Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.


Created 20 November, 2006
Archive
Archives
1. 21 Jan 2006 – 03 Jul 2006
2. 6 July 2006 – November 2006
3. December 2006 – March 2007
4. April 2007 – ...

Contents

Please adopt your province

Now that we have all the U.S. states, a great bulk of U.K. counties, all Australian states, we should try to create provincial Scout articles for Canada. Please, Canadians, help fill in some blanks for Scouting in your province! Thanks, YiS, Chris 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The YMCA article carries the Scouting Wikiproject banner

Why? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC).

Because YMCA was one of the influences that led to the forming of BSA. In fact, the first BSA director, I think his name was Robinson, came from the YMCA to head up BSA. But because of the nature of this, it has the project banner but not the portal tag. Also notice it's in the cats and articles in See also. Rlevse 17:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • So there are links from the YMCA to Scouting. Soit. But that would not make a reason to put it in the Scouting WikiProject, would it? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC).
I think yes. Rlevse 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • You BSA guys have an interesting POV on Scouting. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC).
  • I didn't know of the connection. Given the talk page banner states: "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." - I have no difficulty with inclusion--A Y Arktos\talk 22:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (from Australia)
  • And Arktos isn't a BSA guy:-;) Rlevse 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Very interesting, I'll add that to the article. Rlevse 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There are links with the YMCA and Scouting in the UK, too - the oldest Group in my District is attached to the local YMCA. However, I do question whether a main article like the YMCA page, where our the Scouting connection is incidental at best, should be part of the Scouting project... still, I'll defer to the judgment of the majority of projecteers Horus Kol 10:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The influence of YMCA may even be bigger than I thought. If we get even info, it could grow into a paragraph of section of the YMCA article. Also, note the project tag has been on that page for 6 months and not one YMCA person has objected to it, so I feel this isn't a big deal and may actually lead to us learning more about Scouting's history. Rlevse 10:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If you will read the Boy Scouts of America history section that I am now revising, you will see that the first leaders came from the YMCA. The ties continued to be so close that the Catholics initially considered the BSA a Protestant organization and would not allow their boys to join (that will be added soon). Having said that, I don't see the YMCA as a whole to be a Scouting organization, but they do have the Adventure Guides program that started as Indian Guides in 1926 [1]. It might be better to side-step this issue by removing the YMCA as a Scouting group and starting an article on the Adventure Guide program which does seem to meet the criteria for a non-aligned Scouting group. This would be similar to the relationship between Assemblies of God and Royal Rangers. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I want to leave YMCA with the tag, at least for now. If you make the Adventure Guide article, then I could probably see moving the tag over. Rlevse 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll put that on my todo list. BTW: James E. West worked for the YMCA for a period before joining the BSA. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Spiral Scouts

Spiral Scouts International aren't really Scouts. --evrik 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. Rlevse 16:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Why not? They have uniforms and badges and are outdoor based. They seem to me to be in broad terms as much a scout organisation as the Boys Brigade and some others that have been included. It is of course possible that people in this organisation or indeed the others such a BB might object to being included in with Scouts by the Scout Portal tag, etc., but they do not seem to have done so yet. --Bduke 00:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm open to discussion. Per our own inclusion clause on the RulesStandards page: "As stated on the project [page], our scope is all Scouting articles; but we need to define what constitutes Scouting. We have reached this consensus: If an organization veers too far from the Scout method, and/or becomes overly politicized and/or militarized, it shall not be included in this Project. The organizations identified that fail to meet our criteria are: Hitler Youth and Young Pioneers." Evrik and Bduke please bring up anything else on this. Rlevse 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not see the Spiral Scouts as politicised in any sense. I await Evrik giving some reasons. As a comment on the politicised issue, we include the Woodcraft Folk so the line is more political than they are and they are certainly political with their links to the Cooperative Movement, which is, as the Co-operative Party, a political party affiliated to the British Labour Party. I am happy about that, so if anyone is arguing that the spiral scouts are political. they have to be more political than the Woodcraft Folk. Elvik, can we have your reasons? --Bduke 02:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Admiting I know nothing about this group, what is there stance on the Scout method, the other part of our requirement? Rlevse 09:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Spiral Scouts were created by a pagan church so that their youth could have some sort of cooperative experience. They were created in response to the issue of gays in Scouting. If you look at their program, they don't resemble traditional Scouting. In fact, I think they're usuiong the controversy over Scouting to promote their brand. It is my understanding that WOSM and WAGGGS only authorizes one Scouting organization per country. I think that's who we should stick with. --evrik 13:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Our project already covers multiple organizations per country, just for the USA, we have WOSM, WAGGGS, WFIS, AHG, BPS, RR, etc. The Spiral's aren't the first church to form their own outfit that we cover, ie, Royal Rangers, American Heritage Girls, etc. We also cover outfits like Scouting for all. Our projects specific goal is to cover all facets of Scouting. The question here is whether Spiral Scouts uses the Scout method and if it's overly politicized/militarized. Evrik, what is is that your feel is "not traditional Scouting"? Bduke and Evrik: Do they follow the Scout method--why or why not? Rlevse 14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don ot believe that they formally follow the Scout method. --evrik 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a complex matter and I am not sure I can give it full attention so early in the morning as it is here in Oz. First, I am not sure that the Spiral Scouts were a response to the gay issue in the BSA. I think it more than likely that it was a response to the BSA attitude to Wiccans. Wiccan boys are allowed but there was difficulty with their religious award. I think they were told that they could not have a religious award unless they chartered at least 25 troops. Wiccan groups tried to do this and the charters were refused. (Do we cover this anywhere? There is a reference at Religious Emblems Programs#Wicca and other small religions that mentions this and the fact that they have an unofficial religious award, but not that chartering a troop was refused.) So, I could be wrong about the refusal of a charter but I do not think so. It was discussed at length on the usenet group, rec.scouting.issues, some years ago. Given this, it is not surprising that Wiccan and other Pagan groups decided to start their own organisation. Second, do they follow the Scout Method. This is complex. The WP article Scout method is very WOSM based. It does not mention WAGGGS. The non-political criteria would rule out the Woodcraft Folk but their link to Scouting in the early days is clear. I am not convinced that other organisations meet that criteria, including the YMCA and the Boy's Brigade. The Spiral Scouts seem to meet it more than most. Their use of the term "Scout" may be against the Charter of the BSA, but that is not our business. BSA may sue them and then we add it to the article. They have a spiritual dimension, an advancement program, outdoor activities and so on. I think they are included. Rlevse is quite right in his comments to Evrik. We are not restricted to WOSM and WAGGGS. What to do? (a) someone rewrite Scout method to cover the WAGGGS and other organisations such as traditional Scouting at least; (b) have the spiral scouts in the propect; and (c) polish the criteria for inclusion. Do we have a list of those organisations that are included? Is it in one category or split between several. Perhaps we should have a list on the project page. It need not be a list of all organisations as many would be covered by phrases like "all organisations affilated to WOSM", "all organisations affilated to WFIS", etc. --Bduke 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know about Scout method variations to alter it to cover WAGGGS and other orgs. However, I do feel the basics of the Scout method should remain the same; there should not be major deviation. Once someone does that, polishing our criteria should be easy. On a note of interst, the US military recognized Wicca/Pagan as a bona fide religion about 10 years ago. There is no list of included organizations other than our criteria for inclusion, but there is one in my head, so I'll make a section on the project page. Rlevse 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Rlevse asked me to give my two cents. First I'm not associated with the SpiralScouts beyond contributing a few bits in the article. I don't know much about their organization and history except that they were formed as a result of rejection of their attempts to charter BSA units. Now for some comments (1) there is not going to be a hard and fast line between Scouting youth groups and non-Scouting youth groups. Certainly members of WAGGGS or WOSM are scout groups (but what about Learning for Life which is started by the BSA and whose numbers are included in the numbers reported to the WOSM but is not included in the annual BSA report). Then there are the groups influenced by scouting to a greater or lesser extent. (2) I would not call them political except in the sense that as many of their members belong to religious minorities (members need not be pagans or wiccans) that face discrimination many adult members are going to have similar political views when it comes to fighting that discrimination. (3) I suspect that SpiralScouts as a young organization is undergoing a lot of change. How closely it does and will follow the Scouting Method is unknown to me. A search of their web site includes bits such as "this is a program designed to be lead by the children"; it has a promise and a law; it has outdoor activities and service projects. (4) I would give them the same classification as Campfire.--Erp 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • WFIS North America: Member associations must follow B-P’s original program as laid out in ‘Scouting for Boys’, B-P’s original program may be modernized for health, safety, first-aid, and environmental reasons only. [2]
  • UIGSE-FSE: The Union aims at gathering, in one same community of faith, prayer and action, the various national associations of the European Guides and Scouts, the fundamental objective of which is to educate young people by using Baden Powell’s traditional scouting methods, based on the Christian values at the roots of our common European civilisation. [3]
The common point of both is 'as defined by Baden-Powell' - but there are no informations about the meanings of this - and this also applies to the principles of WAGGGS and WOSM.

