors to get consensus on whether to keep them or redirect them. I also do not favour lists as such, but the areas or counties could be included on articles on Scouting in Scotland, Wales, NI, or England. Note that NI is different both since they are already tagged for merge and the presence of many Groups of "Scouting Ireland" in NI. --Bduke (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, I think he is too swayed by East Anglia where the SA counties and the administrative counties are the same. This is not the case in other parts of the UK." I said that where more than one TSA County served a regional county they ALL should be included. How is this being swayed by East Anglia? We don't have that problem?!!!! :)

The country-level page, with a list of counties, seems a better idea - but it still must not re-direct "Scouting in county" searches to it unless the page reflects all organisations rather than just TSA, otherwise the same POV/COI will result. All that is required to prevent this is a paragraph identifying other Scouting organisations, with linking to their entries. -- DiverScout (talk) 06:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

My point was not that more than one SA County was included in an administrative counties, but that I am unconvinced that some SA Counties do not cross the borders of administrative counties. East Anglia is, I believe the simplest counties can get - Traditional County = Administrative County = SA County. Most places are much more complex. However, I no longer have the knowledge of counties in my head having been in Oz for 20 years and I admit I was too idle to check. I have just checked Wales. There are 22 administrative counties and only 12 SA Counties. Some SA Counties cover two administrative counties, but I am not convinced the Snowdonia bit of Snowdonia and Anglesey Scout Area (The Scout Association) corresponds to any administrative county. --Bduke (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If we were to delete all these articles (and I think we need more consensus from more people) I assume that it would be the SA counties with their current names that would be redirects. The BPSA would have it own article for the UK. Note also that we need to think about Guides in UK. The policy of the Scouting Wikiproject is that the term Scouting includes Guiding, but the UK articles do not reflect that. --Bduke (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bduke is quite right to say that the UK Scouting articles don't include Girlguiding UK info. I suppose as I had a hand in this, I better explain what happened. Some time ago, I started adding information about the regional activities of Girlguiding UK. Mindful of the fact that it's this project's policy to including Guiding in with Scouting, I initially thought that I would add Guiding info to the geopolitical county articles, like the Girl Scouting info in the USA. I found this was impossible as I couldn't get the right information. I also knew that no-one from Britain was likely to look for Guiding info on a Scouting page, and that no Girl Guide would want to share a page with the Scouts. So I did what I could do and not what I couldn't. I started adding information using Girlguiding UK's own regional structure. I found that actually there often wasn't a huge amount to write about, and eventually I got disheartened and the remaining articles got pushed aside in favour of more interesting projects. I hoped other editors would contribute once an article existed. This has happened in some cases and not in others. If I'd been a more experienced user, then maybe I'd have acted differently. But I wasn't and I didn't. Nowadays, I think there's no clear advantage to either organising British Scouting and Guiding info by geopolitical county or by organisational structure. Both have moving boundaries. Historical information is awkward to place in either system. Kingbird (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"My point was not that more than one TSA County was included in an administrative counties, but that I am unconvinced that some SA Counties do not cross the borders of administrative counties. East Anglia is, I believe the simplest counties can get - Traditional County = Administrative County = SA County. Most places are much more complex."

I think that we're talking at cross-purposes. I am aware that TSA counties do not always relate to real counties, which is one of the reasons that using them to illustrate regional Scouting in the UK is so potentially misleading to members of the public. That is one of the reasons why I have said that they should not be used, but that, where appropriate, EACH TSA county that serves a real county shoud be listed on a page illustrating all scouting options in an administrative county. This option would also make it easier to add Guiding content, along with independent scouting content.

The present pages show an unacceptable bias towards TSA internal boundaries, although I accept that this was not the intention when the pages were created. If we are creating encyclopedia entries about Scouting in regions of the UK, they ought to reflect all Scouting (and Guiding) in those regions. As each organisation has its own boundaries, the only logical option is, surely, to use the official boundaries and then list each Association, and, if needed, list the internal divisions of each organisation that are appropriate to the regional boundary?

If the TSA Counties are going to be used to redirect to a TSA England page, that is fine. However, it will still not be acceptable for "Scouting in (regional counties)" searches to be redirected to the page advertising one individual Association as this would continue to mislead the public. -- DiverScout (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

We are certainly not understanding each other well and I am still confused about your points. The current articles are about TSA Counties, so why is this unacceptable bias to TSA Scouting? That is what they are now about. Non-TSA content should be removed and should appear in other articles. The bias was in the earlier naming of Scouting in X, where X was actually a TSA County. You seem to be suggesting that we should use the current administrative counties. That would replace 12 articles about Scouting in Wales with 22 articles. That would simply be unmaintainable. We can not maintain 12. I remain unclear about what we should do. At this time, I am clear about only three things. First, we have too many (way too may) articles about Scouting in geographical areas of the UK. Second, I think we want some articles below general UK articles, particularly for the Scout Association, which is much bigger than any other organisation and therefore more notable as it is is noted by more sources. Third, there is no way, for the reasons that Kingbird gives, that articles that only have Scouting (not Guiding) in the title, can cover both Scouting and Guiding. I think we should stick with the articles on the small number of Guide Regions. How we work through this, I do not know. I think my first point is key. We need fewer articles. Here are some general thoughts:-

• In Northern Ireland, I think we should have one or two. Two if we have separate SA and Scouting Ireland articles. Two if we combine them into a single article. IF BPSA or other traditional scouting exists, then that might push us to one or perhaps three, with a separate article on traditional scouting in NI.
• In Scotland, we can either have one article, or 11 on the new SA Regions and one on traditional scouting in Scotland. The latter is still better than the current 31 possible articles on Areas.
• In Wales, I think we should move to just one article.
• England remains the difficult area. A single article may become too large. Other solutions seem to give us too many articles.

The other point is that we can not decide this between two of us, one from Australia and one from a non-TSA background!! We need to get more people involved. --Bduke (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the 9 regions used on local.direct.gov.uk an option for England? (East Anglia, East Midlands, London, North, North East, North West, South East, South West, West Midlands) Probably the same regions as the NUTS 1 UK regions and the regions in Category:Government Office Regions.

Girlguiding UK (540,000 members) is larger then TSA (450,000 members), so it not a strange idea to use the 6 Girlguiding Regions for all Scouting and Guiding in England.

--Egel _Reaction? 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that we need more than two people to decide this - but I am very concerned that you seem to feel that it is acceptable for articles to appear in Wikipedia that imply that TSA Scouting is the only option in certain areas. For the record, I also have a TSA background.

The size of The Scout Association, and that fact that the majority of content editors on here working on UK Scouting are either TSA, ex-TSA, or WOSM does not mean that content can continue to be biased towards one particular service provider - even if they are the largest. Having searches for scouting in counties leading to pages that only illustrate one side of Scouting is, in several cases, providing false information.

I am becoming worried that there may really be a Wikipolicy Conflict Of Interest here that needs to be addressed more forcefully. To use an example outside of Scouting, Dereham Town Football Club is smaller than Manchester United FC, but both have their pages on Wikipedia. It would certainly not appropriate for the Manchester fans to decide to delete content relating to Dereham just because they are a larger organisation and are, therefore, more "notable".

The fact that, seemingly as soon as non-TSA content began to be added to them, the Scouting in (County) articles were re-designated, apparently by members of WOSM, so that only TSA(WOSM) content could be listed is not a valid reason for keeping them. If the Guiding content can be added, their boundaries used (as they seem larger and easier to administer), and all Associations given fair representation, we may end up with articles worth having in an encyclopedia rather than the present pages which are essentially advertising for TSA branches. -- DiverScout (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"seemingly as soon as non-TSA content began to be added to them...": There has never been any such intent here. I started the discussion on the TSA articles in February: see Talk:The Scout Association#Renaming the County/Area articles.

Your example of the two football clubs is not really analogous— there are no sub-organizations and they co-exist in one town.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

DiverScout, can you give an approximate size of the non WOSM/WAGGGS scouting in the UK? In Members or in groups?--Egel _Reaction? 19:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If I may guess: Non WAGGGS/WOSM scouting has less than 100 units in the UK. --jergen (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, Gadget850. Sadly the result has been the same. My comparison with the football clubs is, as far as I am concerned, perfectly analogous in respect of what is happening here, but I'm not letting this conversation get bogged down in semantics. In terms of size, I cannot give figures. All independent groups know that they are a lot smaller than the TSA, but don't seem to pay much attention to numbers. Jergen's guess may well be right. Maybe, if these Scouting pages become representative of Scouting rather than just TSA, we'll find out eventually. -- DiverScout (talk) 22:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Being down under, a lot of discussion often goes on while I am asleep. First, let me strongly agree with Ed that there was never any intent to remove material about traditional scouting from WP. The problem was that it was often in articles that clearly were about TSA Counties. I have a lot of sympathy for traditional scouting and have worked with an editor here in Oz who is now Chief Commissioner for the BPSA in Australia. I meet him a few weeks ago when he visited Melbourne. We should treat them seriously. However, they are less notable, not in the general sense of that word, but in the wikipedia sense that they are inevitably less noted in sources because there are less Groups. Getting good independent sources for the SA Counties is difficult. It is much harder for traditional scouting Groups. We have in general in our Scouting articles, too few third party sources. Second, on football clubs, I also agree with Ed. These articles are on individual clubs as ours are on individual associations. Not all clubs are notable enough for an article. I think we go down to level 11, whatever that really means. Third, I think Egel's suggestion of 11 English articles on the regions should be seriously considered. That might give 11 on England and one each on Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, covering everything about Scouting, not Guiding (on that point Kingbird is right, in that the term Scouting in UK is never considered to include Guiding). Are there regions in Scotland, other than the new TSA Regions, that we could use? --Bduke (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept the fact that there is no intentional actions being taken by people, in good faith and in respect of the Scout Law of course. Some of the comments in the Discussion sections, however, seem to suggest that this is not always the case - but in an open source media I suppose that that will happen.

I have no problem with TSA having its own pages, as it is, after all, a huge corporate entity - but it is not appropriate for searches for Scouting in UK counties to re-direct to these TSA pages. It is if these re-directs are going to stay that the content needs to be made wider and cover all aspects of Scouting.

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of redirects. Firstly they are used for plausible search terms. Since the X in "Scouting in X" is the name of a SA County, they are plausible search terms. Second, they keep the history of contributions for licensing purposes. It often happens that when an article shifts focus and is renamed, that the redirects do not have the new focus, but they have to be kept for the licensing of contributions. It would not really matter if we moved to general articles on the regions. What do you think about that proposal of Egel? Also what do you think we should do about Wales, Scotland and NI? --Bduke (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that including Guiding in the UK on the Scouting pages may cause a lot of Guiding hackles to rise. Whoever carries out that operation will need very good diplomatic skills! -- DiverScout (talk) 08:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In spite of the emphasis of the Scouting Project that Scouting covers both Scouting and Guiding, I do not think that Guiding content would be acceptable in these articles, unless the name was changed to "Scouting and Guiding in X". --Bduke (talk) 08:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thought I'd leave a gap, as it's a bit busy here! Egel's idea seems like a pretty good one to me, as the GGUK boundaries would reduce the number of pages to a more manageable level. I also agree with you that the pages should then be renamed "Scouting and Guiding in ..."
I still remain to be convinced, however, that having scouting in county searches being re-directed to point at limited content pages is appropriate to Wikipedia. It's not as if there are so many independent Groups that TSA need to be worried about the competition!  :)
I still strongly feel that the option for a sub-title "Other Associations" to be tagged onto these pages would improve the notability of the pages, and raise the level of inclusivity to the point where those re-directs would again become valid. I have not yet seen any reasoned argument for not including them. -- DiverScout (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I do agree on "Scouting and Guiding"— there was a consensus to roll this into Scouting some time ago, but I always thought it rather marginalized Guiding in some ways. This is a separate subject and should be discussed separately.

I still believe that when we are wrong to impose even the appearance of dividing an organization into structures in a manner in which they do not operate. As I understand it, Girlguiding UK has nine administrative regions, each then divided into counties. If TSA and BPSA do not use those regional structures, then we are creating artificial divisions.

Let me use a BSA example to show what is happening here:

See Scouting in Virginia: Virgina is within three administrative regions of the BSA— Northeast Region, Central Region and mostly in Southern Region. Southern Region in turn is divided into ten areas— Virginia includes Area 7 (two non-contiguous regions with parts of Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina) and Area 9 (parts of Virginia and North Carolina).[24] Stonewall Jackson Area Council includes 11 counties in Virgina and 1 in West Virginia. The BSA does not operate by state— there is no Boy Scouts of Virginia.

Within the BSA, regions and areas are administrative structures; the top level structure that delivers the Scouting movement is the council. Scouts do not self identify with regions or areas, but with councils. If we do not want 300+ council articles, then so be it— but we should not have 50 artificially divided articles.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ed, I simply do not follow your last point. The US States are certainly not artificial. The councils are artificial as they only exist for BSA. If we want to discuss the development and impact on society of all forms of Scouting, we should use government geographical areas, such as States in the USA, and not the areas defined by just one association, which in any event may alter from time to time in a way the States will not (look at the mess the reorganisation in Scotland is causing). WP is for the public not for members of the BSA. They focus on States. Surely you can talk about the history of Scouting in, say New York State, and its impact on society, along with a description of how it is organised, even if that does say "BSA Council YYY is partly in NY and partly in NJ" or whatever.

To DiverScout and others, Egel made two different proposals. One to use 9 UK regions defined in an external source; the other to use the Guide Regions. I favour the first and not the second for the same reason I favour the US States. The Guides can use their boundaries if the articles are purely about their associations. TSA can use their boundaries if the articles are purely about their organisation (although that leads to too many in the UK). If we are writing to cover more than one association, we should use non-scouting areas. I now favour keeping Scouting and Guiding area articles separate in UK, but use larger areas than the administrative or traditional Counties for Scouting as there are several associations. The Guides can keep their regions, because I do not think there are any other associations. --Bduke (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The BSA does not govern itself by state, the BPSA does not govern itself by county and TSA counties do not match UK counties. If we want to divide them as such, then it needs to be clear that this is a decision of the editors and not the organizations. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have started this process by redirecting the Northern Ireland County articles to a general article Scouting in Northern Ireland that covers all Scouting (not Guiding) in NI. I do need to know however whether any traditional Scouting groups are in NI. I hope i have covered all the many redirects etc. --Bduke (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The way forward for UK

Very true, Brian, and I think we're possibly getting somewhere. Realistically using the 9 UK regions makes most sense than any other division, as this is understood by the general public - for whom Wikipedia is intended - and allows all Organisations to be represented. I cannot see how any part of our own internal organisation is especially notable for the public. If the TSA County and GGUK regions and counties are still felt to be worthy of their own pages, they can be linked from the articles on the administrative regions.
I'm afraid, Ed, that I still think that the priority for regional divisions ought to be one that the general public use every day and can understand, rather than internal boundaries of organisations.
I've done a bit more with the Norfolk page, just to see how it could work. Yes, I know that Norfolk is simpler than other regions, but it is where I live, so it is easiest for me to test the theory on. I recognise that the Norfolk page would vanish into, I presume, an East Anglia one were the idea to be developed. I really think that it could work. -- DiverScout (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm done. I will look at this again in six months. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Ed deciding to leave the discussion will not be used as a reason not to advance this important notability and POV issue. It certainly should not affect the issue of developing the UK pages, which is what is being discussed in this section. -- DiverScout (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

After two weeks, I have no further arguments to put forth. We discussed this to a much smaller degree back around January and we have now discussed it in June. I will consider it and make any new proposals in January. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is not acceptable. Perhaps I not understanding you, but it seems like you're saying that we have discussed it, and you cannot find any reasoned arguments to put against the proposals, so you expect me to leave it until January because you can't find reasoned arguments against it at the moment? I'm afraid that I am not going to wait that long before I feel obliged to correct what I feel is false information (misrepresentation of facts) being put on Wikipedia and/or report COI. -- DiverScout (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. Remember that Ed is from the USA. I think he is saying that those editors who know more about Scouting in the UK should go ahead and try to get a consensus on what we do. I thought we were quite close. It is our job to do that. However it is a massive job. We can not do it over night, so what you call reporting COI will just confuse matters. Let me try to outline what I think should be done:-

• We need to think about all areas of the UK and not just England.
• We need to copy articles to ScoutWiki so the material on Groups is preserved. Activity there at the moment is largely about Groups with a new name space "Group:.." and a template for assisting writing articles on Scout Groups. Those that are being written are in UK.
• There is already an active merge discussion on Northern Ireland. Why do we not resolve that and sort it out first?
• Given that Scotland is confusing at present with the Scout Association reorganisation and nobody except me is working on articles on the new regions, why do we not try to write an article on Scouting in Scotland and merge what needs to be merged from all other places (old SA area articles, new SA region articles, and what of BPSA and other traditional scouting?)?
• Since Wales is relatively small, why do we not do the same for Wales, with an article, Scouting in Wales, covering all aspects? DiverScout, perhaps you could help by summarising somewhere the state of traditional Scouting in NI, Scotland and Wales.--Bduke (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
• Continuing.
• I am quite sure that if we tackle the issues in NI, Scotland and Wales, we will bring editors out of the woodwork. We will certainly have to resolve the differences between us, who seem to have a consensus that these articles should not contain lists of Groups, and those who will want to retain the lists. Remember that almost all the county/area articles get regular editing but all about adding and removing Groups or information about the Groups. It would be good to get agreement on that and set a precedent before we tackle the much bigger job of articles on England.
• At this point, I am in favour of separate article on the English regions defined by the external source that Egel referred to, but the debate my change as we start work on NI, Scotland and Wales.

