Talk:Scouting in Victoria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scouting Wiki Project Scouting in Victoria 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.
Flag
Portal
 Scouting in Victoria is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Victoria.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] merge stub

  • agree. Chris 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree. A single event is not sufficiently notable for an article on its own. --Bduke 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Bduke 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose Move to "Scouts Australia - Victoria Branch"

I think this page was better at Scouting in Victoria because this is a more general title that allows for history of scouting prior to Scouts Australia and of other sections. The title is also easier to understand for non scouters ...maelgwntalk 09:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. Scouting in Victoria in similar to articles the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting is concerned with throughout the world. It is also compatable with the other States and Territories. I have reverting the change. It was also not a proper move as the talk page remained here. If the editor who did this wants to pursue it, please discuss it on the talk page here. It would have to be a move not just a copy and edit to give a redirect. I've copied this over to the talk page of Scouting in Victoria here and made Talk:Scouts Australia - Victoria Branch a redirect. --Bduke 12:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: The above is related to the copy of the article to Scouts Australia - Victoria Branch which was improper as it was not a move but just a copy and replacing the content with a redirect. Everything is back here now and any change should be discussed here first. --Bduke 12:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge here of Surrey-Thomas Rover Crew

Support

Oppose

  • This crew is obviously notable outside Scouting as founding the world sport of Rogaining. I am unconvinced that a merge to the State Scouting article is appropriate, but of course I am willing to be convinced. The article does however need to be cleaned up. The straight Rovering stuff is completely unsourced and there does not even appear to be a web site for the crew to check information. I asked for sources for that paragraph. --Bduke 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bduke also - the crew seems to be notable in the rogaining world ...maelgwntalk 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This merge has not been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article watchlist so I have put it there. If this does not add further comment, one of us should close this as keep. --Bduke 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • keep :: maelgwn :: talk 08:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I see you have removed the merge tages to keep it. Note my point above added only a few hours ago. The Project did not know about it. Nevertheless, let us leave them off, but delay a while to cross out the merge on the Project page. --Bduke 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Oops sorry - i really should read date tags ... continue as normal :: maelgwn :: talk 10:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep

  • No one seems to interested so i'll remove the tags ... there are still other merges open for discussion though. :: maelgwn :: talk 04:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of three Rover articles - Mafeking Rover Park, Rover Motorsport and Mudbash

I have tagged all three of these articles for merge to Scouting in Victoria, although it is possible that some material should be added to Rovers (Australia). I think all three can be treated together. They are all for small sections of the Scouting movement that are much smaller than is considered notable by the the standards of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards. This excludes articles on Districts, Groups, Troops, individual events, camp sites in all but rather exceptional circumstances. I have no doubt that if they were proposed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, they would be deleted. Let us save some good material here and merge the content. It is also clear that none of them have good independent sources. All three should be merged. --Bduke 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I see a few options -
  1. Mafeking Rover Park - from my limited understanding its a fairly big area and seems to have a few independent sources written about it. One option would be to merge the three articles into Mafeking Rover Park. I dont know of any other campgrounds with article eg Cataract Scout Park, Woodhouse, South Australia, Elmore, Victoria so maybe Mafeking should go as well.
  2. Merge into Rovers (Australia) under a section on rover motorsport that could then cover Mudbash, Sandblast, Banana bash and whatever other events there are.
  3. As Bduke suggests - maybe the best spot for the content but is related only to a specific scouting section in an article about a more general topic. Treatment to this level of each section would then lead to this article being split up anyway. But hey - its not at that level so maybe it doesnt matter
Im all confused now ... :: maelgwn :: talk 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The only Australia camp article I know is Gilwell Park (Victoria). On further reflection I think these articles should be all merged into Rovers (Australia), with perhaps a brief cross link to Scouting in Victoria. What do others think? --Bduke 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I am going to change the merge tags to propose the merge to Rovers (Australia), but I will suggest the debate continues here for a while. --Bduke 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Does the scouting wikiproject have guidelines on campground articles? :: maelgwn :: talk 03:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards#Local articles (Councils and smaller entities) is really all there is. In UK most camp site articles have been merged into Scout County articles except the four national activity centres are kept. I removed merge tags off one of them only this morning. Gilwell of course is one of the four. I really do not think that Mafeking Rover Park is notable enough for a separate article, even if the other two are merged there. The other two are certainly not notable. I really do think we have to merge them into the Rovers article or the State artcile. I wish someone else would comment. --Bduke 08:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A Council, council camp/reservation, or OA Lodge may have its own article if it meets standard wikipedia criteria for having its own article. Seems to fit the bill here and we are certainly lacking independent sources on these events ... So should we put Gilwell Park up for merge as well
    • Do you mean Gilwell Park (Victoria)? If so, I think we should merge that one too. --Bduke 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have merged Rover Motorsport and Mudbash into Mafeking Rover Park as the first stage of this merge process. This brings together all the motorsport stuff into one place. It is probably a good idea to clean this up further before completing the merge. --Bduke 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge part two