There is significant evidence that Spiral Scouts uses a large portion of the Scout method. The history of their formation is rather similar to the Royal Rangers, which was created so those youths have an experience in their own religious realm. Therefore, I now see no reason not to include them. Rlevse 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I've observed one of their 'circles' in my neighborhood. I still don't believe they subscribe to the Scout Method. I have no problem with them being on wikipedia, or being listed a youth organization - I just don't think it's Scouting. evrik 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Based on what's been presented, I have to go with my last statement. If you could present more specific details, that would help. Rlevse 18:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
      • My last word whatever. It's not worth the time. --evrik 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Article tagging

No. It's not really associated directly with Scouting, and it is noted in his bio. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Eagle Scouts

Please check out the discussion on Talk:List of Eagle Scouts for a new format. I really need feedback on this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I love it! Rlevse 00:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you do :-). I'd like some more input on the talk page before I start making shotgun changes. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

If we have High and Mid, shouldn't we have a low priority? --evrik 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

(minor thing: it's importance, not priority) I fully agree with you. There is no concensus yet as to what the various importance levels really mean, but generally I see it as:
  • Top: a key article, defining and determining the subject of the wikiproject
  • High: Seriously important article to the subject of the wikiproject
  • Mid: Article contributing to the total of the subject of the wikiproject
  • Low: Article about a minor detail of the subject of the wikiproject.
We're not using the importance indicators yet in the WP:Chem (where the now generally applied Stub/Start/B-Class/A-Class classification first started), so I can't speak for that wikiproject, but my feeling is towards as pointed out here. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
  • I thought of that too but the place I copied the code from didn't have a low, so I went ahead anyway without it. Rlevse 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we should edit the template and make it our own ... we could even have a sence of humor (Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, etc) ... --evrik 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with that is it's a shared template, so I'd prefer not to edit it and certainly not come up with custom labels others won't understand (Joe User has no idea what Star means). For one the thing, the stats table is done nightly by a bot that Oleg would have to reprogram to read just our stuff and I don't think he should have to do that. This system is part of the V1.0 project. Rlevse 21:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, only the quality scale uses a shared template. The importance scale is just a hand-drawn table, and can be adjusted as an individual project sees fit (provided you don't rename the levels, which would cause the bot to no longer recognize them). Kirill Lokshin 22:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah so. Let me work on this after dinner. I copied your MILHIST code and didn't see the Low in there.Rlevse 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Yeah, a lot of projects have copied their assessment pages from WP:MHA, carrying over the three-level scheme; but WP:MILHIST only uses three levels for reasons related to the scope of the project (I can give a detailed explanation if anyone cares, but won't take up the space otherwise). Very few people seem to be aware that there's a fourth level ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I noticed too that there are others wikiprojects with only the top-three. Wrongly, in my opinion. As Kirill points out: we can define our own meaning for the standard four names (that the bot uses). And I second the proposal that we should. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC).
  • OK, I've created the low-importance category, added the code, and rated two articles as low-importance. Let's see if they show in the stats tomorrow (Fri, 14 July). I'm going to work on our instructions on our Assessment page now. Rlevse 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It seems to have worked. --evrik 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

stub merger proposals

Folks, we're getting a preponderance of stubs again, like we had in late January, and that's a good way to lose articles and information to deletion for non-notability. I do what I can regarding sub-council articles for the BSA, but I have noticed several other areas crying for cleanup. These are the ones I see, please vote and speak your mind, and mention others I have overlooked. The categories are the general combined articles (not necessarily the names) I would propose. Chris 01:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

At least 1/3 of our articles are stubs. See our statistics table and full listing. We've built up the count, let's work on quality now. Rlevse 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong Scout locations

i.e. Baden-Powell International House...

Wim is working on making this a full scale article. He says a couple of weeks.Rlevse 01:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just picking one of each category, not each example. Another, better example would be Morse House. Chris 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Morse House and Morse Hut are the same thing and need merged.Rlevse 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I thought that too, they are separate locations, but they _all_ need to be merged, IMO. For such a geographically small organization, they get more press than is commensurate. And there are spaces for them at The Scout Association of Hong Kong. Perhaps I should fire up the merge tags on all but Baden-Powell International House?

I have been doing research in all Baden-Powell houses, and so I stumbled on the BPIH and the HK Scout Centre. They are two different things, that is true. So I pointed out to Randy that I'd give it a go to see how it works out. Give me a short while, and then I'll respond here. Could well be a merge proposal, could be Start-Class articles. No promises either way. First Baden-Powell House to FA. Did you support it yet? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

Hong Kong Scouting notables

i.e. Alexander Anderson McHardy...

Indonesian Scout ranks

i.e. Penegak Bantara...

Polish Scouting notables

i.e. Andrzej Małkowski...

There are gobs of Polish Scouting stubs, many of them dealing with the resistance in WWII. I don't want to lose this info.Rlevse 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting losing it, I'm suggesting combining it into a more comprehensive, useful article, like the new Scouting memorials. What if that were instead 20 different stubs on each memorial? They're better under a single roof (or few). Chris 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree.Rlevse 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

individual lawsuits against the BSA

i.e. Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America...

there are at least four of these. Rlevse 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
my vote is to merge them into the existing controversies page. Chris 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
agree. Eight lawsuits and two bills in Category:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America, all short articles. Plus one South Park episode. I also recommend merging United States National Scout Jamboree#Funding controversy, as there is a lot of duplication. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pathfinder Scouts Association

This article is up for deletion. I am not sure about this. It clearly has existed as one of rather a large number of traditional Scout Groups in the UK. One web source talks of it closing in 1998 on the death of its founder. It seems to have revived. The web link from the article has lots of stuff but details of troops, leaders, numbers etc seem to be totally absent. For now I have just cleaned it up (or will in a minute). --Bduke 08:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All I can find is a few paragraphs on the internet - for example, http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/sha/isa.htm - it seems that PSA is no more, and has been superceded by another non-aligned organisation. I didn't realise there were so many "traditional" groups an organisations just in the UK. Maybe we should merge it into a single article on non-aligned UK organisation? Horus Kol 09:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems likely it will not expand much. What would be the best article to merge it into? Rlevse 09:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of odd-ball traditional groups in the UK. The idea of an article on UK Traditional Groups is one possibility, but for now maybe the best thing is to merge into Traditional Scouting. I'm thinking about adding the one sentence of this article into that article, but I will hang on to see how the deletion debate goes for a while. Also, I have put something on the creator's talk page and he may respond. --Bduke 11:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good.Rlevse 11:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
According to [4] it's part of the Rover Explorer Scouts Association (multiple websites: [5], [6], [7], [8]). To me, it's no quite clear if this is a real working association - an if, where are its roots? For the Pathfinder Scouts at least one group is mentioned (on all sites), the RESA has at least 5 crews (and a "Philippines Council"). Some of the crews link to the CES, while one of RESA's mainpages links to the WFIS-Eurocamp 2006. --jergen 11:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Found finally some more history and an outdated list of troops: [9]. --jergen 11:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The very last para of that does seem to bring it up to date. The PSA and the Rover Explorer Scout Association are linked if not the same, but the real questions is how many members do they have. Is it a going concern or are they trying to use WP to advertise it. --Bduke 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that for the sake of integrity, we do need to mention these "traditional" organisations - there are as much a part of Scouting as any other Group/Troop. So long as we maintain NPOV in the articles mentioning them, I don't see a problem. Horus Kol 13:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Scouting in Ontario