Is anyone actually objecting to at least starting this program and seeing what response it brings out? --Bduke (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me try this again. I have no new ideas to bring forward and will not bring forth any new ideas for a period. This is something analogous to an engineering design freeze. At some point you have to stop brainstorming and start planning with what you have. Bduke has made a quite reasonable proposal here- let's discuss it and go from here. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. You can see, though, why what I thought you were saying was not likely to impress me? Sometimes it is hard thrashing out ideas on forums like this, as intent cannot be read into what is written.
Yes, let's try this. You're starting at the furthest point from where I am based, but if you start to build the pages, I'll be delighted to try to find and add details where I can. -- DiverScout (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Infobox WorldScouting

Since there have been some recent attempts to add multiple names to the founder field, I added an option to pluralize the label. Including |founders=yes will now change the label from "Founder" to "Founders". --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:29, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Neato. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

South African Scout Association GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria and I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I have reviewed South African Scout Association and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have left this message at this WikiProject's talk page so that any interested members can assist in helping the article keep its GA status. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. I have left messages on the talk pages of the main contributors of the article and another WikiProject. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix if multiple editors assist in the workload. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I've worked all this and let Nehrams know. The first two items on the talk page are no problem, but the last may need a bit of tweaking still (international section). — Rlevse • Talk • 01:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He passed us but made suggestions. Would someone like to work on them?

Talk:South_African_Scout_Association#GA_Sweeps_Review:_Pass — Rlevse • Talk • 09:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good work on fixing the issues in the article. I have also reviewed Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America), and it needs a few more inline citations to maintain its GA status. I'd appreciate assistance from members of this project in helping to address the issues. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We'll work this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I just reviewed The Scout Association and passed it. However two of the images (Image:The Scout Association.svg & Image:Royal Navy Recognised Sea Scout Ensign.png) used in the article need fair use rationales specifically specifying this article for use on the images' pages. If you have any questions, please let me know. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment: C-class added

AS a result of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, c-classs has now been added to the assessment scale. We need to update {{WikiProject Scouting}} and other resources. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw the discussion for this and find it a useless distinction between Start and B. It's nothing but an upper end start. So, I don't intend to use it. We can update things if people want, but I still don't intend to use it myself. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But wait! As articles get better and better, we can add more levels yet! As they progress from C to B, we can add sub-levels! I propose calling it "C++". ;) Couldn't resist. Good night from Japan. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While I still don't see much need for C-class, I have started making some of the updates as I'm sure someone will use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Discursive notes

Discursive notes have been added to the <ref> tags. See Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Discursive notes. I'm helping to update {{reflist}}. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent move of Scouting to Scouting Movement

this morning (UTC), User:Una Smith moved Scouting to Scouting Movement. I can understand the background, but this move was undiscussed and has a major impact on Wikipedia since at least 10,000 links point to Scouting. I have also a strong feeling that User:Una Smith is biased on the topic as can seen in his comment on [25]: trying to dab "Scouting" vs the movement, the woodcraft, etc. His scope of the the topic is smaller than that of the article and of the project, which covers also the Woodcraft movement. It is quite clear that most of the project's members have also biased views on Scouting.

Could one of our admins please move the article back until we reach consensus in an open discussion? --jergen (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion about where it should be placed, but if the two word version ends up being the final locality, do note that it should be Scouting movement (not Scouting Movement; see WP:MoS). Secondly, while I, as noted earlier, couldn't care less where it is placed, the unilateral move by Una Smith without any discussion clearly is problematic, considering that there (apparently) are fairly strong opinions about this. Indeed, such single-handed moves probably border the uw-move user warning template, though I wouldn't advocate the use of it in this case. 212.10.92.142 (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving it back this was TOTALLY undiscussed! Redirects from "M" and 'm' versions in place, 'm' was already there. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree— moving a well established page in this manner with no discussion is a major problem. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Willesley

This illustrates a general point that has been nagging at the back of my brain for a while. The question is "How much should an article cover Scouting to be part of the Project?". I wondered about Fergie (singer), a pop singer, whose only connection to Scouting was that she was a Girl Scout. Anyway back to Willesley. This started off as an article essentially about the Scout Camp site. In 2006, we proposed a merge to what is now Leicestershire Scout County (The Scout Association). Only Chris and I contributed to the debate but the merge was carried out. Recently the article has been recreated and after some prompting from me developed into a nice article mainly about the place, with only a small mention of the camp site. There is no question that it should remain as an article. But should be in our Project? Currently it has the N/A tag on the talk page, which was put there when it was a redirect to the County article. Should that tag be removed or should it be changed to Start/Low maybe? Surely just a brief mention is not enough. The topic aught to be closely connected to Scouting. --Bduke (talk) 23:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Fergie also made a music video with her wearing a Girl Scout uniform. She's also publicly admitted (ie, free advertising for us) she was a Girl Scout. So that is a bit more than 'was a Scout as a kid'. IMHO, any connection to Scouting warrants a project tag, and how strong the connection is affects the importance rating. So on Willesley, I'd change the tag to Start/Low. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance I do not see anything about that. I see only "as well as a Girl Scout" and the category. Can we have more opinions? I disagree with Rlevse on this one. --Bduke (talk) 00:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Not in her article, no it's not there, but you can find it on the web, the actual video and talk about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

succession boxes

Where possible, we need to add succession boxes, just as I did to Margaret Treloar. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris, for getting this started for the World Board chairmen. It is a definite improvement. Kingbird (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I updated this using the newer code. {{s-npo}} has the Scouting headers— let me know if we ever need others. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Afghan Scout Association

Can someone help clean this up? An eager new editor has added a bunch of stuff, but the English is not great, and I simply don't have that long at the Internet, being new to Japan... Thanks all! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret Girl Guides and Sea Rangers

According to J.S. Wilson, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom and Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon were active, can we get documentation and add this into the articles? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, apparently the queen of Denmark (Ingrid of Sweden, don't ask me how) and the queen of Greece (Frederica of Hanover, again, I know nothing of royalty…) were supporters. Anyone? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Two more-at the time of their engagement, respectively, Prince Jean was the Chief Scout of Luxembourg, and Princess Joséphine Charlotte was the Chief Guide of Belgium. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the british royal women, there's some information on the Girlguiding UK page and the Girlguiding London and South East England page already. The official website of the british monarchy has a good page here that covers Scouting as well as Guiding. I have bits of information in books as well if paper references are needed. I know a lot less about the european royals, but I'll keep my eyes open. I might be able to lend a hand with all this later in the week. Kingbird (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've written a small amount in the QEII article and I'll do some more work on the topic soon. I was puzzled as to what the "Importance" in the project's tag should be, so I have put it to "High" for the time being. I would appreciate it if someone would review this. Kingbird (talk) 01:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

High is okay, but if she has done anything more, such as when an adult, please add that. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Piet Kroonenberg published some essays on Roylas in Scouting. See http://www.boyscoutmuseum.com/Kroonenberg.shtml. --jergen (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

More of Piet's publications on http://www.kelpin.nl/fred/ - but only in Dutch. --jergen (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 2225 articles are assigned to this project, of which 328, or 14.7%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subscribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Can you also get us the active manpower to actually clean up the articles? — Rlevse • Talk • 18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to have a list of these 328 articles. --Bduke (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The ones flagged with our attention tag are in Category:Scouting articles needing attention. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Scouting in the Antarctic

http://www.geocities.com/adiscacastrense/grupo3/Grupo3.htm please also get the penguin :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Scout Antartict badge.png with pinguin and all, even when i think not even the scots would have the rights for the pinguin since it is a known cartoon. you should try to find out that before using it-LadyofHats (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This penguin is a known cartoon? I did not know that. What is it from? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

http://www.woodywoodpecker.com it apeared in the woody woodpecker catoons , its name is Chilly Willy, you can google it. -LadyofHats (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think you are right. I never saw the cartoon. I will ask before we can try and use this. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I knew the question on Jeopardy last week: Who was Walter Lantz. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Very cool! Now, can we use the image or no? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The FDL logo, yes. Chilly Willy is problematic— is the group licensed to use it and does that license allow reuse? If they are using it informally, then we cannot. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Boy Scouts and Legion of Frontiersmen

Hello I found this article on the web. The Legion of Frontiersboy Scouts 1907 - 1912 By J.C. Henley Early History of the Legion and how the Boy Scouts movement is linked to us [26] Maybe it is interesting for some of you. -Phips (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

More Information on Francis Vane (mentoined in the article) can be found here: [27] Yours in Scouting-Phips (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Resources

As we work on articles, it is becoming apparent that we need to share our resources. I have created a page where editors can list reference material available to them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Resources (shortcut WP:S-RES). An editor can create a subpage in their userspace and transclude it to the resource page with a template. There is also a section where we can list online references. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

A discussion on date-autoformatting as been started on several of our articles:

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal, but we should discuss this within the project instead of page by page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean dates will appear in the format they are typed instead of being displayed per our user prefs? If so, what is the preferred date format? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See 2a above; essentially it will follow the same guideline as American vs. British English. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Guideuniform2.jpg

Please help me to source this better, it's a useful image and I do not want it deleted. Thanks! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find where that came from. Try Google with various combinations of words to search on and click on "images" in upper left. — Rlevse • Talk • 08:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Free Scout content on wikisource

Most of you are aware of the free images available on WikiCommons, but this also free content available on EnWikiSource (transcribed documents). see wikisource:Category:Scouting. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Added the wiki links on the resources page WP:S-RES under see also. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Country and region articles

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Country and region articles as a draft of a template to be transcluded on the talk page of some country and regional Scouting articles, to guide editors about what is not acceptable. It is not intended to go on all such talk pages. I am thinking particularly about the UK articles which I am slowly merging into articles about regions. While doing this I am removing all list of Groups and Group exernal links, and all reference to individuals such as District and County Commissioners. Having this on the talk page is something we can quickly point the fly-by editors who just add OR about their own unit. Initially I would add it to Scouting in Northern Ireland and Scouting in Wales which exist and then to Scouting in Greater London (see User:Bduke/Sandbox2) and Scouting in North West England (see User:Bduke/Sandbox3) which are nearly ready to be created (London more so than NW England). Once all the UK articles are done, we can then address other problem areas such as The Singapore Scout Association which is a real mess with its long list of every Group in the country. The template would be useful there when we start the process of educating the Singapore Scout editors, using the UK as an example. Please give you views on this; on its desirability, its content and the articles where it should be used. It is not yet ready to be added to any talk pages.--Bduke (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a step in the right direction. The template can be useful on articles where how region/country articles are to be organized is an issue, but I think it's a bit wordy. Trim some text and I think it's fine. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to make a little less wordy. Any suggestions for making it even less wordier? --Bduke (talk) 11:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Scouts of Europe (KPE)

Hello,

the article about the German organization Catholic Scouts of Europe (KPE) would need a bit of work; currently it is not neutral and doesn't provide enough information about the organization. It is mainly a list of criticism made against the organization, and there is nothing about its pedagogy, uniform, number of groups, etc. I tried to put the {{NPOV}} template on it but an user that had already refused to see that the article wasn't NPOV in the past did remove it again (see talk page).

Could anyone do anything, please ? I was looking for information about the KPE and was quite disappointed by the article's content :-(

BTW, I'm not aware of WP:EN's naming policies, but should not the name be changed to Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas ?

Thanks a lot. 90.56.194.66 (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If you remove all of the controversy material, there is not much article left. The real issue is that the article needs major expansion. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There are no open accessible informations on the KPE available. Its website does not explain the sections and has very little content on the associations aims or programs. Membership numbers (or list of groups) are not available. Without these informations it is impossible to expand the article. Btw, User:90.56.194.66 proposed original research for expanding the article.

Even if the IP claims to be from France, I doubt it. The German article de:Katholische Pfadfinderschaft Europas was repeatedly blanked to suppress criticism. --jergen (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I browsed a bit the KPE's website using translation tools, and I found this which seems to be a kind of page about age sections, and that which looks like a list of groups. Perhaps a German-speaker could use these pages to improve the article? I agree a major expansion is definitely all the article needs.

Jergen, I didn't propose original research, but just asking the KPE for information -I suppose they have publications that tell people how they work, it should be normal for a youth organization. But the stuff on the website should be OK. If you doubt I'm coming from France, you can whois my IPs : I'm from Dijon (currently in Rouen for the weekend). 88.169.125.50 (talk) == 90.56.194.66, 10:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• [28] says that there are three sections but gives no ages limits and only the names for the Girl Guide division. This is about ten percent of the information we need.
• [29] names six local units. That's not enough for an association with estimated 2,500 members. Do you really propose that we should include: The KPE consists of (at least) six distinct units?
• You said "Go ahead, ask them". I won't do so. If it is not published, it's not acceptable for Wikipedia.

Could you please answer my questions on Talk:Catholic Scouts of Europe. If you can not name the disputed content, I'll go ahead and remove the tagging. --jergen (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Concerning the age sections, just putting down a list of them could be a good beginning, don't you think so? Even if there is only 10% of what we need, let's use those. If we wait for the 100% to come all by itself, to improve the article, it will never change. Concerning the groups, what about "There are groups in A…, B…, C… and other places", with links to the groups' websites ? And I said "go ahead, ask them for published content" ;-) 88.169.125.50 (talk) == 90.56.194.66, 11:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning age sections. What do you want me to include? Something like: The association works in three age sections. Details on these are not know.?

Concerning the groups: The KPE claims to have groups throughout Germany as it is said in the lead of the article. AFAIK the associations has groups mainly in the predominantly Catholic regions in southern and western Germany, but thats only guessing. List of and weblinks to individual units will not be included, WP is no web directory. See WP:NOTLINK.

If you want sources from the KPE you should go ahead and ask them yourself. They are a member of the UIGSE so you will certainly find somebody who speaks French. --jergen (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

All UIGSE-FSE organisations have the same rules, the same pedagogy, the same uniform, the same strict one religion policy and basically the same age sections: 8-11/12 boy/girl cubs, 12-17 boy/girl scouts, 17+ boy/girl rovers. The only differences are minor: beavers (Belgium), a split rover section (17-19, 19+, Evangelischen Pfadfinderschaft Europas), the religion (catholic or protestant), controversies. Maybe it would be a idea to merge the 2 UIGSE-FSE member organisation to the UIGSE-FSE article and make that a good article before working on the national organisations. --Egel _Reaction? 13:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that merging is a good idea. Sections on controversies are highly specific and it would be very difficult to integrate them. --jergen (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Removing external links in headers

XLinkBot is removing external links in headers. We have a lot of articles that do this so we need to watch our articles and fix them correctly. Of course the bot is correct. The cases I have seen are Scouting in Ontario, which I have not touched and a Scottish Area article where the bot effectively reverted an edit I was wondering about reverting anyway. --Bduke (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

William Hanna FAC preps

I've taken this article from this to this, in preps for filing it for FAC. I could you some help now with:

1. finding a free image of Hanna
2. some good copyediting
3. expanding the lead

and when that's done I'll unlink the repetitive links (things can change during ce, so I don't want to do now), then file for FAC.

Any help is greatly appreciated. Hanna was a DESA and life-long Scouter. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of training programs

I'm not quite sure, if and how National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience meets any of the criterias of WP:Notability. The program was started this year and there are no sources except the provider.

