Talk:Philmont Scout Ranch camps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philmont Scout Ranch camps is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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

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

[edit] Delink Camps

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Merge

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

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

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

[edit] New to this, but want to contribute

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wildtech 04:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

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