Please weigh in at the merge discussion on this page. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but I would rather hear it from fellow Scouters than from someone with an agenda and a clear history of deleting Scout images. --Chris 04:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

So you can't fight your own battles, huh? Ardenn 04:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Scouting in Singapore

I am trying to clean up articles on Scouting in Singapore. I think I have got everything into Category:Scouting in Singapore. There is the main article - The Singapore Scout Association, only one section article - Cadet Scout, only one rank article - President's Scout rank (Singapore Scout Association) and four articles on individual Groups. The last are all now tagged for merge into the main article. Please give your opinion on these merges. As usual with Group/Troop articles they are full of vanity stuff, copyright violations and non-notable information. I have cut them back to stubs but moved the deleted material to the talk pages. The main article has a long list of Groups, listed under Districts, which themselves are in two Areas. Should there be articles on the two areas or on the 14 Districts? It would be nice if some Singapore Scout Wikipedeans joined in but my comments on the talk pages of those who created the Group articles and on the talk page of the main article have brought no responses. What do folks think? --Bduke 03:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rating/Assessment reminder

When you merge articles, remember to change the rating to NA (class=NA) and remove importance, or ask me to do it. The merged article is now a redirect and doesn't get a rating. Rlevse 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Stamps

Do we want to import some of the images from:

http://www.sossi.org/scouters

I would say yes, if we are likely to have a need for them. I wouldn't do it just for the sake of doing it.Rlevse 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Background on Peace Scouts

Great, thank you! These are all UK, any luck with finding the California branch? There should be an article on the UK Peace Scouts and Sir Francis Vane. Chris 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Also it would be nice to get the pine tree guy included in the wikiproject, somehow.

More PD Images

--evrik 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

organization of state pages

I am moving this text by user:Eric1985

I think the scouting pages are arranged in a not so efficient way. Having grown up in boy scouts (and working for them for 7 years) I think that there should be a root BSA directory page with a page for each council. The council camp and OA should be on the same page as the council. Arranging by state does not work well becuase there are multiple states in many councils around the country.

from my userpage page as this has been discussed long before. Chris 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This came up and was settled about 6 months ago. It was decided by consensus to do it this way for multiple reasons and it is not worthwhile to undo all that's been done.Rlevse 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

template issues

Something has been happening funny with the templates. I have been trying to apply Template:Infobox WorldScouting to Afghan Scout Association as a test to see if it looks nice and if people think we should have a standardized template for national organizations. But when I apply what is otherwise a slender, tall template, it takes up the whole width of the page. Help? Chris 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, what _do_ you folks think of Template:Infobox WorldScouting?

  • I like the template but I think it's too big. Try shriking it. For the layout issue, try putting this code from my toolbox above/below the image: User:Rlevse/Tools#Clear_code (click on the edit button and paste the clear code from there). Rlevse 00:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done that, what will that do, now? Shrinking it how? Help? (I used the basic layout and coloration from ZHP). Chris 00:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I tried the clear code and it helped (didn't save changes), but becaue the box is so wide, it forces the text below (I think that's what's going on). I don't know how to shrink a box though, but try using BR code to force two lines in the caption at the top and inside the box, perhaps a smaller font too.Rlevse 01:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The creation of the infobox is an excellent idea. I was just wondering which one to use for The Scout Association of Hong Kong that I am currently editing, and this fits the requirements nicely. I just made a transcluded version, and used it in the said article. See what you think of this. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC).

That is a _beautiful_ cleanup of that article! And that's how I envisioned the use of the template! Thank you, brother! What does everyone else think? Shall we apply the template to the other national articles? Chris 18:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is a nice cleanup of the Hong Kong article and it is B-class now. I think the template therein is nice, but something in the one on Wim's talk page is making that one too wide. Rlevse 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. The width issue has already been taken care of: I was actually still editing it when you saw what I saw. PS. Another example of the template is in Chris's Afghan article too. Tonight is (probably) the last night I shall be on wikipedia for some weeks, so any further requests for additional fields or so: be my guest. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
Also did The Scout Association and Scouting Nederland. Who dares to do the BSA? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
As a last bold statement I did WAGGGS. Notice the two red links in the table? (recommendation for improvement, Randy. Put them on the wanted articles list for me. Have a nice vacation time all. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
Sure, there is a Pax Hill article. Is it the same as Pax Lodge? Anyone know?Rlevse 23:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
The question shows that the female side of Scouting needs quite some support here on Wikipedia. No, Pax Hill and Pax Lodge are two (actually three) different buildings: Pax Hill in Bentley, UK was home for B-P and his wife in the 1930s, as was Pax Hill later in Kenya. Pax Lodge in North London named so for symbolic value in 1990. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
I've love more female involvement in the project, but there simply haven't been that many and most of those aren't very active.Rlevse 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WorldScouting template has been added to BSA. Who is considered to be the BSA's Chief Scout? (I left it blank). --NThurston 14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

renaming suggestion

Folks, for consistency, what would you say about renaming the WOSM regions' articles to conform to the way the WAGGGS regions' articles are named, hence WOSM-European Region instead of European Region and so on? Just a thought. Chris 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. If it's "European Region", we're left wondering, "European Region" of what? Rlevse 00:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree. I have often had Rleses's thought about this. --Bduke 00:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Done. Chris 00:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, Chris. There are a lot of articles to change so they go direct not via the redirect. I have fixed the main template - Template:WOSM Regions, and also Template:Asia-PacificScout, but there are lots of other links. Can we get a bot to fix them? --Bduke 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Uk-scouts-ex-cs-csda.gif is to be removed

The image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uk-scouts-ex-cs-csda.gif has been marked for deletion as it is not used anywhere - how do I petition this? I intend to write an article on the progressive award scheme (past and present) in the UK, and will need this image. Horus Kol 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Say exactly what you just said, maybe in more detail, on the image's page. They do this to save server space (get rid of unused images). In the future, don't upload images until you are ready to use them and that'll avoid this problem.Rlevse 18:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah - I uploaded it with a bunch of others, but ended up only using one of the awards in the Explorer Scout article... Well, if I get the article up by the end of the week, it should be okay (ah... motivation :) ) Horus Kol 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gilwell Park photos needed

I'm doing a lot of work on this article, but I'm having trouble finding good photos that are not copyrighted, etc for it. If you know of some that are good photos and OK for wiki use, please let me know. Thanks. Rlevse 20:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a small collection of photos from a visit there a couple of years ago... I'll root around and see what I can find Horus Kol 08:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Just had a quick look, and nothing I took actually shows the site itself - they are all of my Explorers and could have been taken anywhere... sorry... 08:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

changing copyright status tags

Folks, what would you think of my changing the postage stamp tag to scoutlogo, as a bot has been removing stamp graphics from several articles as per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Stamps wrongly claimed as Fair use: serious copyright problem. On these national articles-five in Africa Randy and I had to save from afd earlier this year, Lithuania and Turkmenistan, the stamps don't illustrate the subject, they prove the existence of the subject, and so are an integral and structural part of the article. They provide a visual record where no other exists at present. Please let me know what you think. Chris 22:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That begs the question if the stamps themselves are a logo of a scout organization.Rlevse 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Generally, no. However, if you read the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Stamps wrongly claimed as Fair use: serious copyright problem, they can only be used if they are an article about the postage stamp, elsewise they will be deleted. The stamps in these cases are crucial to the articles, I have to find a workaround, and quickly before they are deleted. I need all heads on this. Chris 23:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Afraid I'm drawing a blank here, perhaps argue just as you have here.Rlevse 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Scogui

Folks, please weigh in on the discussion for this article. It is noble that he will expand it, but his reasons for doing so ("Publicity", in his words) go against Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Also, this kind of is parallel to articles for individual troops rather than for the larger entity. I would like your thoughts. Chris 00:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put my ore in - should be merged with the Student Scout and Guide Organisation article... Horus Kol 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GSUSA GA?