This critics apply to nearly all entries in Category:Leadership training of the Boy Scouts of America which lists training programs down to council level. Even the well written White Stag Leadership Development Program is only used by the BSA; it is hard to understand for me as an European Scout the notability of the program outside of Scouting. --jergen (talk) 07:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe merge National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience into National Youth Leadership Training? -- Horus Kol Talk 09:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Many of Scouting's programs are not "notable" outside of Scouting. How would you draw a line? Being relatively new, there are not yet many external publications referencing National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience. I suppose it is comparable to National Youth Leadership Training. If we were to merge National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience and National Youth Leadership Training, would that make them more qualified to meet the standards of WP:Notability? Following that line of thought, all junior leader training programs within the BSA ought to be merged, as should all adult leader training programs. (Who has heard of Wood Badge outside of Scouting?) Would merging all of these topics make them more notable? It would certainly make the articles lengthier, harder to read, and more difficult to find relevant information.

While the sponsoring White Stag organizations choose to sponsor BSA troops, Learning for Life groups, and Venture Crews, about 30% of all new participants each year are from the surrounding communities and are not initially registered in any BSA program. The White Stag program constantly evaluates the best way to accomplish their goals, and chooses to utilize the BSA program for a few reasons. Among them are the program's origins in the 1933 World Jamboree and their link to Baden Powell, the congruence between its values and BSA values, for insurance reasons, and for the background checks that all leaders must submit to. Within its sphere, the White Stag program has received international recognition.

-- btphelps (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NYLT and NYLE are two different programs. I think National level programs can stand on their own. In no way should Wood Badge be merged into anything else. The council level ones we should probably look closer at. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

As I read it NYLE is a week-long extension to the NYLT program... not a seperate one - my argument for merging was not based on notability -- Horus Kol Talk 13:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

With regards to TLT - a similar programme in the UK is Young Leaders (The Scout Association) - this is now a seperate article, but was originally a part of the Explorer Scouts article until enough content was in that section to warrant the split. I would suggest that the TLT be merged into a section of the main Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) article -- Horus Kol Talk 13:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

NYLE and NYLT are BOTH week-long programs. NYLE may build upon NYLT but it's a separate course. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay - but that makes the case for merging stronger - they are courses that are a part of the same youth leadership programme. -- Horus Kol Talk 15:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Bronze Wolf recipients

One of you that is good with WOSM sources, can we find a list of Bronze Wolf recipients? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that there is a complete list online. The recipients since 1999 are listed in [30], [31] and [32]. WOSM states a total of 320 recipients. --jergen (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Does WOSM ever answer inquiries, like by e-mail? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that they do not answer to individual requests. Perhaps requests done by International Commissioners do work (or by journalists)? But there is a still unanswered official inquiry on the Imam al-Mahdi Scouts made by the Ring deutscher Pfadfinderverbände. --jergen (talk) 07:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I enclosed a list of the recipients since 1999 on Talk:Bronze Wolf. --jergen (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, it will help! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

ReqScoutemblem

For this template, can we add parameters to ask for individual organizations in the template {{ReqScoutemblem}} so that it can accept names, like {{ReqScoutemblem|Scout Organization of Foo|Scouts of Foo}} , like Template:Otheruses has? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jeremiah Nyagah

Can anyone verify if this may be the same as the Bronze Wolf recipient? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Help

Hi, I'm doing a project on Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) And i'm curious as to whether anyone knows if he was ever a scout?

Can anyone help me on this.

Much appreciated,

YiS,

Seán O'Reilly (Seanor3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanor3 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One of my favorite people, but I do not believe so. He was in a cadet corps. There is no mention in:

• Orwell:The authorised Biography. Michael Sheldon.
• George Orwell: A Life. Bernard Crick.

He makes a few mentions of "Boy Scouts" (use that in searching the index, not "Scout") in his essays. See the Penguin 4 volume series of his Collected Essays. There are mentions in volumes 1, 2 and 3. None indicate he was a member. --Bduke (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Scoutwiki

I have just come across a template that can be added to articles to indicate that material is available on another wiki that has an interwiki prefix. A possible use for us would be:-

• {{Template:FreeContentMeta|The English language Scoutwiki|Scoutwiki|Image:Scout logo2.svg}}

The second parameter is the interwiki prefix. the first is just text. The third is an image which is required. Just for information. --Bduke (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

notability tags on Bronze Wolf articles

I have been creating articles on Bronze Wolf awardees, where we already know something about them. I would say being a member of the World Scout Committee already makes one notable, but a week-old anonymous editor has tagged them for notability, and PROD-tagged two. Your thoughts? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:50, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability is shown by references to reliable, third party sources. And do I really have to point out the anti-IP bias in the above? IP addresses do change, after all, so you only see the one I've been using the last week or so. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to point it out, I'll state it clearly. Users who don't sign in, or who remain anonymous, are often suspect. One could see your constant tagging and retagging and prodding of these new articles, and snideness in your edit summaries as Wikistalking and as a WP:POINT violation. Something to think about. Tag if you must, but be civil. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I did ask you to go ahead and tag your own articles but you chose to ignore that and continue as you were, which meant more editing for myself or others. Ignoring a valid request simply because it's from an IP isn't the most polite of actions. Nor was your comment about "anonymous editors need to learn how to read" the most civil, especially since I had read it and tagged it accordingly. So, would you care to tag your own from now on so we can get back to editing the encyclopedia? 71.204.176.201 (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I am open and sign my name to things when I'm feeling less than civil to lurkers, and the way you "asked" is why you get rudeness back from me. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that a Bronze Wolf or the membership in the World Scout Committee makes somebody notable. I happen to know one of them (who has - afaik - the longest WSC membership ever) but I don't know what to write about him (except: He did his duty). --jergen (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not either a Bronze Wolf or membership on the World Scout Committee, separately, but both together seems to me to make them notable. Not all of each category are both. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I hate to point this out, Chris, but I'm cranky this morning. You would avoid the notability tags if you wrote less articles on these folks and spent the time demonstrating notability in the articles you do write rather than assuming it. We hardly ever have consensus across wikipedia that some category is always notable. Take the discussion on Schools, for example. You will never convince people outside our Project that "a Bronze Wolf and membership on the World Scout Committee' makes someone notable automatically. You have to show it in the article. You should also only write articles on these folks when you can flesh them out more than you have in most cases with sourced material. Have these people people been noticed by independent reliable sources? If not the articles will go to AfD and cause bother. Take care, mate. --Bduke (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Bduke is right Chris, you'd be better off improving the ones that are most notable first, then work your way down, so to speak. If the others get afd'd save the info off to your puter for future use or to your own sandbox. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm posting the list I have as it is. I was trying to fill in some redlinks where I could prove who they were, is all. For the existing ones, time will prove their notability, and if they are AFDd, stuff will be found by others in sources I don't have. These people didn't just get to be Bronze Wolf for no reason, just sometimes the reasons are old and buried. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right, there is a good reason. Finding that and more info on them could well be a problem though. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Scouting logos and non-free perceived overuse

I have just removed some non-free logos from pages where they were absolutely not needed. Typically, non-free logos should only appear on the article of the organisation they represent (the specific scouting group, not some parent group) or anywhere that the logo itself is discussed in-depth. Please see the guidelines on non-free content, specifically the non-free content criteria, and it may also be worth reading the related guidelines on logos. The misuse is coming up because the logos are placed into any article where the group they represent is mentioned- this is simply not acceptable. For comparison, imagine if corporate logos were placed in every article that mentioned the corporation, album covers in every article that mentioned the album or paintings in every article that mentioned the artist. I appreciate that logos/badges may be widely circulated by the scouting community, but until they are released under a free license or into the public domain, they must be treated as non-free images. I am going to continue to tag/remove misused non-free images as I come across them, and I request that project members do the same, as well as being a little more careful about where the logos are placed. Note that any badges/logos that are in the public domain may be used whereever you wish. J Milburn (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted all your edits. While it may be possible that some fair-use images are used without good reason, most of the usage matches IMO WP:NFCC Criteria 8 and 9, which could be the only reason for removal. --jergen (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. The logos themselves are not discussed, and in most cases the groups themselves are only mentioned in a list. How on Earth could they possibly be significant? Furthermore, many of them lack fair use rationales (not that a valid one could be written). J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you able to discuss first and act later? Excuse me for this uncivil question, but it seems to me that you lost any faith in other users.

Logos are significant for identification. If you critizise some fair use rationales please request the uploading users for enhancement. --jergen (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm free to remove content contrary to our policies. I'm happy to discuss this, but could you please stop reverting me? At least respect that we should err on the side of caution. Can I ask why you believe that these logos should be treated differently to other non-free logos, which are used only on articles concerning their subject or where the logo itself is discussed? J Milburn (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, could you please stop reverting? At least respect that we should err on the side of caution while we discuss it. Also note that it is considered extremely bad form to undo good faith edits without comment. J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here are my views:

• In Scouting by country articles, I see no need for logos. Logos should be used only in national Scout organization (NSO) specific articles
  • Example: Scouting in Serbia and Montenegro: Use of the logo for Belgrade to represent the Belgrade Scout Union is misleading; use of the WFIS logo for three NSOs that we do not have articles on is unneeded; the gallery does not enhance the article by explaining the logos and duplicates use of logos in NSO articles
• NSO articles should not cover peer NSOs; see Wikipedia:SCOUTMOS#Equal_weight_to_associations
  • Example: Savez Izviđača Srbije: The section Other Scouting organizations in Serbia lists peer NSOs and duplicates content from Scouting in Serbia and Montenegro
• The most current logo should be used; historic logos should be used carefully, be noted as such and discussed in the article or caption
  • Example: Savez Izviđača Srbije: In the History section, Image:Yugoslav1940s.jpg is used without any context
• Non-free images should not be used as decorative icons in lists:
  • Example: List of highest awards in Scouting; each award has an article that shows the image
• Images such as postage stamps, movie screen shots, movie posters and the like must have some accompanying content discussing the stamp or the like
  • Example: Scouting memorials: Image:--Kenya.jpg is a postage stamp image placed in the article with no context

How about everyone stop reverting while we discuss this for a bit. The Scouting project needs to operate within the general policies and guidelines, and we need to do a better job of understanding those policies and policing ourselves. On the other hand, discussing issues before making a batch of edits can lead to a better understanding of the issues. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't understand the scouting jargon, I think Gadget850 has hit the nail on the head. J Milburn (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Jargon: I defined NSO in the first line; WFIS is the World Federation of Independent Scouts, one of several associations of NSOs. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The first point isn't right, a logo can be placed next to a section about the organisation when that section follows the rules and guidelines: discussion of the organisation and the logo. Placement is not restricted to the organisation specific article. --Egel _Reaction? 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Egel, you know that the fact an organisation is mentioned does not warrant an image of its logo from last time we discussed this. If the logo itself is discussed in-depth, then an image of it is warranted, and meets the non-free content criteria. I have already said this in this discussion. If the organisation is discussed, then no, the logo is probably not warranted, as an image of an album cover would not be warranted just because the album was mentioned, or a screenshot of software would not be required just because a program was mentioned. J Milburn (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User J Milburn is going through Scout articles and wholesale removing images without discussion on the talkpage of those articles. Please would an admin take a look at his edits and see if they are valid? I believe they are specious. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I am an admin. Another admin (a member of this project) has already agreed with my intentions. If you believe I am acting in bad faith, you're welcome to bring it up with me on my talk page, though I'm not sure what basis you have for that. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Jergen on this-proper notification of intent by discussion was not given ahead of time, and removal cannot be done wholesale, case-by-case analysis is warranted. I have reverted the edits I found while this issue is being discussed here at the Scouting Project-the images don't need to be orphaned until this is sorted out. If they are orphaned and deleted, one side wins by default. Better to let the discussion run its course and then act, per Gadget850. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, 'proper notification'? Who should I notify? No one owns any articles- do you notify people before correcting a spelling error? You'll note that before the majority of my removals I did actually notify the WikiProject here- I was the one who started this thread. J Milburn (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. Another debate about what is and isn't Fair Use. Here's my two cents:

1. It's better to discuss calmly and rationally first then act. This will avoid revert wars as has already happened in this case
2. We need to stay in compliance. The problems come when people don't agree with what compliance is. In the case of FU, there's always plenty of fodder for debate as the policy is not always clear cut
3. It is not required that a FU image be discussed. That is only one way FU can be met.
4. Each FU image in an article needs to have a FUR for that article.

— Rlevse • Talk • 22:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There are not many cases when an image that is not discussed (or the contents of which are not discussed) can be considered fair use. Generally, it applies only to the cover of something in an article about that something, or a logo of something in an article about that something, or other very similar cases. Non-free images of things not discussed, in an article about something only loosely related, which is what we have here, are going to struggle to meet our non-free content criteria, especially when there's a gallery of them. These revert wars wouldn't happen if people would just be more cautious with non-free content in the first place- there just isn't currently the process to discuss these sort of removals in any effective way, and what little process there is is just abused or left to stagnate. The only way to sort issues like this is to be bold. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that Scouts love their badges and often trade them at Jamborees and other events. This is an activity that has never really attracted me, although I did once have a camp fire blanket that had a few badges on it. I suggest that leads people to think that a badge on an article is important, while in many cases, its inclusion has no point as it does not relate to the content in any way. My take, as another admin joining the debate, is that User:Rlevse and User:Gadget850 are essentially correct. However, I do think a lot of these images should be removed and we should have very strong arguments to retain imgaes of badges on articles. We should step over backwards to conform with the guidelines. --Bduke (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

1. "only loosely related"? How can Polish Scout logos on Scouting in Poland, for example, only be loosely related? This is precisely what the article is about.
2. These revert wars wouldn't happen if people wouldn't make wholesale deletions across a broad spectrum of related articles without discussion first
3. "there just isn't currently the process to discuss these sort of removals in any effective way"? That is precisely what we are doing here and is one of the many uses of project talk pages.
4. "The only way to sort issues like this is to be bold." This sort of inflexible thinking doesn't help at all.
5. Should some of these be removed? Yes. Should wholesale removals be taking place? No. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

They're only loosely related as the logos each represent one of several organisations discussed in the article. It's obviously not the same as the Microsoft logo in an article on Microsoft, though perhaps I should have phrased it a little better. As I have already demonstrated with that diff, attempts at casual requests for the number of non-free images to be reduced are frequently ignored or outright removed. This is a fairly efficient project- the exception rather than the rule. But if you accept that some of the images should have been removed, why are they there? If there had been fewer in the first place, people like me wouldn't have to act in a rash way to achieve anything, and be generally despised because of it. If you don't want the "free content brigade" to come crashing down on articles you edit, ensure that, as Bduke says, you step over backwards to conform with the guidelines. This means detailed fair use rationales, discussion of the images in the articles and removal of any image not strictly needed. J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile j milburn continues to remove the images wholesale from articles, so they will be deleted by being orphaned while he drags out an issue that can instead be individually resolved very simply and politely, as suggested by Rlevse. The longer j milburn drags this out, the more likely images will be deleted. I have seen this tactic before, and it is bad faith masquerading as "erring on the side of caution". Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That is true. That tactic is one of the many issues being hotly discussed in the RFC of another admin who works in the image area. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From J Milburn: "Another admin (a member of this project) has already agreed with my intention". If referring to me, then you are reading into my statements. We don't go deleting articles without reason, and we should not do so to images. The image use policies are some of our most complex and are interpreted in different ways by different editors. What is wrong with a clear discussion on the article talk page about the issues? There are two ways to do this: delete the images en masse and get into an edit war with editors who are now pissed off; or, explain the issues, educate those same editors and let them pass on the knowledge. Each image muste be evaluated in the context of the article. Just because there is a problem does not mean it must be deleted— many can probably be kept though a refinement of the article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 04:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some points:

• I agree with User:J Milburn that there are some Scouting articles with unnecessary illustrations.
• I agree also that we have way to many logos with missing fair-use rationales.
• I do not agree with the course of his actions; I just removed {{di-orphaned fair use}} from four images and I fear that there could be some more. What if the ongoing discussion points to a solution with further usage of the images? These four would have been lost.
• I do not agree with his interpretation that the usage of the logos does not match WP:NFCC # 8 (significance) which seems to be the only one we have to discuss. Criteria 10 can be easily matched by adding missing rationales, WP:LOGO is very open in its advices and certainly doe not restrict the usage of a logo to only a single article.

