Talk:Sea Cadet Corps (United Kingdom)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

There is a very small amount of text on Sea Cadets to be "merged here". The more important edit is to split that page and create a disambiguation page Sea Cadets (disambiguation). The whole page at Sea Cadets is quite large and needs careful editing. Over the next few days I will take a part of it on. Fiddle Faddle 19:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That merge is done Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How is a significant minority possible? CR7 10:35, 25 July 2006 (BST)

• It is almost an oxymoron, like "Military Intelligence", but not really when you look at it in depth. One may be a member of a minority which is of oiself of statistical significance. As an example one might be a part of the 10% of people in a particular village that have blond hair. That is a minority group with statistical significance. If you have a better phrase to use in the article, be bold and use it. Fiddle Faddle 09:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Trafalgar 200

I have just reverted the removal of the section on Trafalgar 200 which was stated by the removing editor to be "Promotional Spam" in the edit history.

Since this is a factual item that happened and also a link to a notable article I cannot understand the removal, but I see every reason to discuss it here, on the talk page. I will be asking the removing editor to contribute to the discussion here. Fiddle Faddle 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• User:Desk1 has been adding images to various military articles, and spamming to his own published works. The images he uploaded where are not permitted on Wikipedia, as they restrict commerical use. So I have been removing his promotional spam contributions. Astrotrain 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless the section in this article is in no way spam. It linked to no other items that another wikipedia article. If you look at the reinstated section and tell me clearly what is the alleged spam you object to then that element may easily enough be removed. Removing the entire factual and notable section was, in my view, not the right action to have taken here. Fiddle Faddle 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the offending image accordingly- you may keep the rest. Astrotrain 10:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually you have removed an image alleged to be an unfree image. I suggest you revert your own edit until that is resolved. Jumping the gun over processes like this is not really within the spirit here. Wikipedia may encourage us to 'be bold but it also asks us to expose ourselves to community scrutiny for all our actions. Fiddle Faddle 10:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Such images are not allowed- and it is listed for deletion accordingly, so I will not revert my edit. In any case it is of poor quality. Astrotrain 10:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It is listed, surely, for consideration for deletion. Until that consideration has been given by an admin who is not the nominator, the usual practice in such matters, I suggest you allow the process to run its course. It is incumbent upon us to assume good faith, and it appears to me, especially with the comments by Desk1, below, that good faith may be absent. I am about to reinstate that picture within the article, where it should stay until such time as either a better picture is provided or the nomination for deletion is resolved by consensus of the community.
      • The flag on the picture states This file has been listed on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, because it is currently only available to Wikipedia under a non-free license. and the word possibly is the key one here. A nominator of an item for deletion or discussion is not the final arbiter, and your editing of articles to remove items you have nominated is an incorrect action. Equally I cannot find the entry on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images for this picture. If it is there please point me to it.
      • I do not dispute your right to nominate a picture for deletion, nor your right to edit articles within the guidelines as you see fit. I am familiar with igniring all rules but do not see this as the place to do so. So please leave thepicture alone until the outcome of your nomination is known, and then leave it to the closing admin to handle. Fiddle Faddle 13:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless the user removes the restrictions to use on this image, it cannot be placed on any articles- as it is against Wikipedia image policy to include restricted use images. The user refuses to relicense his images, and responds with personal attacks. All his images are listed for deletion- and they will be deleted as they violate policy unless relicensed under GFDL- so they will continue to be removed. Astrotrain 13:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But, and this is the fundamental point, not removed by you. The process is not designed that way, not intended to be used that way and shoudl not be used that way. Your role is to nominate for deletion. It is to argue strongly for deletion, and it is to seek to ensure that your view is exposed to community scrutiny and peer review. There it ends. By nominating it for deletion you pass that repsonsibility to other wise heads who will consider the matter and take relevant action. Fiddle Faddle 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You are completely wrong- perhaps you should read the image policy before resorting to telling other people what to do. Astrotrain 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am always happy to learn. Please point me at the artcile and section you are relying on. In return I can say that I am reading from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and looking at specifically the instructions, startung with To list an image on this page: and ending with Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days. It is that sentence Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days that is important, surely. But your nomination is not there, or if it is I cannot see it. You have put the tmeplate on the image page, that is for sure, but where is it on the possibly unfree images page? Fiddle Faddle 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very thankful that this has opened a discussion. My pictures have had all links removed, by me, at Astrotrain™ request. A mediator and Wikipedia licencing are considering my pictures and method of licencing and presentation including links on the picture pages (not article pages). The mediator initial ruling is that I am in the right, subject to further consideration. Astrotrain™ is aware of this but still persists in vandalising my work and I cannot seem to stop it, Astrotrain™ is following me around changing my work and even reverting other peoples edits to improve the display of my pictures, e.g. User:ALR. I refuse to get into a reverting war or to tag Astrotrain™ work as this is not in the spirit of Wikipedia nor my place as a Newbie. Des Desk1 10:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Have ugraded the picture of TS Royalist in Sea Cadet Corps (United Kingdom) to 400px. Later today will include a picture of Elizabeth II on Endurance, waving back at international ships crews during the review. The Elizabeth II article has rejected the image on the grounds it was not a significant event for the Queen in the grand scheme of things; but you may be interested in using it elswhere. I will point you to the file when finished. Have also upgraded the Fleet Review pic in Royal Navy to 400px as requested by their editors. Best wishes, Des Desk1 11:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

New public domain image of The Queen and Admiral Sir Alan West placed at . Best wishes, Des Desk1 15:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikification

The most recent edit, which I have reverted and made a note on the editor's talk page about, was to add a Wikify tag.

The reason I removed it was that it appeared to me to be applied with less than usual thought for what might be wikified. I am raising it here on order that interested editors contionue to wikify this article well and within normal guidelines. I have invited the editor who applied the tag to come here and tell us what they believe requires attention. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I placed the wikify tag on the article for a few reasons. Several of the section headings have all of their words capitalized. This should only be done for proper nouns, but since I am somewhat unfamiliar with the subject matter, I did not know which headings are proper nouns. For example, "Links to SCC Area Websites" should probably be written as "Links to SCC area websites", but I don't know if "National Level" and "Adult Staff" are proper names or generic descriptions. Also, the "External references" section and "Links" sections are confusing and poorly formatted. Some of the sub-sections are empty, one of them has a wikilink in the title, and some of the links are not bulleted and have stray characters. Would it be possible to format these sections into the usual "References" and "External links" sections with subheadings as appropriate? I can make some of the changes now, but would need input for the capitalization of section headers and formatting of the references/external links. I hope this is a satisfactory explanation. Khatru2 21:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologise for taking so long to get back to you. I am on a wikibreak. I have taken your coments to heart and believe I have made the necessary corrections to capitalisation just now, but that is all I have done. I am basing the capitalisation on my understanding of the formal naming convention of this organisation. Fiddle Faddle 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User comment in article

The following user comment was removed from the article:

"Bold textTS IRON DUKE SCC UNIT 191 RYDAL ROAD/THE PARK HUYTON LIVERPPOOL FORMED IN 1942 IN ARCHWAY ROAD, HUYTON LIVERPOOL ANYBODY WITH ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE UNIT PLEASE ADD TO THIS SECTION THANK YOU,WE ARE WRITING A UNIT HISTORY PAUL JONES (HUYTON UNIT)" It was left by 84.64.181.68. Khatru2 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)