By the end of this months colaboration, I would like to nominate GSUSA for GA. Or at least be able to. Any thoughts on this? I know it still needs work, so what needs to be done so it can be? Disscussion is here. Darthgriz98 01:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

GSUSA pics

I have a few pictures from completeing my gold award project I don't know if you would want to use them or not. And I can get some pictures from my uniform of badges and awards and council things and so on. Any thoughts? Darthgriz98 02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Scouting in Rathfarnham

We've got more troop articles to deal with. The editors of 13th Dublin and 14th Dublin have removed merge tags without discussion, against Wikipedia etiquette. I will put these articles up for afd for non-notability if they cannot be talked into merge, at least into the local Scouting in Rathfarnham. Chris 00:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There was talk on this on some page, I forget which. 13th has had lots of history added, but 14th is in weak shape.Rlevse 01:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
There was talk on each page, and that's great, thing is, they're still _troops_, and not notable by themselves, no matter how well written. They need a home article to be in. Chris 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is discussion also on the Scouting Ireland page. I thought I contributed some ideas somewhere but can not find them. There are several points or problems here: 13th Dublin may be notable because of its history; 14th Dublin is not notable; Scouting in Rathfarnham is an odd-ball, because Rathfarnham is a place, it is not a Scout County and is in fact part of two Scout Counties. I think Scouting in Rathfarnham should be deleted along with 14th Dublin and new articles on the Scout Counties written to take much of this information. --Bduke 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I like Bduke's idea.Rlevse 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also Rathfarnham Girl Guides, crimony already! Chris 19:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Using English

I'm not releated to this wikiproject, but I'm wondering why a lot of the pages are titled using the native name instead of the English name per WP:UE (ie. Asociación de Scouts de Venezuela and Latvijas Skautu un Gaidu Centrālā Organizācija)? FYI... It makes it hard for us who don't speak Latvian to find the right scouting article. --Spaceriqui 04:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Very easy: In most cases there is no (official or commonly used) English translation of the associations' names. In these cases, WP:UE proposes to use the original (non-English) name and to give an English translation in the article's first line. Please note that most translations are only rough. --jergen 11:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Quite true. Note that our RulesStandards page to state to use [{WP:UE]] (English) when it is possible. However, in such cases, I think we should have a redirect from the English version of the title so that it will be easier for people to find (and vice versa for that matter). This redirect should match the English translation given in the article lead. If there is more than one possible way to translate it, each should have a redirect. If there is no objection, I'll alter the RulesStandards to mention this redirect matter two days from now.Rlevse 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
PS-note that the Latvian article Spaceriqui mentions does not have an English title translation, which the obvious one would be "Latvian Scout and Guide Central Organization". I'll go do that and make a redirect now.Rlevse 12:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree that there is no official or commonly used English translation.... scout.org lists the common English translation for these organizations. Also naming conventions states Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. I don't know how one can argue that the Latvian name is more common in English than the English name. Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The whole idea is for the Names of Wikipedia articles to be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists. As someone completely ignorant of scouting in my own town, I have no clue what Latvijas Skautu un Gaidu Centrālā Organizācija is. Maybe it should be called Scouting in Latvia. Something to consider. Thanks. --Spaceriqui 15:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

May also want to consider this --Spaceriqui 16:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Concerning your link to http://www.scout.org/satw/links.shtml: Unfortunately this website is seldom updated and gives in many cases outdated or even wrong informations - even if WOSM is on of the World Scouting bodies. In my experience this website is not reliable, all infomations there have to be checked twice. (Example: http://www.scout.org/satw/links.shtml gives for Lebanon Fédération du Scoutisme Libanais and translates to Lebanese Scout Federation; a correct translations is Federation of Lebanese Scouting or even better Federation of the Lebanese Scout Mouvement.)
Checking what's more commonly used (Google hits on English sites only, Wikipedia excluded):
  • Proposed English translation: 11 hits [10]
  • Latvian original: 37 hits [11]
Nearly 80% of English websites use the Latvian name - IMO this points to more commonly used. --jergen 17:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Scouting in Latvia would apply to all Scouting there, not just this one organization. Many countries have or have had more than one Scouting organization. I suggest leaving it the way it is.Rlevse 17:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need Category:International Scouting ?

Do we really need such a category?

It should include most of the "interesting" articles such as those on B.-P. and his wife, for example... but these are high profile articles which should stay in Category:Scouting instead. But if we keep all the interesting articles out of Category:International Scouting, what do we need it for? Scouting is international in nature anyway... it is the country-specific articles which should go inside country-specific categories, and international-minded articles should be in the main category.

--Lou Crazy 04:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lou Crazy. Also, the cat is not "Scouting by country", which it is currently as subcat of; if we do have this cat, it should be a subcat of Scouting and be called "International Scouting associations". Rlevse 11:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Scouting as a category encompasses anything that does not fall under a specific national nature, from Be Prepared to square knots. I had created the new cat because I believe it warrants its own separate distinct grouping. Chris 21:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
but international is certainly not a country, so if anything, it should be under Scouting cat.Rlevse 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

request for help against deletionist

this guy really wants to delete my recent additions for illustration-Image:LaszlonagyU.jpg‎, Image:Laszlonagycarlgusta.jpg‎; and Image:BoyScoutsofNippon.jpg, please help me save them from him. Chris 22:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of article classes

I put them in reverse order because I figured we'd want people to look through the stubs first to try and reduce them... but if you think its better the other way, fair does... Horus Kol 12:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see either way, but I thought I'd change it. Not a big deal if you want to reverse. Rlevse 13:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I think we're both kind of "eh, whatever" :) Horus Kol 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

New structure proposal for the Scouting articles

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 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 all 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.

The above is a proposal for a new, more logical structure in the Scouting articles, aiming at more focus per article and less overlap. Please feel free to adjust the table above as you see fit, adding your comment here for explanation of your change. Questions are ok too. Obvious is that the Scouting article is getting very central to it all, so that does need high attention. Effectively, many articles (all?) need moving as well change of content. Comments? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC).

Support I like this. The Cub, Brownie and Girl Guide(s) article need the most immediate attention. Boy Scout is GA and in pretty good shape, Scouting is A-class and should be worked to get to FA as it is our flagship article. I am in full support of Wim's proposal. Rlevse 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The main problem I have is it seems to make a sharp division between female Girl Guide and male Boy Scout while there are many Scouting organizations that are now completely mixed and would not make sense to make that division. In addition there would be a fair deal of overlap between an article on a Girl Guide and an article on a Boy Scout even when just considering the single sex organizations. --Erp 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
The two groups did start separately and remain so for a long time and that needs to be preserved for historical purposes as well as those organizations that remain separated by gender. The coed nature of many of today's Scouting orgnizations, which seems to be concentrated in Europe as far as I know, can be dealt with in each of the two articles (boy/girl). To put it all into one article would ignore that history not to mention that many, perhaps most, of the organizations still have boy/girl in their names. This problem will be with us for a long time as some are coed and some not. If there are enough editors knowledgeable about coed Scouting, there could be a separate article on it, with a summary and main article link from the boy and girl articles. Rlevse 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there is enough to say on the matter of co-ed Scouting to warrant another article - it would most likely end up as a list of national organisations that allow mixed sex groups, and the date on which they started (for example, the UK started allowing girls into the Venture Scouts in the 1970's, and the organisation is fully co-ed as of 2006). One sentence per co-ed organisation is not going to make for much of an article... Horus Kol 07:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Not exactly started separately. The first girl scouts organized themselves based on Baden-Powell's work and called themselves scouts just like their brothers did; Baden-Powell then set up a separate organization for the girls (the Guides). Also we've got articles such as that on Gerakan Pramuka which are co-ed (in the sense of the organization includes both boys and girls but the units are single sex) where the age level Scout presumably including boys and girls points to the Boy Scout article. How are we to handle that when the article appears to be male oriented? My own view is that a Scout/Guide article should include both sexes but indicate within the article where differences organizationally and historically lie. --Erp 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Just as there are coed organizations (including without boy or girl in the name) and hence articles; there are those that are the oppposite. As there are several Scout orgs coed, so are many that are still separate. Rlevse 17:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading the various feedbacks, do I read it correctly as proposed now in the table? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