I'm quite sure that we need more detailed guidelines on how to use Scouting logos. But we should discuss them first and act thereafter. Our actual page Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Images is not very helpful in this aspect and I did not find any other proposals. --jergen (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From J Milburn: "If the logo itself is discussed in-depth, then an image of it is warranted, and meets the non-free content criteria." Can you give an good example of a logo discussed in-depth or some rules / guidelines, you believe that should be followed, about how deep a logo must be discussed to meet the non-free content criteria? Looking at J_Milburn's best articles list for for good examples, I get the impression that two lines about who designed it and the colour(s) used is an in-depth discussion. Analogue to that, should writing two or three lines about the reasons behind the colours and elements used be enough. --Egel _Reaction? 10:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From Milburn's post on my talk page: "The images are going to need to be orphaned eventually anyway. Their use in these articles is simply not acceptable. J Milburn (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)" He obviously is only willing to accept his interpretation of FU. So much for using discussion to solve things. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(this is in answer to Egel, who is thankfully still discussing the issue rather than trying to find excuses to challenge my faith)In theory, yes, providing it isn't abused. Two or three lines apiece for one or two non-free images in a lengthy article is a little different from writing two lines about thirty images just for the sake of including them. If the logos are truly significant enough that they warrant mentioning in the more synoptic articles, without getting specious, then yes, that would be an acceptable solution. The logos would have to be placed inline next to where they were discussed, and, as I say, too many logos would probably still look like too many. As everyone seems to hate the fact that I actually care about the non-free content criteria or that I am on 'your turf', I'm going to piss off for a week, not touch a scouting article and not read this page, and see if your advice of 'discuss first, act later' does actually work. If I come back and there are still non-free images abused everywhere, I'll know I was right. Please, surprise me. J Milburn (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

From Milburn's post on my talk page: "We shouldn't err on the side of caution, but rather keep images that should not be there in articles so that they are not deleted? Fine. Whatever. Maybe I'm just insane. J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)" Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

"An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out?" Descartes Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Scouting logos - What to do ?

Let's start with writing clear criteria for the inclusions of logo's in the Scouting by country articles. Those are in the high risk category for being orphaned. This are my ideas:

normal criteria:

• logo's can only be used inline next to where they were discussed, not in galleries (or in layouts that looks like a gallery).
• The artwork of the logo should be discussed: the reasons of the colours and elements used in the logo.

the special criteria for the "Scouting in ....." articles:

• The organisation should be discussed: what is special about the organisation, in particular in relation to the logo.
• To keep the number of logo's as low as possible, only logo's of organisations without a organisation specific article should be included.
  • There is some consensus that the dividing line between a few and many is around 5. So keep on the save side of that number.

A discussion can be in most cases two, three lines or more.

A problem are the organisations that use the logo of their supra-national organisation as their own logo, for example many Union Internationale des Guides et Scouts d'Europe members

I think it is best to keep the small organisations in a country as a section in the article instead of making a stub article. --Egel _Reaction? 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a very reasonable start to a guideline, I was actually going to propose something similar. Let me chew on this, this is workable, I think, thank you Egel! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of confusion on logos vs. other images; refer to Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria]. A lot of this is not specifically stated, but is derived from the policies and guidelines.

• A logo inherently illustrates the organization and does not require any commentary, although such commentary may certainly be included.
• Using logos in lists of organizations, awards or the like is not acceptable. This is similar to the guideline that we cannot have album covers in discographies.
• Using multiple logos in an article that covers multiple organizations is acceptable, as long as each organization is discussed and not merely listed.
• There is no limit as to the number of logos used in an article, as long as the other guidelines are met. The key is that each individual non-free image should be used a minimum number of times.
• Using an historical logo simply to show that an organization was active at a certain period is probably not acceptable unless the logo is central to the article section and is discussed.
• Images such as a stamp or magazine cover must include content that discusses the stamp or cover in itself; you can not have a magazine cover with the image of B-P simply to illustrate B-P, but you can have the cover if there is content on the issue.

As to guidelines: We have Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Images. We can certainly add a list of specific issues such as these. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gadget850 and Bduke, if you'd look over our image usage and clean them up, a sort of in house cleaning so to speak, I'd appreciate it. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm against a cleanup without a statement how to do it. I think we should first discuss some questions. --jergen (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The artwork of the logo should be discussed:
  This proposal collides IMO with WP:V. In nearly all cases there are no sources on the elements of a Scout logo. Certainly we could write down our own interpretations but this would be original research. Chris put some unsourced explanations in a number of articles and they are not very helpful (no offence ment). What should we write? That the emblem is a fleur-de-lis like in most Scouting organizations, sometimes superimposed on a trefoil, because it's a merged organization?
• To keep the number of logo's as low as possible, only logo's of organisations without a organisation specific article should be included.
  This proposal would bring massive bias in the list-style "Scouting in country"-articles. Following it, these article would only display the logos of secondary organizations, because close to all major organizations are covered with specific articles. Perhaps have look at Scouting in Belgium - the logos of the major organizations with about 160.000 members are not on display, the three logos shown represent about 2.000 Scouts.
• Cutting down the nomber of logos to five or less.
  This works in most cases but certainly not everywhere. Scouting in France is one of the examples where a limit of five logos would mean that the article would not even display the logos of all major organizations.
• Using logos in lists of organizations (...) is not acceptable.
  WP:NFC#Acceptable use states that non-free logos are acceptable "(f)or identification". Unfortunately there is no explanation what identification means. Identification of an organization works in two ways: Either you have the name and search for the logo or you have the logo and search for the name. If the second way is covered by WP:NFC this would allow organizational logos in list-style articles because this would be the only possibility for a positive identification starting with a logo.

I think we should concentrate on two central questions:

• What is an acceptable article to be illustrated by an logo? What kind of article is inappopriate for logos?
• Is a discussion of the logo itself necessary and if yes, what has to be discussed?

When we can answer these points, we can move forward to discuss the practical implications. I would rather delete all logos from a given article than have it illustrated with the logos of secondary organizations...

A third point needing a closer look is the question, if all logos tagged with {{Non-free Scout logo}} are really non-free. I'm not familiar with the American copyright and trademark laws because the German de:Urheberrecht has a different approach declaring most logos public domain in Germany (and Austria and Switzerland, who have similar laws). But I'm quite sure that a number of the logos tagged as non-free is in the public domain; until now it was simply easier to tag it non-free than to researche age, designer or owner. I just came accross Image:Netherlandspo1911cpy.jpg and Image:Netherlandsigocpy.jpg - can anybody decide if these are free or non-free? --jergen (talk) 17:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• The discussion of the artwork is no proposal, it is a criteria, no discussion equals no logo. What is obvious for Scout is not always obvious for non-Scouts. Naming (and explaining) the Cross potent, fleur-de-lis or trefoil and similar elements or colours in the country's arms or flag and in the logo isn't original research, I think. Giving a raison, without a source, for the choice of that element in the logo is original research. You can say the BSA has an eagle like in the US arms in their logo, but when you say the BSA has an eagle in their logo because it is a nationalistic organisation, you need a source.
• WP as a whole is biased towards the big organisations, I think it is no problem to have articles that are (somewhat) biased in the opposite direction.
• 4 maybe 5 is the maximum you maybe can use in a article. The choices are maximum "4 maybe 5" or no logos. If we can't find a "fair" rule that cuts the number of logos to that, than all logo's in that article should go. The major organizations have their own article (with their logo). I think it is fair that the secondary organizations can have their logo's in the county article.
• The use as "identification" is, so far I can find, the use in the top-right corner, in the template.

I have taged those logo's in that way because they are very similar to the "original" scout lily (a work by B-P) and B-P's works will become PD on 2012-1-1. I don't know the Dutch copyright laws for derivative works. They are free to use on en.wikipedia, but maybe not everywhere.

--Egel _Reaction? 18:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should work to get some clear guidelines. My experience with images is limited, so I may not be able to help much. I come across them mostly as County/Region/Area/State badges or District badges. My first question to the image experts is this - are badges logos in the meaning of the term logo in the guidelines of fair use? Now take one example, the article Scouting in East of England, which I have recently put together by merging 6 UK County articles. That article has a few maps, one County badge image and one District article. There are 8 images that I was going to put into a gallery but have not done that yet. They were commented out in my draft in my user space to avoid them being deleted. They may now be orphaned. These are 8 out of 10 Districts in one County. This article mentions 74 different Districts and the 6 Counties. We could have 80 badge images on it. This way madness lies. I suggest for a start that one criteria is that we have no badges for Scout Districts. I am even dubious about the County badge. The badge itself is not mentioned. What is there to say about it? It is the Essex County badge. Chris, you uploaded it? What this article needs of course is some nice pictures of Scouts doing things. --Bduke (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the County badges mentioned above all have explanations and show how they have been developed and relate to their area. There are probably too many District badges, but a limited number of examples showing how they relate to their districts would probably be of interest and I would argue that they serve to break up the body of the text for the reader and illustrate the article without risking entering child protection areas. Wikipedia encourages the use of illustrations on articles, and using these badges provides a safe way to illustrate. DiverScout (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussions

I will list discussions of image use on individual articles as I review them:

• Talk:Savez Izviđača Srbije
• Talk:Scouting in Serbia
• Talk:List of highest awards in Scouting#Problem images
• Talk:Trexler Scout Reservation‎
• Talk:Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America)‎

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk -

Joseph Bech

Wilson lists Joseph Bech as a "recent convert to Scouting", but I can't find anything to corroborate, does anyone know? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

weird thought

Okay, this may be totally undoable and you all may hate me, but I just had the weird thought. Brian is collapsing the English county articles into nine major regional ones. Ed doesn't like the U.S. state articles, too many and too cumbersome. Would it make it worse if we collapse them into four regional ones? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good question, councils overlap states, change boundaries, etc. It's come up before. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the state articles is that they impose a geopolitical organization that the BSA does not use and they do not promote development. In my opinion, anyone who looks at a state article gives up and starts a council, lodge or camp article. Regions and areas are administrative groups. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

getting images from other Wikis onto Commons

I have recently found several GFDL Scout images on other Wikis that could be moved to Commons, but I have no idea how to say it in Arabic, Farsi and German. Is there a universal "Move to Commons" tag? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't know but you can download them and upload them to commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Most WPs use English as second language for templates. Just try {{movetocommons}} - and use them interwikis on the template page. Or use the Commonshelper when the server is up again (it helps to extract the nessecary description). --jergen (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't work on the German one. :( Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Also you'll need a TUSC account to use Commonshelper. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The one I want is Bild:Nordjamb75 1.jpg, but I don't want to duplicate something already out there in Wikispace. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Those will usually get deleted by admins on their project as duplicates. Commons hosts all media/picture content for the other wikis. --Kanonkas :  Talk  05:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The image in question was moved to commons by its original uploader: Image:Nordjamb75 1.jpg. --jergen (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

16th World Scout Jamboree

Before I posted these articles on World Jamborees, I edited the text from the original website, making stylistic changes, grammatical fixes and correcting figures and measurements. Because a bot picked up similarities between the two, it tagged 16th World Scout Jamboree as a copyvio, which it is not and never was. Now the bot-lackeys are deleting text from the article. I've given it another rewrite, please help. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't seem to be many good refs on this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The original version is IMO a copyvio. On de:, it would be deleted as such. --jergen (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Baden-Powell Award

I had Baden-Powell Award redlinked, as it is not just an Australian award, the UK, Singapore and South Africa also issue it. Can a proper article be written?

But is it the same award? If, and only if, each NSO has the same requirements and uses it in the same manner, then we should have a universal article. Rover Scouts should mention it, as it is common to most of the Rover sections. Each NSO section that uses the award should mention it. If it is not truly universal, then Baden-Powell Award should be a dab page to each article/section that covers it. Compare this to Eagle Scout which lists four awards with similar names. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Also compare to Chief Scout's Award, Chief Scout's Award (Scouts Canada) and Chief Scout's Award (Scouting Ireland). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Scouting

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We need to work this guys. Important ones missing and weak ones were selected. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• I stated a removal list here:
  • Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.7#ScoutingWikiProject
• add I've added these as suggested additions:
  • William Hillcourt (FA)
  • List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) (FL)
  • George Thomas Coker (GA)
  • E. Urner Goodman (FA)
  • Terry Sanford (FA)
  • Arthur Rose Eldred (GA)
    • basically, I went through our FA/GA and added ones that weren't on the list already, I may have missed one or two. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox WorldScouting

I have reworked {{Infobox WorldScouting}} to base it on the {{infobox}} meta-template. See Template:Infobox WorldScouting/testcases for examples and comaprisons. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand, are we supposed to pick one, is it going to be wider, narrower...? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There are some aesthetic differences:

• A bit wider to match other standard infoboxes
• The title at the top now has the green background
• The data line is no longer shown
• The website is now centered at the bottom to allow for a longer URL
• The old coordinates method is superseded by use of the {{coords}} template, allowing more versatility of use.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Groovy, thank you for putting up with me! :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And, by using a meta-template, it is easier to update for folks who aren't into templates. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Camp and council moving

I'm all for being bold, but I would think that the merging of several hundred article by User:Kintetsubuffalo should maybe merit some discussion? It seems to be a rather unilateral decision by one user. Other thoughts? Justinm1978 (talk) 04:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed but I forget where. It's similar to the merges recently for the British article structure. User:Bduke can tell you that one. Of course, we can discuss it here too. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see it's started right below here, DOH on me ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

moved from my talkpage

Camp Moves

I understand you're being bold, but can I see where in the Scouting MoS that justifies your massive edits? To my knowledge, the project has talked about this before and decided to leave it alone. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have cleaned out Category:Local_councils_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America, Category:Local_council_camps_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America (from over 70 camp articles to a dozen) and Category:Order_of_the_Arrow, merging them back to their proper homes now that our perpetual naysayer has retired. Per WP:Scouting MoS, smaller than council should be in no less than a council article. Where there was a lot of actual valuable info (not just some lodge vice chief who wanted to get his name in the 'pedia), I have moved the articles into council names. They are crap magnets just like the state articles have become. We do not really need any articles on individual councils, I am not happy to have had to create any of them, but it is a better catchall than all but a dozen camps or the single notable lodge article. I was able to accomplish a bit, except for a handful of ad infinitum, ad nauseam ones in New England too ponderous to gut and too big to stick anywhere. :( It is tiresome and distressing that eager editors can write such thorough articles on absolutely non-notable topics outside their local area. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

So, in response to Justinm1978, it's your own fault for deciding to go your own direction. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think this should merit a discussion or even a heads up of some kind that you would be doing this. Also, could you please answer my request to show where in the Scouting MoS that sets this standard. I find your response not in the spirit of Scouting. Justinm1978 (talk) 04:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, where is the Manual of Style that dictates this? Justinm1978 (talk)

One thing we need to clarify though, I moved Little Sioux Scout Camp, where the tornado was. That has separate notability, but there was no council article. I'm open to discussion on this, as is Randy. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultimately, the issues boil down solely to notability and deletability. This same discussion rages perennially at the School Project, where eager kids write articles about their elementary school. It is really cute and gives you a warm fuzzy feeling, and it is totally analogous in the same way to our discussion. Elementary schools and junior highs feed into high schools, which are not inherently notable but everyone has them, which in turn feed into school districts, which are not notable, usually. Do thousands of kids get a high quality education? I hope. Does everyone have a really nice lunchroom lady or funny janitor? Probably. Does every Scout camp have a great chow hall and a cool ranger? The same. Do young people come out better for their experience? Good. Is George Bush's high school notable because he went there? I daresay no. Be honest. Is your school (read Council) really notable? Until some local science fair cures cancer, no. "But wait!" you say, "My school won state championships in 1974 and 1983!" Yes, and other schools did other years, and one will this year.

There are only a dozen or so notable camps in the U.S., and half have no articles here, while much less important ones do. Sad to say, the only one that fits all notability to have a Council article, a camp article and a lodge article is evrik's Philly. The Council is pivotal in the discussion of homosexuals and Scouting. It was the first lodge of the Order of the Arrow, and Treasure Island is the birthplace of many historically experimental camps.

If we had dedicated editors specifically watching these local articles, I would favor breaking up the state articles into councils, but nobody is going to watch them any more than these dustbunnies were watched. The hard truth is, we have about a dozen dedicated, daily editors who monitor scores of articles, and Justinm1978 is not one of them, his last Scout edit before my moves was August 21. I do not doubt him as a Scout or as a good editor when he is able to, but he simply does not have the cache to justify anything about articles no one is watching or will watch.

