Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bduke (talk | contribs) at 21:47, 12 October 2008 (→‎Names: agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
WikiProject iconScouting Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikipedia:WikiProject Scouting is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Article Content, remarks
Scouting Describes the movement of Scouting: history (founding, growth), activities one does in Scouting, organization, should cover both male (Boy Scouts and Cubs) and female (Girl Guides and Brownies), younger/older sections, international
Scout Movement redirect to Scouting
Boy Scout About the boy 11-17 years, activities he does in Scouting, Troop/Patrol, Scout Law, Motto, Uniform. Not about history, not about the organization or movement. This article should include a remark that girls may follow this line of Scouting too, instead of being a Girl Guide (Europe/World line of thinking)
Scout remains disambiguation page
Girl Guide and Girl Scout About the girl, article equivalent to Boy Scout
Girl Guide, Girl Scout redirect to GG&GS (US line of thinking)
Cub Scout, Brownie (Girl Guides) About the little boy/girl, equivalent to Boy Scout
Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell About the person Baden-Powell, and his personal history. Not about the Scout movement other than his input/influence. Lots of redirects here, btw.
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
WOSM, WAGGGS Articles about the current international organization. Not about the Scouting movement, history pertaining to the organization only.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • [1] 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.
  • [2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't think that there is a complete list online. The recipients since 1999 are listed in [3], [4] and [5]. WOSM states a total of 320 recipients. --jergen (talk) 07:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does WOSM ever answer inquiries, like by e-mail? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I enclosed a list of the recipients since 1999 on Talk:Bronze Wolf. --jergen (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, it will help! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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
  • The most current logo should be used; historic logos should be used carefully, be noted as such and discussed in the article or caption
  • Non-free images should not be used as decorative icons in lists:
  • Images such as postage stamps, movie screen shots, movie posters and the like must have some accompanying content discussing the stamp or the like

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

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

            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)[reply]

            Don't know but you can download them and upload them to commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            It doesn't work on the German one. :( Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            Also you'll need a TUSC account to use Commonshelper. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            The image in question was moved to commons by its original uploader: Image:Nordjamb75 1.jpg. --jergen (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            Don't seem to be many good refs on this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            The original version is IMO a copyvio. On de:, it would be deleted as such. --jergen (talk) 06:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

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

            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)[reply]

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

            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)[reply]

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

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            Absolutely not. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            And that is perfectly fine, as long as there is a parent council article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            Restored Little Sioux. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            Image use

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

            Policies and guidelines
            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

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


            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            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:

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            (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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            We could use the project template: "WPScouting Navigation" or a modified version thereof. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            Collapsible lists please. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            Fine with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            {{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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            Gadget850 has been working on this hard, I'm sure he'll give a progress report. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            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:
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            No. It looks like something separate from BSA, like Royal Rangers. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            According to these sources they belong to the Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of America.

            [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]-Yours in Scouting Phips (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            "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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            WOSM excludes commercial usage in its CC License, so the material is not usable in wikipedia. --jergen (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            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)[reply]

              • Gadget850, you are THE BOMB at this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            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

            Scouting Sections

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            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

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
              • Merge {{IntlScoutsGuides}} into Scouting
            Brian, explain the last bit? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            I agree. I have been guilty of shifting the emphasis of a template without renaming it. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

            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)[reply]

            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)[reply]
            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)[reply]
            Err- typo. If we only want the history, then add it to the history article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 10:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting&oldid=244853782"