Not exactly, it's a conundrum. You can't say a Girl Scout/Guide is a Boy Scout for an organization that has never made their program coed (like BSA) at the troop level. On the other hand you can't say a program like The Scout Association that has been coed for 40-odd years has separate programs. I honestly don't see a way to do justice to all of them in one article. The two programs have similar but distinct histories and I never proposed making one article. If it is doable, it's likely to have serious structure and length problems. Rlevse 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • In my perception you can very correctly say that there are girls who follow the Boy Scout program (do the tough thing, wear those uniforms, and work on the same badges). Those girls are typically called Girl Scouts, and are listed in the Boy Scout article (which isn't about any movement, remember!). There there are organization such as the BSA who didn't allow Girl Scouts may be mentioned in the same section of the article, but won't be problematic. You have to see the article from the point of the reader: 'what is a boy scout' or 'what is girl scout' giving the same answer.
  • And the girl who does the Girl Guide program (nursing, blue uniforms, etc) are described in the separate Girl Guide article (not about the any movements...). And 'what is a girl guide' give the proper answer, different from 'what is a girl scout'.
  • Finally, to wrap all things up, there is one Scouting article mentioning both a Boy Scout line(sometimes including girls) and a Girl Guide line of Scouting (I don't think with boys, right?), and various other lines. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC).
    • Ah, a snag (I'm read the US-oriented articles): what the rest of the world calls a Girl Guide (blue uniforms and stuff), Americans call a Girl Scout. Then we'll have to weigh: do we follow the US way and redirect Girl Scout to Girl Guide, or do it the European and rest of the world way and redirect Girl Scout to Boy Scout. The US way would be in line with WAGGGS. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC).
OK, glad you see my point. In the US a some other countries, a Girl Scout is totally separate from a Boy Scout and it was this way virtually everywhere for decades. I'm glad to continue discussing and would hope more people chime in. Rlevse 01:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
However WAGGGS members have often 'done the tough thing'. The troop I was in certainly camped, backpacked, caved, canoed and that has certainly been true since Girl Scouts/Guides was founded. Admittedly there was often a stronger emphasis on homemaking skills but the Boy Scouts have badges on cooking and first aid. The organizations were different but what the members did often wasn't as different. For a bit about the history see [12] note the bit "in an age when skirts were ankle length and young ladies never ran, the idea of girls being involved in camping, hiking and similar activities received a mixed response." --Erp 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in the United States, Girl Scouts is Girl Scouts, and Boy Scouts is Boy Scouts. And that depends on your definition of "Tough stuff" we don't wear the annoying skirts anymore, we go camping, we have wider opps trips (which are high adventure mostly), I mean, my Gold Award was restoring the banks of a stream, I used a chainsaw, but I'm not a member of BSA. Darthgriz98 02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Chainsaw? Hmm...in BSA youths using a chainsaw is a direct violation of the Guide to Safe Scouting. Interesting. Use of log splitters by youths is also banned. Rlevse 10:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
See, this is why we arn't in BSA. Darthgriz98 16:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, in the rest of the world, there are also traditional Girl Scouts/Guides organizations who admit male members - normally these are only called Scouts, since Boy Scout stands for WOSM affiliation. Some examples include Pfadfinderinnenschaft Sankt Georg (Germany), Združenje slovenskih katoliških skavtinj in skavtov (Slovenia), Girl Guides Association of Cyprus, Soma Hellinidon Odigon (Greece). All these organizations have WAGGGS membership only - and you should note that both the Greek and the Cypriote organization don't use male forms for their branches... --jergen 06:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, new idea. Everyone call up just Scout. It's a dab page with about 2 dozen links. We make new page called Scout (Scouting) and move the content of Boy Scout there (which is a GA and the closest to what we want an article(s) on the individual youth member to be), and redirect Boy Scout(s), Girl Scout/Guide(s). Add Scout (Scouting) to the dab page. This will avoid the entire problem of "Boy or Girl or Coed", which seems to be the core of the discussion here. Rlevse 10:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Although a nice idea, it doesn't reflect the current Scout world. As I see it we need to good core articles Boy Scout and Girl Guide and Girl Scouts. This follows the WOSM/WAGGGS line, it caters for GG and GS in one article as they have a lot (all?) in common, and shows the historically correct distinction made by B-P himself. I adjusted the table. Ladies, please comment. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

None of the ideas reflects the current world scout as there are too many variations on the theme. Rlevse 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I won't try table rebuilding but my not very deep thinking is
  • Scouting - This article needs to include a section on the different ways national scouting organizations handle mixing (or not mixing) of sexes.
  • Scout method
  • Scout (Scouting) - a description of an individual youth member of the Scouting movement whether male or female. Girl Guide, Girl Scout, Boy Scout all point here.
  • WAGGGS
  • WOSM
  • Individual national organizations such as BSA ....

not completely happy with it.--Erp 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Erp, I'm not completely happy either. Important improvement is necessary for the Scout (Scouting), as this would have to accommodate two very different persons (I also see that they have things in common, but left these out):

  • the male or female 'boy scout' has a green-based uniform, the female GG (and GS?) has a blue one
  • the BS is aiming at tough outdoor life, and the GG/GS for home-care/nursing
  • Scouting for Boys versus ... (nothing)
  • Troops versus circle (or what are they called)

So, I would prefer two separated articles for this topic (with overlap, but that can't be prevented). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

the male or female 'boy scout' has a green-based uniform, the female GG (and GS?) has a blue one - This isn't true everywhere. In South Africa we have 3 different uniforms. Land Scouts wear a khaki uniform (similar to the orginal uniform), Air Scouts wear a sky blue shirt, with navy blue pants and Sea Scouts wear a white shirt with navy blue pants. I do agree with a Scout (Scouting), but it must be rather general information and information concerning boys and girls should rather be in the individual national article.Jediwannabe 06:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Indeed there are exceptions to the rule. But if say 20 million scouts and guides follow the green cq blue uniform distinction, then that is what the two articles should be about. And the exceptions should be mentioned in the articles for what they are (exceptions). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

The US Girl Scouts usually were green uniforms and I also disagree that GS/GG aimed mostly at home-care/nursing. They also had and have extensive outdoor activities (they initially used Scouting for Boys, remember the first Girl Scouts saw what their brothers were doing, read the book, and said why can't we also take part. A separate work was later written for them). [13]. Actually someone should set about gutenberging Scouting For Boys, et al.. I believe they are out of copyright. --Erp 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

World Scout Jamboree

Since Chris added the template for the Jamboree years, it seems that this has prodded the creation of about half-a-dozen or so Jamboree articles... all good, but there is more information than simply when and where... I've gone and added as much as I can to the single line articles, but if anyone knows of any other sources - that would be a great help. Horus Kol 14:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We should make a new infobox for events. An event is an organization and has attendance, not membership. Rlevse 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking that... but I haven't a clue how to go about doing that...
Done. See any World Jambo aricle for sample. Rlevse 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also been thinking about the main article - I can't think of any way to add to the information in the article. Perhaps we can move it from Stub to Start (I doubt it is going to go further than that)? Horus Kol 08:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I uprated it indeed to Start (could you have done yourself: be bold), and I left some technical recommendations for further article improvement on the talk page. Editorially, I think the article still needs a good section on what a world scout jamboree is about, who attends, what they do there, and -regarding History- what changed over the years in these activities. Improvement of the list to a table with some more info, e.g., dates, #attendants, organizing entity, etc (just thoughts). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
I saw the report that you generated with the AndyZ script, and I'll take your suggestions on board too. As for being bold - there seems to be a limit to how bold I feel, and I used it up on all those WorldJam articles that I updated yesterday... Horus Kol 09:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You're getting well on now, Horus. Make more of that: very effective. I like your inclusion of the Jota/Joti/Jott sections: make more of it, I'd say. And I also liked what you did to the lists, and the new infobox. You're on the right track now. I gave it a small copy-edit, to give a hand. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
Hey, while we're at it... Why is World Scout Jamboree capitalized, but not National Scout jamboree? Chris 00:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't know about World Jambo, but BSA policy is to uppercase the J in jambo only when talking about a specific Jambo such as the 1960 National Jamboree, but not for a generic term like a National Scout jamboree. Rlevse 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Capitalisation on a specific title/event/name - lower case on descriptive word, so the Jamboree versus a jamboree... since there is only one World Scout Jamboree, but many national Scout jamborees... at least, that's my logic. Having said that, I talk about Jamborees in other places... argh, English sucks... Horus Kol 08:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

JOTA et al - should we make a move to merge these articles? I'm not sure that if I add much more information about them in the WSJ article that we'd have much call for the separate ones... Opinions? Horus Kol 08:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Category - Scout Campsites?