As to my "tirade", had I seen Justinm1978's name regularly in discussions here (another editor had to point out to me that he is a member), or had his tone been less demanding, maybe he would be worthy of treatment better than a dilettante. He's active when it suits him, and that's fine, but it doesn't merit anything special. Am I biased toward regular active participating members? Yes. I encourage Justinm1978 to become one, if he is as passionate as he seems about this. Until then, ta. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Page move warning

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally while discussion about it is underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Since you didn't respond and just chose to delete (your talk page, your rules, and I respect that), but I don't agree with what you're doing, so I'm asking you to stop and talk it out on the Project page. Justinm1978 (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that seems rather, um, not Scout-like. Is there a reason you refuse to see what other editors think? Justinm1978 (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I have, over and over. I have the approval of admins, and a similar cleanup is underway with British Scout articles. You're the odd man out, and you're hanging your complaint on a single contentious editor that we each buckled to for two years because we were tired of an argument every time we tried to do something. That editor is mercifully gone now. And as it says, every time you edit a page, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly... by others, do not submit it. The time for endless discussion is over, now it's time to get the Project back on track. There is no more to discuss, had you and other editors done what was laid out originally, there would be nothing to have to clean up after. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that there is not something else to discuss. I'd like to hear from other editors. You can't just waive your hand, point to a discussion buried in the archives and say, "this is how it's going to be, deal with it". I'd just like to hear some rationalization with a little less attitude. You've dealt with a contentious editor in the past, but I am not that editor. Per WP:BOLD, you should expect that someone may not agree with your change. Please assume some good faith and respond to my request. I don't accept that this is part of a MoS that I can't find and isn't linked to. I'm not asking a lot, and probably would agree with the rationale, but honestly, you're just being a jerk and that is not helping me understand why this change needs to happen. Justinm1978 (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The project MOS is at WP:SCOUTMOS. The section that applies here is WP:SCOUTMOS#Non-national articles, as derived from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations. There has been a huge disconnect in these articles: the majority of camp and lodge articles have never had a related council article. Take a good look at the poor quality of the camp and lodges articles: the comments have been "let them grow", but it just has not happened. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 08:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Gadget is quite correct. Plans for them simply haven't materialized. We're lucky more of them weren't AFD'd. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to these two level-headed wikipedians who answered my simple request without going into a tirade. I don't entirely agree with it, but I can see the rationale. If only other editors could have been so kind as to point to this instead of giving the perception of ownership over all camp-related articles, this entire thread could have been avoided. Justinm1978 (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. We need to remember that the primary purpose of camps and lodges are to support Scouting at the council level— they cannot stand alone. Lodges and camps should start in the council article; where possible, they can then be expanded to the point where they can be split to a separate article. Another problem is the low quality of most camp and lodge article; example: H. Roe Bartle Scout Reservation mainly consists of two songs. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the Little Sioux Scout Ranch article has its own notability and should be put back as a separate article, with a summary and linkback from the council article. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

A guideline is also found at WP:S-BSA. Bearing in mind the cornerstones of verifiability and notability, the problem with most local troop and camp articles is the lack of any secondary sources. Typically, a troop may have its own website and there may be incidental mention in a local newspaper (e.g., Eagle COH), but no reliable secondary sources on which to write a suitable Wikipedia article. Same with local camps.

There are some camps that do have notability with ample sources, such as Little Sioux because of the widely-publicized tragedy and Ten Mile River Boy Scout Camp because of its gargantuan size and founding by Franklin D. Roosevelt. I favor reverting both to their former separate articles. JGHowes ^talk - 15:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And that is perfectly fine, as long as there is a parent council article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Restored Little Sioux. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Scouting in Mainland China

Per The Scout Association of Hong Kong, as well as Scouting in Mainland China, there is a lot more Scouting activity going on in the PRC than in many other countries. Perhaps we can take it upon ourselves to move China into the have-Scouts-but-not-recognized category because they do in fact have some? We should state that WOSM counts China as not having Scouts but that they are also not good at updating their site. :) It just doesn't make any sense to be in the "no" category anymore, but I want your thoughts. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Image use

Here is a draft of image use in the context of Scouting:

Policies and guidelines

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria
• Wikipedia:Non-free content

Non-free logos

• A current logo inherently illustrates the organization, award or the like and does not require any commentary, although such commentary may certainly be included.
• Logos may not be used in list articles, lists within articles or galleries in articles or categories.
• There is no limit as to the number of logos used in an article, as long as the other guidelines are met. The key is that each individual non-free image should be used a minimum number of times.
• Historical logos should not be used simply to show that an organization was active at a certain period; there must be explicit content on the logo.

Rule of thumb: If the organization does not have an article or a paragraph in an article, don't upload related logos.

Other images

• Images such as stamps, magazine covers or movie posters must include content that discusses the image in itself.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikimedia error ate what I wrote, so I am writing again from memory. Will there be grandfathering, for images uploaded say before September 1, when all the bulldozing began?

Will you put the list of orphaned images _here_, rather than at the individual articles, so they can be tracked, and potential new articles written? If it's the rule, it's the rule, but some of these orgs there is so little available that all that can be said is "this org is a member of this federation", but if an article must be written, that's fine. We don't want a replay of the mass removals? Aside from Jergen and myself (probably the biggest ?contributors? ?perpetrators?), two dozen other editors have uploaded sometimes rare images that we simply couldn't find elsewhere, and Graphics Lab people have improved many of them, especially from my early crude black and white scans when that was all that was available.

Can the images remain in the "Scouting in..." articles (like the multiplicity of Spanish emblems), if the lists are instead made into individual paragraphs, like this:

==Name of org==

[[Image:of org.jpg|thumb]]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

?

Thanks, Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I revised this to "article or a paragraph in an article". So yes, if there is content other than just the name, it can have a logo. I'm not sure what you mean by "grandfathering"— all of our images must be compliant with the policies regardless of when they were uploaded. I will try to identify articles with images in lists or galleries that need to be worked. This needs to be fixed, but we need to evaluate each image. As you may have noted, all of the images in List of highest awards in Scouting were removed, but we were able to save every one of them properly in other articles. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You did a great job, and thank you for that. What I meant by grandfathering can pretty much be ignored. You've done such a thorough job of finding homes or properly placing images that any future moves will also be handled with care, I need not worry about scores of older images. We'll find them, fix them, or retire them if need be, but with warning this time. That's where I was going, and you're great at it already Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Scouting in UK

Well, I have just completed the merge of all Area/Region articles in Scotland to Scouting in Scotland so the job is done. There are now similar articles for Wales, Northern Ireland and the 9 government regions of England. All County/Area/Region articles are now redirects. Of course all 9 articles need improvement. I have one question where I need guidance. Should Template:ScoutingUK be added to all these articles in place of Template:Scouts UK Counties? This was written by Ed, but I renamed it to cover all UK and not just the Scout Association. I am inclined to use this new one and perhaps delete the old one. What do others think? --Bduke (Discussion) 03:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel that {{ScoutingUK}} is far to large/impressive. Some critics:

• Guiding is totally missing. Even if GirlGuiding UK is kind of distanced from Scouting, our project decided to have an more overall approach.
• Putting organizations and age sections of one of these in the same tab seems inappropriate.
• Most of the contents of {{ScoutingUK}} are SA centered. This could be interpretated as bias towards SA. To avoid this I would remove the SA sections as well as the tabs "Advancement and recognition" and "National places" - Brownsea Island and the tab "Notable Persons" could be merged under "History" (if Chief Scout is removed). And Olave Baden-Powell should have a mention.

Just some thoughts. --jergen (talk) 07:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

After doing the UK, my attention is moving to Ireland. Please see the discussion at Talk:Scouting Ireland#Scouting Ireland Provinces about the six Province articles which are just a list of Scout Groups. I notice also that the very long list of Groups that was on The Singapore Scout Association has now been deleted. Are there any other articles with long unmaintainable list of Troops/Groups/Units? On the Template I will comment later. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:24, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not multiple templates? One for Scouting in the UK that lists the NSOs and the country article, and one for each NSO, if there are multiple articles for that NSO. If the NSO template contains the sections, then we can eliminate the section template used at the bottom of a lot of articles. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree in part with both Jergen and Ed. {{ScoutingUK}} is too large. I see no reason to have a template or templates for advancement, sections, people or places on an artcile about Scouting in a region. These are best on the particular organisation article at the national level. However, since these artciles for the UK cover all organisations, I think there should be a template that listed the organisations that operate in the UK if we have articles for them. That should include a link to the Guides even though thay are covered in articles on their regions. A test of this is at User:Bduke/Template:ScoutingUK2. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Crest of a Wave

This article has just had the lyrics removed (per WP:COPYRIGHT), an external link to a yuotube performance removed (again per WP:COPYRIGHT, a reference removed (per WP:RS) and then tagged as unreferenced. I agree that the lyrics are most likely a copyvio. I do not understand why we can link to something that is copyrighted. The reference was to a long quote from Ralph Reader, so it may be not third party, but I think it is reliable. What do others think? I am inclined to close this article down and add the material to Gang Show. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• support merge, and cleanup tense and tone, reads like a how-to. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support good catch Bduke. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• I have proposed the merge on the articles concerned with discussion at Talk:Gang Show. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support good catch Bduke.-Phips (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WFIS World Jamboree- images

World Scout Jamboree has a list using non-free logos that need to be removed. The WOSM emblems are used elsewhere, but the WFIS emblems are used only in this article. One solution would be to create WFIS world jamboree (this appears to be the official name per the logos) with sections on each event that could include the emblem. Anyone want to take a stab at this? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

fixed name, since we're spelling out acronyms 18:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support good idea Gadget850.-Phips (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone fix the 1959 Jamboree article? The Philippines logo is not in that article. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. As I go through the WSJ list, I will evaluate each image and ensure they are properly placed and the rationales are updated. I am not doing shotgun removals. Problematic images will be listed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. The WFIS jambo should not have been mixed in with the WOSM jambo. Jamboree (Scouting) is the universal article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

WOSM and WAGGGS regions

Resolved

Articles renamed; template titles expanded and links dabbed; another crisis averted. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to list this centrally. The titles of the WOSM and WAGGGS region articles do not meet WP guidelines. Propose rename:

• WOSM-Arab Region → Arab Scout Region (World Organization of the Scout Movement)
• WOSM-Africa Region → Africa Scout Region (World Organization of the Scout Movement)
• WOSM-Asia-Pacific Region → Asia-Pacific Scout Region (World Organization of the Scout Movement)
• WOSM-European Region → European Scout Region (World Organization of the Scout Movement)
• WOSM-Eurasian Region → Eurasian Scout Region (World Organization of the Scout Movement)
• WOSM-Interamerican Region → Interamerican Scout Region (World Organization of the Scout Movement)

• WAGGGS-Africa Region → Africa Region (World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts)
• WAGGGS-Arab Region → Arab Region (World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts)
• WAGGGS-Asia Pacific Region → Asia Pacific Region (World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts)
• WAGGGS-Europe Region → Europe Region (World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts)
• WAGGGS-Western Hemisphere Region → Western Hemisphere Region (World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts)

I also propose that the associated templates be updated to include World Organization of the Scout Movement or World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts in the header. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

so moved 18:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I'll let you do that one 18:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That is reasonable, please check out Template talk:EuropeanScout, though, user:spshu wants to edit war by changing the header to something that is not the region's name. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:spshu has a history of strange, unilateral and unstudied edits with Scouting articles, without any apparent familiarity with conventions, niceties or previous discussion. More of the same incorrect edits will be 3RR _and_ vandalism. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

NO Kintetsubuffalo|Chris, I am just indicating who's Region it is. Nothing strange, unilateral or unstudied. Oh, I sure all the project members here will find changing the color of quotebox's bar to Varisty's color of blaze is so strange and unstudied. And terrible, Cub Scouting's article with blue bar quote box. Oh and discussing naming changes to comply with Wikipedia conventions so strange, unstudied and lacking niceties or familiarity with other discussion. Oh, and most terrible adding red and blue quote boxes to Camp_Fire_USA article. Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) ‎ (add infobox's section fields) edit so unstudied. Terrible that I edited Francis Vane's article and used two sources and added an infobox for him terrible of most terrible of unstudied, strange and unilateral I am sure. Spshu (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Magyar Cserkészszövetség

Magyar Cserkészszövetség has just been blanked, which is totally over the top for something perceived but not proven to be a copyvio. Please help. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The article contained substantial text duplicating a previously published source, which has now been removed. See Talk:Magyar_Cserkészszövetség#Copyright_Violation.3F and Talk:Magyar_Cserkészszövetség#Copyright_problem_removed. For context, I particularly recommend comparing the first version of the article, from October of 2005, with the website archive from 2003. Among other duplicated text, there is a substantial run from the section in our article beginning, "In the early 1950s, the Displaced Persons (DPs), refugees from World War II and the new Communist regimes in Eastern Europe started emigrating to various overseas countries." Compare this with the archive source, which begins, "In the early fifties, the DPs (Displaced Persons, refugees from the Second World War and the new Communist regimes in Eastern Europe) started emigrating to various overseas countries." It continues. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Defending myself at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple_copyright_concerns.2C_possible_pattern but don't much care anymore. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl has already decided all of my edits are suspect, has begun poorly editing my early stuff, and has started this admin thing about me. I do not care anymore. I'm not going to unwrite things I posted here three years ago, much of which was synthesis of my research originally started in September 1989, when there were only four people in the world studying this, and I was one of them, and which I lent to people for their use. The Pine Tree Web (Lewis Orans, and you will find my name-Chris Fitch-all over that site), and N2ZGU (Gregg Sablic, who has piles of my research) stuff was used by correspondents directly borrowing what I wrote my thesis on, and for which the Scouting Project has explicit permission to reuse. I'm a little more savvy than I was then, but once I have been tarred with "plagiarist", true or false (false, but how to prove, and why bother?)... ah well. I'm 6000 miles away from my archives, in another country, with stuff that was written nearly two decades ago and is buried in my storage. I explained at Talk:Magyar Cserkészszövetség, Moonriddengirl insists on labelling my reasoning as denial, and so is determined to go ahead and crucify me. Why should I participate in this witch-hunt? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional copyright concerns

As the ANI note indicated, I found several additional articles of concern. Since then, I have also now identified and blanked two more problematic articles pending verification of authorization to print the material. This blanking is standard for copyright concerns. The articles are:

• Organization of the Scout Movement of Kazakhstan, from [33]. Archived version here.
• Organizatsia na Bulgarskite Skauty, from [34]. Archived version here.

In each case, the original edit of the article substantially duplicates the identified sources. In both cases, sufficient material remains in the articles from those sources to necessitate this verification. Once verification is received according to the standard permissions process, the article contents can be restored. Otherwise, material will need to be revised. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

PPÖ

PPÖ was created as a new disambiguation page. PPÖ is the abbreviation for Boy Scouts and Girl Guides of Austria (Pfadfinder und Pfadfinderinnen Österreichs) Please keep an eye on it. Yours in Scouting-Phips (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hiking article getting killed

Dunno, but it seems remotely possible somebody here would be interested in trying to save an article of potential interest to hikers and scouts in North America and elsewhere.

Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests and a narrow, clinical orientation toward medicine.

I get around a lot in the outdoors and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.

After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.

I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the rather vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different.Calamitybrook (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Some general thoughts

As many of you are aware, since the very end of May, I have been involved in merging articles on Counties/Area/Scout Regions, in the UK and Ireland, to articles on wider geographical areas and at the same time removing the long lists of Groups that were cluttering so many articles. The experience has been rather strange and this has forced me to think about our Project more widely. The number of people who commented on the merge proposals was very small, but this does not mean that the articles to be merged were not being visited. They continued to attract editors who obviously noted something that they had personal knowledge of and they made edits to add, alter or remove information of Groups, without them noticing that the merge proposal would result in all such material being deleted. Since the new articles have been put into place (the first for Northern Ireland was in mid June) there has been no attempt to add any material on Groups. Totally outside my activities, the long list of Groups on the Singapore main article was removed and again there has been no attempt at reverting that edit.

I conclude that the number of active editors who want to develop these articles has declined and we are now in a time where the articles are attracting readers who make small edits to correct material or add material that they know about. For example, a good proportion of the edits to the new articles has been the addition of Gang Show information. These edits are often poorly written and almost always lack sources even when such sources are readily available. The question is this - how can we ensure adequate oversight of these articles?