I changed Mafeking Rover Park a little to try and include all states but now I see that I've dwindled off topic a bit. Unless anyone has any problems I think the merge should go ahead into Rovers (Australia) with a change of emphasis away from Victoria a little. :: maelgwn :: talk 03:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your changes were just what I wanted - another pair of eyes on these articles - before the final merge. Do you have any references for Rover Motor Sports anywhere in Australia? I certainly do not. Do you want to do the final merge? I'm going to be less active on WP for the rest of the day, after I good go at this morning, but I could do it tomorrow. --Bduke 03:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Nothing in a quick search that I can see. I'll try and have a better look around. Unless there are some newspaper articles or non rovering reports written about it, im a bit pessimistic about finding stuff. I have no doubt the information is correct eg [1] but as for notability I'm not quite sure were to look. We might have to shorten it right down ... :: maelgwn :: talk 03:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So i decided to move the Mafeking Rover Park article here because of its Victorian Bias - the Rover Motorsport content stayed tho. :: maelgwn :: talk 09:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Alpine Rovering in Victoria

  • Propose merge because content lacks sufficient notability for it's own article. While there is significant possible content there is a lack of references to avoid WP:OR :: maelgwn :: talk 08:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree. This material is mostly OR. There are no sources and it does not appear that notable although a mention in the State article is a good idea. --Bduke 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, the rovering topic is too narrow for its own article.Rlevse 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge' completed. --Bduke 00:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Gilwell Park (Victoria)

Propose merge according to above discussion and due to lack of notability. :: maelgwn :: talk 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Rlevse 17:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support not sufficiently notable for a separate article. --Bduke 00:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done :: maelgwn :: talk 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A great job. I agree with what you have done. A few small points. Is the order right? Perhaps Gilwell is more important than Mafeking and should come first. The campsite infoboxes are fine on separate articles but seem to clutter the page here. Should they be removed? --Bduke 01:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK yes - probably Gilwell, then Mafeking, then Alpine Rovering? As for infoboxes - i dont mind a bit of clutter and like the way information is presented in infoboxes. Could we put in a mini-version? I posted on Template talk:Infobox WorldScouting if your interested. :: maelgwn :: talk 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I had a go. I like your order but putting Alpine Rovering between the camp sites I think spaces out the infoboxes better. Could we use the infoboxes without an image? --Bduke 07:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Thats what the post on Template talk:Infobox WorldScouting is about. My understanding of the proprietary (grr ...) parser functions in templates is not enough to change it myself. :: maelgwn :: talk 07:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is running out of space?

Do you need to merge them because wikipedia is running out of space?

If so, why not get rid of all these unnecessary Ferrari pages: Results 1-20 of 5507 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next ยป Ferrari 412 Relevance: 100.0% - - Ferrari 225 Relevance: 100.0% - - Ferrary Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 430 Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 612 Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 575 Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 159 Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 195 Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 212 Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 375 Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 156 Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 310 Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 126 Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 125 Relevance: 96.5% - - Ferraris Relevance: 95.3% - - Ferrari 166 Relevance: 94.9% - - Ferrari 308 Relevance: 94.3% - - Ferrari 328 Relevance: 93.8% - - Ferrari 625 Relevance: 93.8% - - Ferrari 400 Relevance: 93.7% - -


I mean, they are all just cars, so they should be merged with the article Automobile.--210.50.228.5 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not running out of space. It is a question of quality and this is related to whether the topics are notable and the information is verifiable and referenced. Material that is not notable enough for an article can be OK to be part of a more general and notable article. There is also the point that too many small articles (stubs) are difficult to maintain. You will also find that pointing to other articles as being bad does not go down well on Wikipedia. If you want to delete or merge those articles on cars go and try and do it. It is not an argument about these Scouting articles.

Are you the editor who started these articles? If so, what do you think should happen do them? And do you think they would survive being nominated for deletion at WP:AFD? Which of the above merges are you most concerned with? A merge could keep everything that is encyclopedic. For Scouting articles we try to follow these standards and other conventions developed by the Scouting WikiProject. Take care and try to understand the Wikipedia project. It is not for everything. --Bduke 09:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)