There are many of them - perhaps a category for them? Horus Kol 08:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

We already have one: Category:Scout campsites, which is a subcat of Category:Scouting. Also, BSA category already has local camp and a national camp campsite categories. Rlevse 10:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick map of all the Scouting categories. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Just looking through there, I found several user pages that were incorrectly cat'd as being Scouting User Templates. I have fixed them all. Some were due to subst'ing the noinclude tags, while I found a couple of "no include" mistakes on the user templates. Also, I found that Wikipedians in Scouts Canada is listed as a subcategory of Scouting User Templates. Can anyone help me figure out how to remove it from there? --NThurston 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I figured it out. Let me know if I messed something up. --NThurston 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Nice work, Nthurston. Rlevse 21:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I fixed the Alphi Omega cats yesterday as they were looping. I was going to bring up the Canda cat, as I'm not sure why we even have it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Scouting Categories

The 114 or so articles in the Scouting category seem to be a hodge-podge of things that could conceivably belong in sub-categories. A few that come to mind - Scouting:Pioneers, Scouting:Origins, and Scouting:Scoutcraft or Scouting:Skills. Also, what category can I re-cat the WJ articles into? Any support or concerns? --NThurston 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything that makes sense and follows naming conventions. I fixed the parent cat of the Scouting jambo cat for you. Rlevse 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --NThurston 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks also, as this ties nicely into Do we really need Category:International Scouting? above! Chris 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a few selected categories that seemed to have enough articles in Scouting to justify it. I also tried to leave things that really should not be sub-cat'd. I have also considered adding "Scouting literature" to accommodate all of the handbooks, etc. There are a few that I would like to sub-cat, but I just don't know what to do. Any ideas on:

  • Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation
  • Prince Moulay Rachid of Morocco
  • Muzafer Sherif

--NThurston 15:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't need international scouting, handbooks should stay with their organization. Rlevse 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK - I just realized that the only books there are historical, foundation books. In addition to the three above, what to do with American Camp Association and Friends Committee on Scouting? --NThurston 15:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Put the sexuality article in Scouting pioneers. Rlevse 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any interest in making sure that all Scouting-related articles include a Scouting cat or sub-cat? If so, how would one go about doing that? Do we have a comprehensive list of all Scouting-related articles? --NThurston 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

deletion of images

I have had several images, used with permission of the author, deleted by other Wikipedians recently. Randy has suggested other members of our project who are apparently good with such issues, but they were no help. Is there anything we as a project can do to tag images so they _won't_ be deleted? Chris 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Images tagging is a pain, especially Fair Use ones. Rlevse 22:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't have a solution, but noticed this morning that there were several of the historic Eagle medals tagged for deletion, presumably because "nothing links here." Randy might want to check through those to see if that's actually true or if it's a mistake. --NThurston 23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it wasn't a mistake, there were once in the Eagle article, but we removed most because there were so many. Don't worry, I have copies on my computer if we need them. Rlevse 23:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories - Scouting & BSA-related

I have been cleaning up categories. BSA logos have been sub-cat'd into Category:Boy Scouts of America logos. Note that I am distinguishing between logos and BSA-related images, which are sub-cat'd into Category:Boy Scouts of America images. I did not have enough energy to add the logo category to every merit badge in Category:Scout logos. Please feel free to do this.

Also, I have finished my work on cleaning up Category:Scouting. You might want to take a look. I am thinking of ways to sub-cat the BSA articles to make them easier, although 111 is not a tremendously large number. Perhaps the first step is to sub-cat the biographic articles. Not sure. Thoughts?

As I have worked on this, I was also impressed by two things: 1) There are a lot of BSA related articles Category:Boy Scouts of America and 2) there are not very many BSA-related images besides logos. --NThurston 00:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nice work, NThurston. Rlevse 01:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have gone as far as I dare for now with sub-catting Category:Boy Scouts of America. A few new sub-cats were created and I moved the program articles to the top of the list. --NThurston 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Congrats. I think you've done fine work. Rlevse 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Stubs - trying to move them up and clear them out

I've been going through some of the Scouting stubs, and adding some information where I can to try and make them up to at least a "start" class. But I'm hitting on some odd problems - as an example, on the stub listing there is a link to Talk:129th Toronto Scouting Group... this being a group, the article has been merged into the Scouting in Ontario article and a redirect is now in place (all good considering the project policies on groups and such)... but the original articles talk page is still listed as a stub... I'm sure this is happening elsewhere, and it does skew the lists a bit - making it difficult to spring-clean... any ideas on what to do? Horus Kol 09:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You change the project tag on the talk page of the redirect to class=NA and take out importance completely. If someone doesn't know how or want to, let me know on my talk page and I'll do it. Rlevse 11:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
ah - thanks for that Horus Kol 12:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

just out of interest - when does the overview on the numbers of stub/start/etc articles get updated here? - it seems like it has been at 476 for a week now and I know that I have upgraded some stubs to start and so on... Horus Kol 09:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It gets updated every night (well, in the UK it's probably early daylight) when the 1.0 project mathbot runs. Right now it says 468 for stubs, so it has changed. How long it takes to run depends on how many changes have occurred in the entire 1.0 project. You can view the log here: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Scouting_articles_by_quality_log and click on V1.0 index here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Subpages_and_V1.0_pages Rlevse 10:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Horus Kol 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The stub count went as high as 490, see [14], so while you were upgrading some, others were creating new ones. Rlevse 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Several stubs are Philmont-related. Could they be merged into Philmont_Scout_Ranch_camps? --NThurston 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, there are many stubs that are World Scout Committee member bios. What would be a good course of action given that it is unlikely that we will find more info on most of them? --NThurston 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
There was already a thread on the Philmont subcamp, and yes they are supposed to be merged into the main subcamp article. As for the WSC members merging into a master article, it's okay with me. Rlevse 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I have merged the stub articles on camps into Philmont Scout Ranch camps and the stubs on programs into Philmont Scout Ranch#Other programs. Currently, only 425 Scouting stubs. Next low-hanging fruit - World Committee member bio stubs? --NThurston 13:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
OK with me. FYI, Jergen is going through stubs and changing the rating to Start in appropriate cases. Rlevse 14:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that and think that's very useful thing to do. --NThurston 14:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pax Lodge and Pax Hill Clarification

A request for an article on Pax Lodge also queried if Pax Lodge and Pax Hill are the same place. These are two separate places. Pax Lodge is in Hampstead, part of London, UK, and Pax Hill is in Hampshire, a county of the UK. Kingbird 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Article of the Month template: in mainspace or in talkspace

I noticed that the Article of the Month was placed in the main article space of Gilwell Park instead of the talk page. I believe there is a WP policy to refrain from putting this kind of templates in the mainspace, although I can't find a reference to it quickly. I personally think that that policy (if it exists and can be found) would be a good one. Therefore I propose that the said template be moved to the talkpage. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC).