The general situation is that we have a lot of good articles (FA or GA) and we have an excellent coverage of World Scouting. We are certainly a much better source of information on World Scouting than anything else. We still have gaps. For example we have better coverage of Scouting than Guiding. I use these terms deliberately because I have more knowledge of the articles on organisations and people from countries that use these terms. These gaps are however small. We are close to totally covering the content of the subject of this WikiProject. As I suggest above, we are moving into maintainance mode rather than creation mode. How can we do this well, keeping up the enthusiasm of project participants? I think we need to discuss this now, before we are totally in maintainance mode. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed many of these things too. Once we got the project built up, naturally we start to run out of new articles to create, but there is gobs of work still to be done. By numerical count, most of our articles are in lousy shape, though we're lightyears ahead of where we were 2.5 years ago when we formed the project. People are naturally drawn to work on what interests them and what their background is. Since most en wiki users are male, more work is done on the Scouting vice Guiding articles. We have two task forces: Philmont, which hasn't done anything to speak of in iages, and GGGS which has a very small but dedicated group. Much of the rest of the problem is also manpower (userpower?) related? Our dedicated band simply can't watch every edit and every article, we watch what we care most about. So we're often left to revert, or whatever, ourselves. Our topic, Scouting, is a narrow one in the great scheme of wiki and while we have over 100 members on paper, our core group is less than 20 really dedicated members. That's few to watch over 1000 articles and over 1000 images. To keep enthusiasm, I suggest that if you like creating articles and run out of new ones to make, pick those you really are interested in and do what it takes to get it to FA. We had no FAs when we formed and now we have 21. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

We do have a lot of maintenance that is required. Chris and I have been upmerging the BSA council and lodge articles; you have been cleaning up the SA articles and I have been working on images. I wish we could attract more good editors. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict - I'm agreeing with Ed) I had intended to add a further point, but forgot. My activities on the UK and Irish articles has reduced the number of our articles by over 80. That makes them easier to watch. Many of the poor quality articles should be examined and merged into something else. We should be working to reduce the number of articles, while of course still writing new articles where they are really needed. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

from 9th World Scout Jamboree

I was there on the closing weekend, as a callow eight year old Wolf Cub. I was introduced to and shook hands with both Lady Baden-Powell and HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, who was wearing a Ranger Scout uniform. There is no mention in the article of his presence, but he was definitely there if a suitable reference can be found. 21stCenturyGreenstuff (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard good article reassessment

L. Ron Hubbard has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A project userpage side bar

The Yorkshire project has a neat sidebar that you can add to your user page. It is at {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Sidebar}}. Click here Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Sidebar to see it. Would be a good idea if we had something similar? It needs to be aligned to the right I think. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We could use the project template: "WPScouting Navigation" or a modified version thereof. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And upgrading that to use {{sidebar}} or {{sidebar with collapsible lists}} is on my do list. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible lists please. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Scouting Sections Infobox

I propose that we deprecate {{Scouting Sections Infobox}} in favor of {{Infobox WorldScouting}}. Only a few articles use Scouting Sections, and WorldScouting has had the Next and Previous fields for quite a while. Compare the infobox in Cub Scouts (The Scout Association) to Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Scouting Sections Infobox}} is no longer used. I am going to put this up for deletion. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm probably not welcome here, but...

...has there been any progress in terms of removing all of the logos that are not absolutely necessary from scouting articles? I see that one that lingered on my watchlist, Scouting in Romania, still has a non-free gallery. Is this article an oversight, or has nothing been done? J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There is some progress, but this may take a while. See further up at #Scouting logos and non-free perceived overuse. Please remember that your remarks apply to some 300 articles. --jergen (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Gadget850 has been working on this hard, I'm sure he'll give a progress report. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not doing a shotgun approach. We look at each article and image and evaluate the images. If the image is not appropriate in that article, then we look to see if there is someplace where it will properly fit and move it. If we can't fit it, then we let it go. We also update the rationales. It is a bit of a slow process, but we are working on it. A few of the articles that have been worked:

• Age groups in Scouting and Guiding: all logos removed from list
• Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America): all logos removed from list; all deleted except for a few that are used in other articles with context
• Trexler Scout Reservation: historic logos with no context and incorrect licensing removed and deleted

There have been a lot of one off instances where a logo was used in a main article and in parent or child articles: in most cases I have deleted it from all but the main article. I have not even started to work the Scouting by country articles. I did try to search for the gallery tag in the Scouting articles a few days ago, but the server kept crapping out; I need to get back to that.

Would you take a look at Talk:Yawgoog Scout Reservation#Segments.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the segments shown in Yawgoog Scout Reservation reaches the threshold of originality; they should all be retagged as public domain. --jergen (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to add some discussion to the logo's in the articles about nso's in former Dutch colonies, for instance: Surinaamse Padvindsters Raad does it make sense? --Egel _Reaction? 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A logo inherently represents the organization, thus you don't really need a critical analysis of the logo. What you really should have is content on the organization represented by the logo. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fine for the article on the organisation, but the mistake is the belief that any article that mentions an organisation has some kind of right to have an image of said organisation's logo. I can see progress is being made here, so I am happy to leave you to it- I'll certainly keep an eye on how things are going and join discussions, but I'll leave you to do most of the actual removing. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Your tone and your attitude are why you perceive you are not welcome here. You'd be most welcome if you'd stop talking down to us. There is no "mistake", it's a difference in interpretation. There's nothing to "leave us to", we're all grownups and even put our pants on by ourselves. We don't need anyone to "keep an eye on" anything, but thanks, daddy. Do you even understand how filled with condescension your writing is? Treat us like people and you're welcome anytime. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

asked on Jergen's talkpage, unanswered

Jergen put an awful lot of (unexplained) work into splitting Russian articles into "in exile" and "Russia", and then piped them right back to Scouting in Russia. What is the purpose of that? Is someone planning on writing the articles? I'm not, and I see no need for the split thus. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Muslim American Scouting

Has anyone ever heard of this? http://www.masscouting.org/ Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No. It looks like something separate from BSA, like Royal Rangers. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell if this is supposed to be a separate Scouting organization or if it is a group like the National Islamic Committee on Scouting. I have added this to the todo list at Talk:Scouting in the United States for monitoring. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

According to these sources they belong to the Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of America.

[35], [36], [37], [38], [39]-Yours in Scouting Phips (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

New articles

When you find or create and tag new Scouting articles, please add categories to them. You can rate them too, but I don't mind rating them. 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Scout logo2.svg

Recently some new users have expressed that they do not feel Girl Scouts get equal time at this Project. That is both understandable and unavoidable. The vast bulk of Internet users are male and American, so unfortunately the Project has a BSA systemic bias it does not intend, just as the whole of the Wikipedia is pointed that way. However, we can be more proactive. I propose sending Image:Scout logo2.svg to the Graphic Lab to have the hollow trefoil filled in with green, so that both the boy emblem and the girl emblem have substance, bulk and texture. When I first designed the original, I didn't even think about that, I was trying to simply incorporate both emblems. Now this seems like a natural progression. Any thoughts? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been meaning to bring that up. When we use the logo on a green background, the trefoil pretty much disappears. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The request is at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Scout Wikiproject logo (our own image, so free to tweak) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• 
• 
  Symmetrical version with filled in trefoil

"eco-scouts on the coast of Black Sea"

Interesting the permutations one finds googling. http://www.eeiu.org/chapters/sevastopol/updates.html Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See Green Scouting. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

use of WOSM photos

Do we have any sort of permission from WOSM, or how do we obtain it? I found this rogues' gallery http://www.scout.org/en/our_organisation/governance/world_committee .

Most from WOSM site is under a Creative Commons Public License see: http://www.scout.org/en/copyright . --Egel _Reaction? 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WOSM excludes commercial usage in its CC License, so the material is not usable in wikipedia. --jergen (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nav templates

I would like to standardize the way we do our navigational templates. Currently, some are mixed and a bit confusing. This is a general outline; specific changes would be discussed on the template talk pages. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• • Gadget850, you are THE BOMB at this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

BSAseries

• {{BSAseries}}: replace with {{Scouts BSA}} (which needs more work). BSAseries is the only template of it's type and uses a big chunk of the article space
  • support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Scouting Sections

• {{Scouting Sections}}: deprecate and replace with NSO specific nav templates

This one I don't understand what the issue is, it seems like a good one to me. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

NSOs with multiple articles should have a specific navbox. Compare the section links at the bottom of The Scout Association and Scouts Australia; the first uses Scouting Sections, the second uses the Scouts Australia navbox. I would rather use the navbox alone, as it can list more related articles. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• • support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Country and NSO templates

• Separate Scouting by country and Scouting by NSO templates:
  • Scouting by country templates should include only the main article for each NSO and any regional article that cover all NSOs.
  • Scouting by NSO templates should cover only the NSO, its sections, any other related content and regional articles specific to the NSO.
    • Example: {{Scouts Australia}} is about Scouting in Australia; it should include only the main article for each NSO and none of the section articles; NSO templates should be created as needed
  • We should examine each template and rename as needed to properly reflect the content; country templates should be renamed to Scouting in country; NSO templates should reflect the NSO name
    • Example: {{Scouts Australia}} should be about the NSO; {{Scouting in Australia}} would be about the country

I disagree about Australia. Scouting is not so complex here that we need two templates. {{Scouts Australia}} is fine, but it should be renamed to {{Scouting in Australia}}. The sections are specifically called Scouts Australia Sections, and we can add the B-PSA sections as the only other organisation that exists, although on a small scale. We do need to address Guiding in Australia, but we just do not have an editor interested in it. I plan to have a review of all Oz articles soon, but I am tied up right now. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• • support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Scouting

• {{Scouting}}: this template has grown to the point where I am no longer quite sure of its purpose; it think it was supposed to show our FA and GA articles. I propose that it reflect only those articles that are international or universal.
  • Remove Scouting in the US and UK; replace with their own their templates per above
  • Persons and places should be those of true international importance.
    • I would say Robert Baden-Powell · Olave Baden-Powell · Agnes Baden-Powell · Daniel Carter Beard · William D. Boyce · Frederick Russell Burnham · George Thomas Coker · David Cossgrove · Olga Drahonowska-Małkowska · Charles Eastman · Arthur Rose Eldred · William Hillcourt · Andrzej Małkowski · Ernest Thompson Seton · William A. Smith · James E. West · J. S. Wilson and maybe add László Nagy (Scouting) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge {{IntlScoutsGuides}} into Scouting
    • support Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • support but remove the other Scouting articles section as there is no clear inclusion criteria. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Brian, explain the last bit? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a section called "Other Scouting articles" which contains Category:Scouting organizations and associations · Mafeking Cadet Corps · The Scout Association of Hong Kong · South African Scout Association · Scouts Canada. What is the criteria for inclusion? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd take that out too. It looks like someone was just adding their pet projects, like with notable people. Poland and Hong Kong do not have global (or regional) impact. For good faith, maybe it's just that those articles were well-developed. But there's still no justification for them in the template. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• • support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Names

I am proposing some template naming standards:

• NSO specific templates should be "Scoutorg xxx", where xxx is the abbreviation; example {{Scoutorg BSA}}
• Country templates should be "Scouting in xxx" where xxx is the country; example {{Scouting in the United States}}

This will help to clarify use; for example, if {{Scouts Australia}} about the NSO or the country. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I have been guilty of shifting the emphasis of a template without renaming it. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific recommendations

• {{Scouts Australia}} rename to {{Scouting in Australia}}
• {{AmScoutbystate}} merge to {{Scouting in the United States}}
• {{ScoutingUK}} rename to {{Scouting in the UK}}
• {{Scouts UK Counties}} merge to {{Scouting in the UK}}

• {{GirlguidingUK}} rename to {{Scoutorg GirlguidingUK}}
• {{Scouts Canada}} rename to {{Scoutorg Scouts Canada}}
• {{Scouts Canada Provinces}} merge to {{Scoutorg Scouts Canada}}

• {{IntlScoutsGuides}} merge to {{Scouting}}

• {{BSAseries}} delete in favor of {{Scoutorg BSA}}

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Southern Region (Boy Scouts of America)

I expanded this from an absolutely non-notable section article, but upon thinking about it, there's really no way this can grow separately. What if I expanded it to Regions of the Boy Scouts of America, and included historic information about the original 12 and the later 6? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Regions and areas are administrative groups of National and are not incorporated; their notability outside of National is shaky. History can go in Regions of the Boy Scouts of AmericaHistory of the Boy Scouts of America; really it is just we used to have 12 regions, then they merged. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Err- typo. If we only want the history, then add it to the history article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

New user page

I have a new user page, based on User:Phaedriel's. Mine is in a common Scout color motif, green and gold. Let me know what you think of it all and if you have idea's on how to fill up the body. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool! With the addition of purple, it looks like one of those Mardi Gras cakes. ;) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Project logo

Chris pushed for improvements to the logo:

• 
  Current
• 
  New
• 
  lighter
• 
  color-match
• 
  darker with fade created for us for comparison

If there are no objections, I will upload the new version over the old. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

With original name do you mean Image:Scout logo.svg or Image:Scout logo2.svg? First would make more sense but second might be more used. Whichever way we go it would only take a short time on AWB to change all pages to point to whichever name we pick. /Lokal_Profil 13:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Scout logo2.svg is the one everything uses now, but Scout logo.svg is a better name. Do you have a working knowledge of AWB? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I have AWB. Most use is in templates, so it should be an easy update. It is used a lot in {{portal|Scouting|Scout logo2.svg}}, but I am going to replace that with {{Scoutingportal}} so we don't have to do image updates all the time. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So which name do you like? Maybe upload it over both. I think the change should be universal across wikis, for my original reasoning. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with Scout logo.svg. I just created the new portal template and will update articles. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Groovy for our Project's use, but I do think it should be put over both, anyway. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did Chris push for this? This is the first I heard of it. I like the old one, the one we currently have. For one thing, the green in the proposed one is too dark. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree about the green. Colour match them as Chris says at the top of this section but to the lighter green of the Guide symbol. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Up at #Image:Scout logo2.svg. Pay attention. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that's what I get for being so busy. I can support this if the green is lightened to match the GGGS image on the right. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aaigh, I should have kept my damn mouth shut. Why the lighter green? The image looks crisp and textured with the darker green, I was suggesting go the other way with the GGGS one. Please explain. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Throw up a version of both greens for both images. Right now the dark green looks too dominating. Or perhaps a shade in btwn the two would be best. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2008

Consider that we mostly use this logo at smaller sizes on a green background. I think the lighter green is going to wash out. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed, that's a beautiful illustration of why I think the darker green is crisper! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes aren't green, project tag isn't green, and this proposed design only has green part way around it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The image is used in the following templates:

• {{Infobox WorldScouting}}: green background
• {{WPScouting Navigation}}: green background
• {{Scouting}}: green background
• {{ScoutConventions}}: green background
• {{Scouting WP invite}}: ivory background (used to make the trefoil stand out, but not that well, otherwise I would have just gone with all green)
• {{WikiProject Scouting}}: buff and white backgrounds
• {{Scout-stub}}: white background
• {{Scoutingportal}}: white background

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to get into this discussion, but these examples do seem to indicate that this use of the image promotes Scouting and underplays the Guiding part. The trefoil is hardly visible in many of them. May be we need to rethink both the images and the background to give equally weight to the symbols of both Scouting and Guiding. Apologies to the guys from the US, but I think in terms of the two movements as Scouts and Guides. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't hesitate— this applies to all of us. I think of Scouting and Guiding as different facets of the same movement, but in the U.S, we have Girl Scouts. Some ideas:

1. Enlarge the trefoil as in Image:Association des Scouts et Guides du Congo.png

• That almost weights it the other direction. Because the trefoil is darker than the fleur-de-lis, it gives the visual effect of being larger anyway, which seems to be what Randy objected to. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Have the trefoil in WAGGGS blue like Image:WAGGGS.svg

Ah, no, we intentionally made it green to 1) match with BP's colors and the Scout WP emblem, and more importantly, that would put it in copyvio territory and then we couldn't use it. Or are you saying the one with both the fdl and the trefoil? In which case, the best logos visually are bicolored, get into three and they are distracting to the eye. But we can try it. However, notice discussion and work on this at the Graphics Lab has dried up. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant to color the trefoil blue instead of green.

Have the trefoil offset left and up with the fleur-de-lis superimposed (I have seen something like this somewhere).

