Talk:Boy Scouts of America/Organization of page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Contents |
Split the article?
Since the article has been split, I moved the links on controversies from this article to that article. GaryW October 29
- Good- I was just thinking that needed to be done.--Gadget850 11:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The article is getting long enough that we should cut something out and move it somewhere else. I see two sections that could conceivably go: "Early history" and "Controversy". At risk of being accused of trying to sweep controversy under the rug, I'll say that it's a likelier candidate. Any comments? --Smack (talk) 05:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I would say "History of the Boy Scouts of America" and "Controversy Surrounding the Boy Scouts of America" (in either case, could be shortened to BSA) would both make for good articles to split this one. Sahasrahla 23:51, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
We don't have a warning yet about the article being longer than the standard size. Leave it for now. I would prefer that the controversy section stay. If it spins off, there needs to be a fair paragraph describing the nature of the controversy which remains in the main article, with the body of the article in the controversy section. Nereocystis 01:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I got a warning today about the size of the article. It is at 36kb. I personally think we can also split off the Uniform section into its own article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 19:10 (UTC)
- Ok, it is down to 30kb now. The article spin off is at Uniform_and_insignia_of_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 19:37 (UTC)
joining pages
Hey, there is a Boy Scouts page as well which seems to cover much of the same material as this page. I think it would be a good idea to say that "the BSA is a Boy Scouting Organization based in America, and that it is similar, but differs in these ways.... "etc. etc. This might be a good idea, maybe not, but one worth consideration. Narcissus 00:44, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
- You propose basically to make this page a subpage of Scouting. I don't think that that's a good idea, because global Scouting is a loose confederacy, with scores of member organizations, so it's difficult to generalize. I've added a prominent reference to global Scouting to the opening paragraph, but I doubt that any further modification is warranted. -Smack 06:18, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Moved to a Category
I went ahead and moved the page in it's entirety to the Category: Boy Scouts of America.
It should be much easier to break the subjects up using the category rather than one page. evrik
- (Moved comment from the middle of the page) I reverted this change here and at Scouting. Articles don't redirect to categories because they are fundamentally different. Somebody wanting an article on the Boy Scouts of America needs to be able to find that, not a host of superspecialized categories containing other articles. Tuf-Kat 19:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Current Merge Discussions (1/28/2006)
Boys' Life
- Boys' Life — Keep and expand this article. It has a wide circulation (more than 1.3 million [1]) and, therefore, is certaintly notable enough to deserve its own page. For example, we have an article about The Economist; with one million readers, it certaintly is also notable enought to deserve its own article. It has a long history - but so does Boys' Life. -Rebelguys2 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, this could be made into a really nice article. Rlevse 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. The magazine is definitely notable, even though the analogy with The Economist is a bit strained. --Smack (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. For all the above reasons and it definitely has a life and history of its own both separate and inline with that of the BSA. -Mang Kiko 18:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Kept separateRlevse 16:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Scout Executive
- Scout Executive — Merge. I don't think this position is really notable enough; it might do better to mention this position in a description somewhere about the structure of Scout leadership. Certaintly, Chief Scout Executive deserves its own article - and it does have one - but these lower-tier leadership positions are largely non-notable. -Rebelguys2 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Merged, a one-line article is useless and there are too many council execs to try to make this useful, and the job isn't important enough for Wiki. I just merged it. Rlevse 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Scoutstuff.org
- Scoutstuff.org — Merge. This site surely fails WP:WEB, which sets the bar of notability for Wikipedia articles about websites. It's traffic rank is 1,259,773 ([2]), and is not an important site. It is not referenced in publications, save for the BSA's own. Unless I'm missing something big, we should merge this - it would certaintly not survive when someone found it and nominated it for deletion. -Rebelguys2 21:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm thinking this over, but Rebelguys2 is probably right. Rlevse 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge. It's a store. We don't need more articles about online stores. --Smack (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- merge per nom. Should go in a section on BSA Supply. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
NoteDustimagic just merged this into the Uniform article, probably a better spot anyway.Rlevse 02:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Council article
Merge, one para doesn't warrant an article when it's also discussed in a more comprehensive article. Rlevse 03:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete altogether.Merge. (Whoops, should at least have looked at the article before chiming in.) --Smack (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per nom, --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Corporate vs. troop
The big problem with this article is that it wanders from BSA at corporate level to BSA at troop level. Either the article needs to be split into definite sections, or we need a Boy Scouts of America (troop) article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. The software is complaining to us about the article's length. Here are my thoughts on how we could divide it up:
- Definitely national: sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12
- Definitely local: 4, 6
- Probably local, but more creative options are possible: 7, 8, 9
- Move to Wikibooks: 5
- --Smack (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