I've seen them in both the talk page and article's main page (other projects too, not just ours). I have found no such policy, but if it exists, please point it out to me. I do the same thing with Collaboration of the Month too. Rlevse 16:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy question - local units

What is to be done with things like Boy Scout Troop 24? I am sure this has been resolved before, please remind me what was decided. --NThurston 17:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

See RulesStandards page. Local unit articles are highly discouraged. They rarely meet Wiki guidelines for notability. The article in question (which I haven't seen before) also read like an advertisement. I've afd'd it. Rlevse 17:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It's already deleted. Rlevse 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lashing knot images

I'm working on massively improving all articles on lashing knots, so any new images would be highly appreciated! I'm still working on the articles, and I need images showing how to do the knots, and some examples of how to utilize them. --Captain538 12:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The pictures in the square lashing look excellent to me. What is wrong with them? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC).
Some of the proposed merging articles don't have images and I think he's looking step by step photos and example of them actually being used for something practical. Rlevse 20:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with images

There's a problem with the images on Girlguiding UK that I haven't been able to solve. The length of the text is shorter than the length of the images stacked on the right, thus there are things out of place (like the 'edit' links on the headings) and it looks messy. Can anyone help out? Thank you. Kingbird 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I started working on this, but ran out of time. Feel free to make other changes. Hopefully I can come back later and work more on this. --NThurston 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I have replied at Talk:Girlguiding UK. Johntex\talk 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Krian Scout

An article with this title was but up for deletion yesterday and very quickly speedy deleted. It appears to have been about a Scout Troop in Malaysia. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krian Scout. I have no problem with articles about individual troops being deleted. They are indeed not notable. However, I do not think they should be speedy deleted as we should have the opportunity to see whether the article contains anything of note that could be added to a County, State or Country Scouting article. Is there anything we can do about this point in general? --Bduke 01:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Ask Johntex. He's an admin and in our project.Rlevse 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, looking at the discussion ... it went pretty quick. --evrik 10:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image talk:Barnstar scouting suggestion 05.jpg

It is not the barnstar they are trying to delete but its talk page which was only created on 18 October by someone suggesting the barnstar looked like a condom. It is just idiocy. The barnstar itself seems safe. --Bduke 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

AH, I was confused then. Thanks for clearing it up. Rlevse 00:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I think the barnstar is safe. I tagged the comment page for deletion because I didn't think the comments were respectful or appropriate (even if it was humorous in an off-color manner). I can't believe what a waste of time this has become because User:Descendall wants to protect their right to say what they want on a talk page, "Comments are in no way incivil. It would be impossible to phrase this in a more civil manner. Furthermore, pointing out a problem with using a particular image as a barnstar is entirely appropriate for this image." [15]
Sheesh --evrik 10:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
yeah, if that's what's going on here, I agree it's overblown.Rlevse 11:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
i'm just wondering how it looks like condom... this could exlpain why unwanted pregnancies are rising when people can't distinguish between a cloth-badge and a condom... Horus Kol 12:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Something else is going on here, though I can't figure out what. Alphax closed the debate and deleted the page that Descendall went back and added the comment on again. Could someone explain to be why Descendall hasn't faced some discipline for this actions? --evrik 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Just don't get in an edit war over him. He is very unlikely to give up, probably a vandal or rouge editor trying to PO you to get a laugh. Darthgriz98 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • yeah, I'm trying to keep to the proces here. Does anyone one else want to tag the page for deletion? --evrik 14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • No. Let it go. It is not important - just a slightly uncivil attempt at humour. Leave it alone. --Bduke 21:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I say let it go, there's not much you can accomplish from fighting him. Darthgriz98 02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Scouting 2007 Centenary

Has anyone else ordered from the UK website? I just placed my order and expect to get the package in a week or two. --evrik 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I did. A badge, and a survival thing for my son, and a book for myself. I expected it to arrive in a good week or to, at the campsite on Guernsey we then would have been, just in time for my son birthday. It was there on the second business day, much quicker than I expected: good show. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Outlander Promise

The section on the Outlander promise in Scout Promise now has a [citation needed] tag by it. As you can see in Talk:Scout Promise it appears that this Promise is in the 1912 edition of Scouting for Boys. I tried to track down that edition here in Melbourne but failed. Could someone, possibly in London with access to B-P House, see if they can nail this reference down? I think it is pretty clear from several references that B-P did write the Outlander promise, but we need a definite reference. --Bduke 00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

www.scoutpedia.com

Hello,

Did you know there were some scouting wikis on the net ? Today, we've listed the following :

As you can see, the only English-language project is tiny, and doesn't look liki its webmaster is still taking care of it. Anyway, it's still open to contribution, so maybe some of the contributors may have a look to it, and consider increasing it a bit ? I think that it would be a good idea to make it be active again. English is the most frequent language in the world, and BP's native language, it's a pity there is no real English scouting wiki, isn't it ?

Well, see you soon I hope. You can contact me on my French talk page.

Sorry for my poor English ... Scout greetings. Akela NDE on 12:39, Thursday June 12, 2008 (UTC)

We do have an English-language wiki on Scouting - at wikipedia... thanks for the links though. Horus Kol 10:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes but I do think a wiki specifically about scouting has something different. As Akela just said, scoutpedia.net is a tiny wiki, and you can all help to build it. I don't think you English speakers are gonna let the Finnish to have a scouting wiki 200 times as big as yours ??? Contributing to Wikipedia and to other wikis isn't impossible (I'm a living proof of it ^^) benji 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Although not a Wiki, we do have a great resource in the U.S. Scouting Service Project. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Resource yes, but is that only what a wiki is made for ? Do you just read Wikipedia, or do you actively contribute to make it better ? We had the same discussion on the French scouting wikiproject talk page, and everybody agreed that both fr:wikipedia's scouting portal and Scoutopedia were useful, and that they were not redundant, but completed each other. Actually, Wikipedia's made for everyone, isn't it ? Well, Scoutpedia's made for scouts. Don't you think that a wiki project enabling scouts from many different countries and organizations to share their practices and experiences on a free scouting encyclopedia is something useful ?
I'm quite suprised by your reaction. Are you scouts, or just normal people writing about scouting ? (That's a real question, not an insult or anything. I just ask !)
Anyway, thanks a lot Gadget850 for the link !!
Akela NDE

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
  • User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
  • User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
  • User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Rlevse 00:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I fixed that one too. I added more detail and also moved it out of crafts/hobbies (which it isn't) into society. Rlevse 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorting of WOSM member organizations

Category:WOSM member organizations seems to be inconsistant in its sorting. Are pages meant to be sorted as they are (ie. "The Scout Association of X" is sorted under 'T', ignore words such as 'the' and sort as "Scout Association of X", or sort by country (ie "X").

Most organizations are sorted as they are spelt, but Scouts Australia is sorted as 'Australia, Scouts'.

--RobBrisbane 05:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be no guideline (couldn't find anything on this in Wikipedia:Categorization and its subpages), the only remarks on sorting a category are on Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category.
I'd suggest to omit the articles and to use official name; any other comments on this? --jergen 06:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we normally leave out "the", etc. It comes from now specifying the name in the cat link on the article page. Good catch. Rlevse 09:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it would make the most sense to sort by country, rather than the organisations name... Horus Kol 11:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This would only make sense, if the country's name in its English version was part of all the associations' names. Nobody would understand the sorting method, if the category started with (all listed under A):
  • Beslidhja Skaut Albania
  • Scouts Musulmans Algériens
  • Associação de Escuteiros de Angola
  • Scouts de Argentina
  • Hayastani Azgayin Scautakan Sharjum Kazmakerputiun
  • Scouts Australia
It would also lead to problems with organizations not mentioning the country of origin like The Scout Association or Speidernes Fellesorganisasjon. --jergen 18:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there no way to add some text at the top of the category page to say what sorting method is used? I still think this is the best method...
I understand the problem of organisations like The Scout Association not including a country name, but someone looking for an organisation of Scouting in the UK would look under 'U', and not under 'T'. Horus Kol 08:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
And to what result? Looking under 'U', he would find nothing helpful. For searching by countries whe have Category:Scouting by country. --jergen 17:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
the would find the article The Scout Association and open it? Horus Kol 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Circle 10 Council assessment