You're thinking of Switzerland. That personally looks way too corporate to me, and away from the look of the badge, which are the key components of Scouting uniforms. Many of the European and South American emblems have turned into trendy corporate numbers, which do not lend themselves to good badgework. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Not side by side, but shift the trefoil to the left half the image and up by half.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

note Green and yellow do not suggest Scouting so much as they suggest BP, those are the heraldic colors he chose. If we were to give it a Scouting (well, WOSM) bias, it would be purple. Yellow and green steer clear of purple and blue so as not to give any such leaning either way. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"Scouting and Guiding as different facets of the same movement" PRECISELY. It all goes back to BP. They are not separate movements, just as BSA and TSA are not separate movements, just different facets of the crystal of the ONE movement that BP started. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

BP's colors were green and gold/yellow, that is what we should stick to, the source of it all. I simpler and more traditional the better. No corporate logo style, no cross so it won't allude to one religion. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. How about we keep the new version of the logo and superimpose it on an ivory oval or roundel, creating a badge. That way the green trefoil does not wash out. Simple edits like this I can handle. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? I changed the green to the WAGGGS version and added the oval. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the one with the ivory background. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It just got loaded over. I will deal with this tomorrow. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Lokal Profil just created GGGSgreengold3.svg for us, I have to say I prefer the crisper, sharper coloration. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are we on this? An editor tagged this as "resolved", I'm not sure we are. Thoughts? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone overwrote the one with the ivory background, Gadget was going to fix it, that is the one I liked best. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

1- Current

2- Dark trefoil

3- Light trefoil

4- Light trefoil with oval

OK- I took the new new version and added the oval background. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the ivory one. I support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so it looks like there's support for different variants, shall we poll, like when we created the original 2 1/2 years ago? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Knock-knock. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Which one do you like? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Scout logo poll

How long should we let the poll run? It's been 10 days now. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• 1- Current
• 2- Dark trefoil

I prefer this one. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this one. DarthGriz98 04:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer this one. Egel _Reaction? 10:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

my choice too. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC).

B (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• 3- Light trefoil
• 4- Light trefoil with oval

I prefer this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The oval reduces the size of the visual logo. The point is to make all of the elements clear. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It is clear, with the version you prefer it blends into the background, this one makes it stand out. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The really dark one that you like doesn't show up at all on dark backgrounds but the one with the oval will show on all backgrounds. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Guide logo poll

How long should we let the poll run? It's been 10 days now. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And the participation has been abyssmal. We should get more particpants. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• 1- Current- Light trefoil

we should use the same logo for the whole project except maye for the one that is on the GGGS task force logo and for that I vote for the one they are already using. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We only use this as a task force logo; changes should start at the task force level. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote for the current task force logo. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• 2- Dark trefoil

I prefer this one. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the darker one, it has a more depth. DarthGriz98 04:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I favour this one. Kingbird (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I also favour this one.-Phips (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Portal tags

From Wikipedia:Portal: "While the top-level portals are linked to directly from the Main Page, individual portals are linked by placing {{portal}} on a page. However, in the main namespace, these templates should not be placed in articles, but instead should be located at the top of an article's talk page, often due to being integrated into WikiProject banner templates."

We currently have the portal tag in the See also section of a lot of articles, and we have it in ((tl|Infobox WorldScouting)). Per the guideline, we should not use the portal in article pages, only on the talk page; we already have the portal in the project banner. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GTL says or at least said, portal tags go in See also. This conflicts with the above. Even what you quoted does not say it can't be in the banner on talk pages (the portal tag). — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

GTL still says that Wikipedia:GTL#See_also. We have a conflict of policies here. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You are right. I have noted this at Wikipedia talk:Portal#Wikipedia:Layout conflict and Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Wikipedia:Portal conflict. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See comment at: Wikipedia_talk:Layout#Wikipedia:Portal_conflict — Rlevse • Talk • 11:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I created {{Scoutingportal}} and replaced the old portal tags in all the articles. I also removed the portal tag from articles with the infobox and moved portals from the top of the article to the see also section or somewhere near the bottom (lots of stub articles). I probably got 98% of over 4000 articles. If we update the logo, we can now do it much more readily. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore

Okay, since my request for help on this one has gone unanswered for months, what do you think of the idea of moving it to Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije, its historical name for years, and tagging it as defunct? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at this a couple of times. My problem is that trying to get a sense of the relationships. Correct me if I am wrong here:

• Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije: defunct Scout organization of Yugoslavia 1951-1995 became...
• Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore: defunct Scout organization of Serbia and Montenegro 1995-2007
• Savez Izviđača Srbije: current Scout organization of Serbia
• Savez Izviđača Crne Gore: current Scout organization of Montenegro

If Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore is the true and single successor to Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije, then leave the title at Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore and mark it as defunct, split into Savez Izviđača Srbije and Savez Izviđača Crne Gore. (That about killed my cut and paste keys)

The thing is, because SIJ is the older, longer-period historical name, and covered all six republics at one time, it's the more historical name. Look at the long list of names at Corps of Guides (British India), yet the simplest and earliest one is where the article is parked. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW- using multiple languages in the infobox header is confusing, we can add fields for alternative names used by the organization itself if needed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox WorldScouting/testcases for an example of name labels in the template. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Did Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije rename to Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore or did it split? If it split, into what organizations? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

SIJ renamed to SISCG. SISCG split. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Chris- you are just going to do as you see fit. Yugoslavia was six republics, and it is difficult to get a sense of how the other four fit into Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije and how they split out. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 09:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

:That's unfair. You asked the question, I answered. Why the incivility?

For the question in your statement, SIJ was around at the breakup of Yugoslavia. Four new countries made their own Scouts from their local councils. The country remained "Yugoslavia" for four more years, then changed to "Serbia and Montenegro", hence the namechange. Then that split. I have tagged it as extinct as you suggested.

Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I misunderstood your meaning. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Yugoslavia was six republics. If the changed their name to Scout Association of Serbia and Montenegro, then what happened to the other four republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia had only two republics between 1992 and 2003. The associations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia left the federal SIJ on 1992/93. --jergen (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Would this be correct. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia 1951–1995

Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992

Croatia 1992

Macedonia 1992

Slovenia 1992

Serbia and Montenegro 1995–2007

Serbia 2007

Montenegro 2007

Make 2008 to read 2007, and it's perfect. The SISCG may have existed on paper, but functionally once Montenegro split, it was two separate orgs. Cool chart! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I also linked the NSOs. The founding years for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Macedonia do not match the infobox in the articles— any ideas? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• gulp* it's kind of a hairy mess, even when it was splitting. I will talk to contacts and try to find out. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Methinks you now understand my confusion. I recommend that we merge/redirect the defunct Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije and Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore to Scouting in Yugoslavia and add this chart. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a great solution and one I did not think of. I'm for it. Please, then read over the text of the thing, and anything that causes you to stumble, call me on it, like we're trying to do with Vovulaky. I tried just now to fix the opening, and I update-tagged it. I want anyone who reads it to understand what has happened. To quote the great philosopher Elton John, "I guess that's why the call it the Balkans." Or maybe I made that up. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would be all for keeping notable historical NSOs, but I think this is going to be highly confusing to the average any reader. What text am I supposed to review? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The text of Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore. To paraphrase noted bibliophile Ed , "The article is just not clear. If it is not clear to {noted bibliophile Ed}—who have experience in Scouting outside the U.S.—then it is not going to be clear to the average reader." I wrote Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore, and I understand the basic history, so I am too close to it. I need someone to look it over who hasn't been studying this for 19 years. I started this in college, so it makes sense to me. If it doesn't to you, it needs to be fixed. I know, I know, but we can go slow, no one is screaming for its deletion or something. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. Do you want to change the merge tag? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Some explanations and one proposal

I'll try to explain some of the questions:

• SIJ was a federal body ever since its foundation in 1953. Its members were the respective associations of Bosnia and Herzegovia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia; all founded in the 1950s.
• The associations of Bosnia and Hercegovia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia left SIJ in 1992/93 and became independent NSOs. All four applied successfully for WOSM membership. (Note: SIJ did not split, the dissidents were free to leave the federation.)
• SIJ continued to exist as federal body composed of the associations of Montenegro and Serbia. It was renamed to SISCG in 1995.
• SISCG as a federal body was disbanded in 2007, the associations of Montenegro and Serbia became independent NSOs. Serbia kept all rights within WOSM while Montenegro had to apply for WOSM membership.

Hope this helps. Piet Kroonenberg needs about 50 pages in The Undaunted vol. 1 for the explanation of Yugoslav Scouting prior to 1994/95; I can't see how this will ever fit in a single article ;)

Some proposals concerning the articles:

• Scouting in Yugoslavia should give an overview of the situation.
• Savez Skauta Kraljevine Jugoslavije should deal with the Scouting history until WW II, since it had a completly different structure than SIJ, not to mention the later communist influences on SIJ.
• Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije should deal with Scouting in Yugoslavia between 1945/46 and 2005, including SISCG.
• Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore should redirect to Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije.
• The articles on the six NSOs of 2008 should mention the formar affiliation to SIJ as well as some core informations on the organizational history.

Comments? I strongly recommend Piet's book as main source for the articles. --jergen (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije renamed to Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore for a short time, so that is OK. You know how it works; you made the proposal so you get to do it. Just make sure the relationships are clear. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to organize the Yugoslav questions on User:Jergen/workshop/Scouting in Yugoslavia. --jergen (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

GiGA Camp and Skreens Park

These two new stubs are not notable and are likely to be quickly deleted. I have transfered the material that is appropriate to Scouting in East of England#Essex and notified the editor. I await his response. I do not think anything more needs to be done for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted them as merged. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Guiding 2010 Centenary

Per Kingbird, WAGGGS member associations are starting to make announcements about their 2010-2012 centenary celebrations. We should start an article like the Scouting one. For matching naming, I propose Guiding 2010 Centenary . Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Since Guides naming started before Girl Scout naming, I support that for a simpler title's sake. Overall great idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

problem articles

Hawk Mountain Camp and Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 have serious issues and may not meet true criteria for notability. Ed has been monitoring these, but a user keeps removing the housekeeping tags. I hate to be drastic, but would putting these up for AfD help to break the problem down? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ed and I have discussed this. AFD them. If he removes the AFD tags, he'll be blockable for disruption with this history. Post diffs of the removals on the talk pages of the two articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I had been trying to give the concerned editors time to fix the articles, but there appears to be no action other than removing the merge and notability tags. I anticipate that I will take these to AfD. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Pls afd and let me know the links. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Camp Onway

What do we do with Camp Onway? This is a former camp of the Yankee Clipper Council that is now owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I asked over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement if they wanted to take it over, but there has been no response. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Apply same standards as our other camp articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Permission granted to use material on http://n2zgu.50megs.com/INDEX%20SAW.htm relating to World Scouting

Hi, I'm working with WP:OTRS. I'm a scouter myself, just I don't have much time to get involved with this project. However I'm here to confirm that we have permission to use the content of that site that relates to World Scouting.

Specifically from the email: "There is no copyright on any of the material. I release all the material to be used for the public good." You guys can consider that no rights reserved or public domain.

As the material on this site may affect more then one article I'm asking for ideas on how we can make it clear that using this material is not a copyright infringement, but it is clear why material is copied from that site to wikipedia should someone ask. We generally affix {{PermissionsOTRS|id=2008092910033111}} (that is the ticket ID for this ticket) to the talk page of articles with a short explaination of what the ticket covers. I've already told you guys what it covers, just ideas on how to make it clear on multiple articles are welcome.... perhaps a template "article encorporates text from blah blah" or similar is worth thought. —— nixeagle 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The first section I checked at http://n2zgu.50megs.com/YUGO.htm seems to have content that is a duplicate of http://www.pinetreeweb.com/yugohome.htm; specifically "A Brief History of Savez Izvidjaca Jugoslavije". Sampling shows that the last updates were in 1999. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How do we know it wasn't copied the other direction? Issues such as these need worked. But for material with no issues, just affix the tag nixeagle showed to the talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Small National Scouting and Guiding organisations

As noted on the main page of the Project, Girl Scouts of Jamaica is at AfD, I have supported there the merge to Scouting in Jamaica. However, this raises some general issues about articles on individual National Scouting organisations, particularly for small countries. The Girl Guides Association of Jamaica is a stub. The Scout Association of Jamaica is rather longer although I suspect the history section may have been lifted from somewhere. Increasingly I have come to the view that we should just have one article and cover all NSOs in the country for situations like this where that is manageable. I would strongly urge that the name of the article should be "Scouting and Guiding in Jamaica" (in this case), where the term Guiding is used, as the term "Scouting" is not always understood to include "Guiding". This could also apply at State level in some countries. We are close to that in Australia, just needing to add about Guiding in each state article. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You put up a number of different questions, each of them needs IMO a seperate discussion. So I'll try to split this. --jergen (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Scouting and Guiding" implies it's two movements but it's not, it all came from BP. The earliest troops had girls tagging along as they wanted in on the fun but mores of the time caused them to form their own troops. It's one movement. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Small organizations

Articles about small organizations put up a number of problems:

• Notability: "National" organizations with a small number of units do not meet the notability criteria as described in WP:GROUP#Non-commercial organizations ie their activities have mostly regional scope even when these organizations claim national scope.
• Sources: WP:GROUP#Primary criteria requests independent secondary sources. This is even a problem with the smaller members of WAGGGS and WOSM - even the publications of these international bodies can be seen as self-published: They are mainly composed of material provided by the respective member organizations.
• Conflicts of interest: If you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl Scouts of Jamaica or similar debates, you can see that most statements adopt something I'd call a "WikiProject Scouting point of view", saying nearly everything in Scouting is notable and should be presented at some place in Wikipedia. This POV is something apart from the Wikipedia:Five pillars, especially from WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

So what can we do with the stubs on small organizations:

• Including stubs in the overviews could be seen as a bias towards WOSM and its members since there are far more stubs on Guiding than on Scouting organizations.
• We could lay back and wait for the expansion of the stubs. This would be the Wikipedia way, but I've little hope that it works in this specialiced field.
• We could start article drives, eg sorted by continents.

Just my thoughts. --jergen (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Merging to the larger article is prob best as we don't seem to be able to get enough people working on our articles for the long term to support the other options. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that these small groups should be automatically deleted, where suitable information is available to provide a full article. Using this policy blindly over the whole of Wikipedia would delete the majority of content from several projects. For an immediate example, few of the museums listed on Wikipedia can be considered to claim national scope. None of the heritage railways can. It would be also hard to justify a lot of the military history content.

I know that we disagree on this, but I feel that all associations, whether WOSM or not, have an equal right to placement here - provided that there is third-party referenced. If they are a one-group association, the article should state this - but the content should still be made available on Wikipedia for those interested in research. What would be the minimum size before an Association were permitted to have an entry?

I do feel that, where there is insufficient information for a full article, short entries on the appropriate "Scouting in ..." page is a better idea until information can be gathered is better than a stub entry, but that is as far as I would be willing to go. DiverScout (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did not propose automatic deletion, did I? I pointed to some problems, where IMO the procedures and rules of WikiProject Scouting contradict the general rules on en.wp. This may look like an exclusionist point of view, but you should remember that I started contributing first on de.wp which has very strict rules concerning notability and sources.

Museums, heritage railways and military history can not be compared with associations; if you would have had a look at WP:GROUP you would know that this notability guideline does not rule them. So put them away. We are not discussing them.

For me, an association can reach notability by age, size, media coverage or historical impact. "Size" is the most difficult of these criteria and should be seen in relation with the country's population (eg the Association des Guides et Scouts de Monaco is notable because it is the only organization in Monaco and the country has only a very small population; a German organization of the same size would not be notable). --jergen (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't this time - and I didn't accuse you of it this time either. I simply used my right to express an opinion on this open-source media. Luckily, from the sound of it, this is not de.wp. so I stand by my comments. Oh, and please don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. I can play the same game, but it's not appropriate to the spirit of Wikipedia.

With reference to the tiny German associations, although I'd agree that "single troop" types would never have enough information for their own article, perhaps they ought to have a listing, or even a paragraph entry on the Scouting in Germany page where third-party reference exists. DiverScout (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns

We have a lot of copyright problems. Bduke mentions The Scout Association of Jamaica: The history section was recently copied from [40]. Yesterday, I came upon Scouts Australia, also with a copyvio since its very first version in December 2004. I think we need something like a taskforce to check all articles tagged with mid importance or higher to avoid further problems. This problem is far more pressing than the fair use of images: If we loose an image, we still have text informations; but if an article is deleted as copyvio, all information is lost. --jergen (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Same basic response as above, probably only the regulars would end up on the task force, but yes, this needs fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell me on my talk page what the Scouts Australia's copyvio problem is and I'll try to fix it. I have not time this week however. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think all of us are just going to have to do our best. If I suspect copyvio, I remove the offending content and note the source in the edit summary. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Scouting and Guiding in ..." instead of "Scouting in ..."

I'm with you that "Scouting and Guiding in ..." is far better for most countries. But there is one problem: Actually we use Template:Europe topic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) etc for navigation in most of the national overviews. These templates require a systematic approach to article names. If we change only a part of the articles to "Scouting and Guiding in ...", we have to stop using these templates or to create lots of redirects or to develop new templates of our own.

If I could decide, I'd move all articles to "Scouting and Guiding in ...", but I fear that this could be seen as unappropriate especially by US editors. --jergen (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Scouting and Guiding" implies it's two movements but it's not, it all came from BP. The earliest troops had girls tagging along as they wanted in on the fun but mores of the time caused them to form their own troops. It's one movement. THis basic topic comes up from time to time as it did when we were formed and the consensus decision as always been to leave it just Scouting. It is ONE movement not two. And the US is not the only country that has Girls Scout (as opposed to Guides). Japan, Thailand and other countries do too. Jergen's point about the articles and templates having consistent naming is a good one too. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think we can have a standard usage here. Where the term "Girl Scout" is used, "Scouting" is fine and covers everything, but the situation is quite different in countries that use the term Guide. This is particular true in those countries, mostly English speaking, that really have one dominant Scout organisation and one dominant Guide organisation. If you use the term "Scouting" in the UK or Australia, nobody, just nobody, would think you were including Guiding. It really would be a good idea to add information about Guiding to the State and Territory articles here in Australia, but it just can not happen if the names are still like "Scouting in Victoria" and not "Scouting and Guiding in Victoria". It would be misleading people. Some people too would think it was male dominance. It is one movement, but it not called the Scout Movement (if you want to include Guiding) in UK and Australia. It is called the Scout and Guide movement. Also we should not be driven by template structure. The template Jergen mentions already has trouble with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scouting in England is a redirect to Scouting in the United Kingdom. The others are articles in their own right on Scouting (not Guiding) in an EU approved region of the UK. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bduke ist right on this - and it is not only a UK/Australia question. Most female members of the merged European organizations would rather say "I'm a (Girl) Guide" than "I'm a Scout" when using English even when their native languages have no distinction for the genders in Scouting. --jergen (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How about:

• For regional articles where there are Scouts and Guides, then we change the name to "Scouting and Guiding in..."
• For regional articles where only Scout is used, leave the article name at "Scouting in..."
• Templates should be changed to match
• I had only recently noticed the use of topic templates such as {{Europe topic|Scouting in}}. I was already planning to propose a master Scout topic template to incorporate all of these.

I created {{Scout continent}}. If needed, we can copy any of the continent topic templates to a template subpage and customize it.

• That leaves our prime Scouting article: should this be renamed?

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For the Girl Guides in the UK it is important that it is not one movement and that there are two movements. I remember the discussions, talks and votes on the ISGF World Conference in Vienna and the position of the Trefoil Guild UK.-Phips (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

And so they deny that it all sprang from BP or what? The first Girl Scouts/Guides were tagalongs. And our main article Scouting nor our project should not be renamed. It all sprang from the same roots. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not often criticize our coordinator but I do really think that you are looking at it from the US prospective where the term "Guide" is not used. Let us look at the articles from the UK that refer to real Scout/Guide cooperation. We have Scout and Guide Graduate Association, Student Scout and Guide Organisation, Oxford University Scout and Guide Group and National Scout and Guide Symphony Orchestra. I have been associated with the first three of these and I can tell you the Guides would have had our guts for garters if we had not included "and Guide" in the name. It is not a question of whether we are two movements or one, nor is it anything to do with history. It is simply that the term "Scouting" is not generally understood to also include "Guiding" in places where the original girls organisation is called Guides and not Scouts. We have to go along with how words are understood, even if it is messy with no one solution that fits all. I am not, BTW, agreeing with international articles such as Scouting being renamed. I think we can explain things in the article. However, we can not do this in articles like Scouting in Scotland if we included Guiding there and we should be renaming Scouting in the United Kingdom to Scouting and Guiding in the United Kingdom. The original girls organisation was never called Scouts. I think I am prepared to go along with Ed, but I'm too busy this week to look at all the ramifications of it. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with Bduke. Kingbird (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I am in general agreement with Bduke, too.-Phips (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As above. Bduke is correct. DiverScout (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wahid Labidi

Somebody just uploaded a cool new picture to this article, and added that a previous editor had stuck in kind of a resume-can someone with a fresh pair of eyes help rewrite that stuff into an article? Thanks, Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start but it still needs more work. Hoping someone else will contribute too. Kingbird (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Templates

A number of templates have been created or merged recently. Please browse through WP:S-tmp to review these.

A very recent Scouting template is {{Scout continent}}. This replaces {{Europe topic}} and related templates, and will allow us to customize these as needed.

{{Infobox WorldScouting}} now has name label parameters. These may be used for officially used translations or for alternative legal names.

I have also created a new quote template: {{Quote2col}}. This allows for quoted content in two columns and should be useful where text may be presented in original and translated versions, such as Scout Promise.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Image issues (again)

I have started listing problems with images at WP:SCOUT. I am doing a quick pass through a lot of articles and listing the issues as I see them. I am not checking the image rationales or sources. There are thousands of articles, so my hope is that my fellow editors can look in depth and resolve the issues at hand. Because of the way I am doing this, there will be false positives, and I will miss some issues. Let me categorize the issues I have seen:

• Postal stamps and covers. Non-free images of this type must have explicit related content on the issuance of the stamp or cover; they cannot be used as simple illustrations. In some cases, they seem to be used to prove the existence of an historical group; in my opinion, this is not a reliable source. If the image is truly free, then it may be used freely.

• Historical images. Non-free images of this type must have explicit related content. If the image is truly free, then it may be used freely.

• Articles with problem image galleries or using non-free logos as list icons. These articles are generally lists type articles with no associated content. For example: Israel Boy and Girl Scouts Federation shows the emblems of the organizations within the federation, but other than the list, there is no related content. We need to expand the article to include content on each of those organizations and move the logo to the appropriate section, or delete the logos. Another example: Scouting in Australia; this is an easy fix: the first four logos are redundant as they are already in the related article, the fourth needs to be moved to the article Scouts of Australia.

I know this is not a popular subject, but we need to police ourselves. As concerned editors work these issues, simply strike them from the list. I have worked the country articles for Africa and Asia and will continue to slog through the rest. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify another issue. Even if an image is free, it can be used, but should still needs to have some sort of context. Some of these images give the impression they were just stuffed into the article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (comment revised)

Example

Could you please have a look at Føroya Skótaráð and check if this solution [41] is acceptable? I just want to check with an example before starting. --jergen (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The logo's need some discussion.

• FH -> Salvation Army Scouts/LIFE SAVING SCOUTS -> buoy [42]
• KFUM Skótarnir I Føroyum -> YMCA/YWCA triangle + lily

etc. see for example Surinaamse Padvindsters Raad --Egel _Reaction? 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If I understand Wikipedia:Logos right there is no need to discuss a logo. This guideline states that an organizational logo is very similar to an individual's portrait - and portraits are not discussed even if they are non-free.

However, the meaning of a logo would be a helpful information for the reader; but there should be a reliable source for the interpretation. Otherwise the interpretation could be deleted as original research even if it is common sense as in Surinaamse Padvindsters Raad. --jergen (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Logos is about the logo of the main subject of the article and only in that case there is no need for discussion. You can use a logo for identification of the article. When you want to use multiple logo's you have to follow: WP:Fair_use#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. A strict interpretation gives: "multiple logo's can't be used", a free as possible interpretation gives: "only logo's that are discussed can be used". --Egel _Reaction? 11:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not interpret Wikipedia:Logos as restricted to the main subject - where is this mentioned in the guideline? As long as this is not proven I'll refrain from inserting trivial explanations as proposed by Egel. --jergen (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Current logos may be include in the main article on a subject, and do not have to be discussed in detail as they inherently describe the organization. The policies and guidelines do not cover historical logos. Let's try a little common sense here: free or non-free, if we include an historical logo, there must be some reason for doing so. Examples:

• Bandalag íslenskra skáta: What makes the "historic badge" important to the article?
• History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America): This is full of historical images, but each has related content.

Also: note that I am not just going around deleting all of these images. I am listing the issues I see and giving everyone a chance to fix them. I have gone through all the Scouting in Africa, Asia and Europe articles; I am going to take a strategic pause here. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

First: The only use mentioned in the guideline is "in the infobox of articles". Second: When you use Wikipedia:Logos on multiple logo's, it starts to contradict guidelines with a higher priority and policies. --Egel _Reaction? 12:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Images and NPOV

As far as I understand WP:NPOV applies also to the illustrations of articles. We should also bear in mind that an illustration is an eye catcher, it is one of the first things most of the users remark when calling up an article. This means that we can not go on and just remove only the images from articles like Scouting in France that are in use in other articles. If we would act this way, we would put undue weight on secondary or tertiary organizations, some of them non-notable in the terms of Wikipedia. --jergen (talk)

If the organization is not notable enough for an article, then is it notable enough to include the logo? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion: No. There is no need to show the emblems of non-notable groups. But that is only my opinion, this [43] shows that other users have a different sight. --jergen (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFC says under Unacceptable use, Images: "5. An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" As far as I understand you must read this for logo's as "A logo of a organisation to illustrate an article passage about the organisation, if the organisation has its own article"

We must take two steps: first, we must remove the non-free images from articles like Scouting in France that are in use in other articles. Second, we must look at the remaining images if we want to use them and in which way.

I personally think the undue weight put on secondary or tertiary organizations in the "Scouting in ..." articles is no problem because it is compensated in the articles about the primary organizations. The total Wikipedia must have a NPOV. edit:can't be "compensated" in this way

--Egel _Reaction? 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not only Wikipedia as a whole needing neutrality. Each and every article has to be written taking a neutral point of view. As this is on of the five pillars of Wikipedia, this is one of the very few questions that we can not discuss or even overrule. --jergen (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

new website all of a sudden dead

Does anyone know how to retrieve a cached copy of a website? The Zimbabwe Scouts seem to have a new logo, which I found at http://www.zimscouts.co.zw/ but did not save a copy, now it says the site is gone. Help? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No copy at archive.org. I can't find a Whois for Zimbabwe , so I can't see the registration. There is a Google cache,[44] but no graphics. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The site is live again. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 14:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:--ScoutsChris3.jpg

Would anyone know when the badge in Image:--ScoutsChris3.jpg started to be used by Scouts Canada? Or who created it? If so, please do update the image page. Many thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know where the fact it's still copyrighted was found. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

See dual thread on this on mine and White Cat's talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Scout and Guide logo polls‏ (how do we proceed?)

Okay, we gave the polls 10 more days to get more member participation, with moderate results, it's coming up on that 10-day mark, how do we proceed? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

What are the results? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The results are:

Scout logo poll‏

6 votes for #2- Dark trefoil

2 votes for #4- Light trefoil with oval

1 member comment without vote

Guide logo poll

after one vote switched, all 7 votes for #2- Dark trefoil

I think after a month or more from when we started, that's all the participation we can expect. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Then let's close this and go over to the dark side. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I also recommend that we rename these to logical names such as "WP Scouting logo" and "Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force logo". --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Closed. Though renaming is good in theory, four other language Wikis and some 20 other language articles use the logos we create here. What that will do is actually create more logos/names/whatever out there. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I propose we overwrite some of the redundant/obsolete ones, and pick the shortest/least cumbersome name for the main one. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Your previous statement implies that by changing the original logo, we are imposing our views on the other projects. Seems to me that they should be informed and allowed to choose their own version. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, wasn't trying to do that, just was seeking uniformity throughout, like all Wikis use the disambiguation arrows and so on. If you can speak Polish, please let them know. ;) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, have tagged talk pages at four Projects and nine portals with " Scout and Guide logos redesigned

The Scouting WikiProject has redesigned and chosen two new logos, with crisp coloration, bulk and texture, and with the hollow trefoil for the WikiProject logo filled in with green, so that both the boy emblem and the girl emblem have substance.

Image:Scout logo3.svg|new WikiProject logo

Image:GGGSgreengold3.svg|new Guide taskforce logo "

Bueno? Now how do we change over? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the templates, userboxes and a few other uses. I will update Image:CopyrightScoutlogo.svg. After the server indexes catch up, I double check for other uses of the old logos. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as I predicted, this looks fine on light backgrounds but terrible on ones like these here: James_E._West_(Scouting)#External_links — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse at Arb elections

Our lead coord, Rlevse, is running for arbitrator. Editors who wish to vote for or against candidates may do so at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote. Five persons will get 3-year spots on Arbcom (the normal term) plus two more who will get one-year spots due to early resignations. Posted in the same vein as the admin notices.  JGHowes  ^talk 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's official. I've been appointed to a 3-year arbcom term. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

CNJC reassessment

Hello, I was just wondering if I could get a reassessment on the importance level of Central New Jersey Council. I recently gave it a very significant clean up and believe that it could be upgraded from low to mid-level importance. Thanks for taking the time to look. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Importance levels will not be reassessed for single articles without exceptional conditions (eg for councils: very high impact on national Scouting). Importance levels were decided some times ago (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Assessment#Importance scale).

But we can reassess the class. The article is currently at least C-class, so I'll change the assessment. --jergen (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW: We should review our rating system; the importance scale does not seem consistent (eg: District articles have the same importance as smaller national organizations.) and is certainly not up-to-date with our policies concerning sub-national topics. Further on, we should review and reassess all Scouting articles: Many articles are expanded or merged but not reassessed. Perhaps our next collaboration? --jergen (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Jergen's upgrade to C class is fine, no problem there. Importance levels was done soon after we formed the project and it's rare there'd be a valid reason to change one. However, I do agree there are some inconsistencies that have crept in. One reason is people have an understandable bias towards their own country. Jergen also hints at a good question, is a large district more with thousands of Scouts and lots of long history more or less important than national organization of a small country with only a few hundred Scouts? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I only asked for a reassessment of the importance level because it's implied that such a request is allowed. In your "Requesting an assessment or re-assessment" section on the Assessment page, there is nothing that says importance levels will not be reassessed. I suggest you take that into consideration and think about clarifying that on the page. I also agree that you need to rethink your ratings system. If councils that do not have an impact on a national level are not reassessed into the mid-level importance, then I also suggest you clarify that as well. Currently, it says "articles on the regional or local level within all countries (councils, districts, counties, states, provinces, etc)" are part of the mid-level importance. Quite frankly, that whole page is rather unclear. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

IMO, all articles on sub-national structures are of low importance. These articles do not contribute to the general understanding of Scouting and contain mostly the same informations (founded, merged, runs the cambs A, B and C, has a honor society). We have a lot of these articles thanks to the overweight of US-editors but I would not miss any of them. --jergen (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jergen on this, though some of the sub-national articles are well-written and even visually striking, it doesn't change their low impact and importance on Scouting as a whole. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not telling you that it should be of higher importance or anything. I'm not here to try to change how you guys do things. What I'm saying is that your assessment information is incredibly misleading. In the chart on the assessment page next to Mid-level importance, it says "articles on the regional or local level within all countries (councils, districts, counties, states, provinces, etc)....fall into this category". You guys are now saying that councils actually fall into the low-level importance category. If that's true, then your chart is incorrect and requires clarification. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Recreated articles after previous merge

While checking the classification of some of our project's articles, I came upon the following articles that were recreated after a previous merge:

• Central Florida Council
• Gulf Coast council
• San Gabriel Valley Council
• South Florida council
• Southwest Florida council
• West Central Florida council

New information on Imam al-Mahdi Scouts

Al Jazeera has recently published an article on the Imam al-Mahdi Scouts. I've tried to synthesize this information into the existing wikipedia article, but I'd be grateful if some other folks could run their eyes over what is a tricky topic. Kingbird (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I love what you've done as it adds balance to the biased sources I found and had to crop down when I wrote the thing. Chris (talk) 07:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, nice work.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job, thanks. Merry Christmas to you all. Yours in Scouting-Phips (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you all chime in at the talkpage? A user is accusing us of not enough POV, we've worked very hard to keep it neutral. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Scout Park images

I came across something interesting this week, a park dedicated to Scouts (BSA). It was just established this year and is in Snow Hill, NC. Sorry they're not too clear, but I only had my cell camera phone with me, not my digital camera. The three images are on commons at , , . — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC) --jergen (talk) 10:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Dear Scout friends, I wish you all Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and lots of Good Camping in 2009. Greetings from Austria Yours in Scouting-Phips (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Likewise from Oz, where it is already Christmas Day.--Bduke (Discussion) 20:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen, Happy Holidays and Peace on Earth to all. Wouldn't it be great if everyone, in real life, and wiki, could just get along. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Zalig Kerstmis en Gelukkig Nieuwjaar, from the Netherlands, Europe, at an early Christmas eve. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC).

A Happy Christmas, Glückliches Weihnachten, Heldig Jul or just Season's Greetings to you all!DiverScout (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Merry Kwanzaa, Happy Festivus, Winter solstice or Hogswatchnight. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Mele Kalikimaka Feliz Navidad ‏くりすます from Japan, and best to you all! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:48, 25