I'm requesting an assessment on the quality and importance of the article on Circle 10 Council, which was recently expanded out of the Scouting for Texas article. As it is an article on an individual Council it should, according to guidelines, fall under Mid-importance. What I'm really looking for is a quality assessment and ways to improve the article, thank you. Chris M 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Scouting in Texas should really have more than one sentence on Circle 10 left in it. The state articles should provide a summary of such articles. Rlevse 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
After just a quick look...lead does not summarize the article, refs are not in cite php format, ref 9 is a dead link.Rlevse 16:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I added to the entry in the Scouting in Texas article and beefed up the lead for the Circle Ten article. I don't believe the 9th ref. in the Council article is dead. The entire scoutingforall page is down for maintenance so it should be beack up shortly. I don't quite know what you mean by cite php format so if you could explain a bit more to help me out? Chris M 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
See how the refs are done in Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America). Rlevse 17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting website

Another site:

http://n2zgu.50megs.com/INDEX%20SAW.htm

--evrik (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately this page is outdated, gives incorrect informations on the program and uses incorrect translations of both Promise and Law. It was used for starting most of the entries on WOSM's members, but most articles are beyond that state. --jergen 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed changes to non-English WOSM member article titles

Main article: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Translations

GSUSA FAC

Just as a heads up and reinforcing the announcment section, GSUSA is up for FAC. Check it out on GSUSA's FAC page. Any help any of you or your wiki friends would be greatly appreciated! :) Darthgriz98 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the head's up. --evrik (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Organisation vs Organization

Actually, this is a general question about American vs English spelling - I just noticed that someone has edited the Scout Association (UK) article to have the non-English spelling of organisation... what are the rules on this? Also, things like colour/color and so on... Personally, I think an English article on British subjects should be spelt in the English manner... Horus Kol 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is in our Rules/Standards page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting/RulesStandards#Language.2C_Spelling.2C_etc towit: edit the article per the spelling of the country in question. Generic articles use American. We had this discussion before on some talk page, and that was the outcome, so I added it to our Rules page. Rlevse 11:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

list of prioity articles?

I notice that someones made a change to the template which shows the various quality levels of articles to include a breakdown of the priorities... is there an easy way to bring up a list of articles with a certain priority within a certain level? For example, all top priorities within the stub quality level (makes it easier to find what article to focus on). Horus Kol 17:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

YOu can go to Category:Scouting articles by quality or Category:Scouting articles by importance and browse the subcats, but I know no way to cross ref them. Maybe Wimvandorst does.Rlevse 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
OH YEAH, I even knew about them but forgot-;) Rlevse 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent Wim - that's exactly what I was after... Horus Kol 08:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If you wondered, there isn't Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scouting articles by importance ? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Scout/Guide or Boy Scout/Girl Scout equality

In recent months we have seen the welcome introduction to pages under the project of material about Guides/Girl Scouts. Great. However, a lot of it is "girl" stuff added to "boy" articles. I have just seen this in The Scout Association of Papua New Guinea where the Guide material is added to a Scout article. This is happening all over. The UK "Scout" County articles are getting stuff added about Guides yet I think the Guide administrative areas are different from the Scout ones. I have to say this looks POV and we need to address it. How? Suggestions please. --Bduke 10:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the guilty party for tacking the girl information into the boy articles-there were not articles on the individual organizations, and where this was done, information was scant so I gave it a place to gestate into its own article, which I have seen happen about half-a-dozen times. Believe me there was no POV aforethought, I am the most egalitarian guy you'll ever meet, I put it there because there was _not_ information elsewhere on the 'pedia at the time. Chris 08:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do I raise it now? On the WikiEN-l e-mail list there has been a discussion about sexism on WP and one woman editor reported that after discussing this on the list, she was overwhelmed by e-mails from other women saying they were intimidated from contributing to the list and to some WP discussions. This can not continue.--Bduke 11:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
There are different ways adressing this problems:
  1. Included informations on WAGGGS member organizations should be moved into separate articles.
  2. For the UK regional articles I'd propose to change to the system used for the US and Canada: Articles including all informations on Guiding and Scouting in an official administrative area (perhaps with redirect from the respectiv Scout County/Guide Area).
  3. I also propose to change the project's name to WikiProject Guiding and Scouting. The actual name is only correct for the US and parts of Canada. And we should include more trefoils... --jergen 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As to adding trefoils, I am going through boxes and books and all resources in my collection, about 30,000 pieces and I am a slob so of course they're in no order, but of recent days have been finding more Girl Guide emblems catch-as-catch can and including them in the Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems and in articles. Chris 08:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with (3). (2) is more difficult because the administrative areas keep changing and they are not all on the same basis. Several Scout Counties/Areas now cross administrative boundaries, but this can change from year to year. I largely agree with (1) but wonder, for example, whether Scouts Australia could become Scouting and Guiding in Australia as it currently mentions Guides and mentions non-WOSM Scout organisations. This could perhaps be the best way in some countries. --Bduke 11:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bduke about (2). Additionally, I would be happy to start putting up regional articles for Girlguiding UK. I haven't got tonnes of information to hand, but I think I can make a good start. I think (1) is what should be happening, with appropriate links in the "See also" sections to guide readers to other organisations in the country. I also think (3) would be a step in the right direction. Kingbird 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with 1. Agree with Bduke on 2. I don't agree with 3. Scouting is one movement, not two that joined together. It'd also be a major evolution to change all the project links, cat names, V1.0 setup, etc. Rlevse 17:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sleeping on this, I changed my view on (3) but for different reasons from Rlese. Changing the Project name as suggested might make it more inclusive to Guides but it might make it less inclusive to other organisations such as the Boy's Brigade and the Girls Brigade. It loses the link that all organisations in the Project use the Scout Method. It is not called the Scout and Guide Method. A few weeks back I had to convince an editor to not remove the Project tag from Talk:Girls' Brigade. I would however like to know the views of more women wikipedians. --Bduke 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In a large part of the anglophone world, "Scouting" has a gender specific connotation: it's for boys. There are many women and girls who would fervently defend that what they do is "Guiding" not "Scouting". This may not reflect the roots of the movements or the practice of local organisations, but it's what people associate with the words. Wikipedia and Wikiproject Scouting have a heavy US influence where this connotation does not exist. If we remain "Wikiproject Scouting" we will always alienate a significant number of women from outside the USA. Kingbird 22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think one reason the project has such a heavy US, shall I say appearance, is that most of the people who join it are from the USA. This is probably because en wiki itself seems to have a heavy USA and male base. I've always tried to get more non-USA and and females to join. Scouting/Guiding/etc is one movement. If we rename it as proposed, we further perpetuate that it's not, not to mention other reasons that have come up. Most of you have no idea what havoc will be with the things I first mentioned if it's renamed. Kingbird: I'm curious as to what basis there is for those who feel Guiding is not part of Scouting. Rlevse 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
The average Guide would be horrified to hear that what she does is Scouting. She would realise Guiding and Scouting had similarities and a shared history, but that is where it ends. Some part of that argument isn't about logic, so it's rather hard to explain. I'm loath to quote early Guiding documents that say the movements are distinct because you can also end up implying a lot of things that aren't true (or aren't true any more) that way, but it is certainly possible to do so. I still think that at the end of the day, if we don't use the word "Guiding", we're going to miss out on the participation of many Guiding women. Kingbird 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If I may add my ha'penny's worth as a lurker, I had some experience of this controversy while writing the webpages for a Student Scout and Guide Organisation group in the early 90s. I made the mistake of referring to what we did as 'Scouting' on these pages. The next executive meeting was rather heated, and threw up a number of points that may be relevant here. Almost all of the Scouts on the committee thought that 'Scouting' was fine as an inclusive word that covered both Scouts and Guides - but this was completely unacceptable to any of the Guides. They were quite clear that what we did was Scouting and Guiding, not just Scouting - which made the women's movement seem second-class and unimportant. By putting just 'Scouting' on the page, I had behaved as unacceptably as someone who puts out a job advert with the banner headline "Are you the man we're looking for?" and then puts "applications from women and minorities are encouraged" in small print at the bottom.
By referring simply to Wikiproject:Scouting, the message that is being sent out (to most anglophone countries) is that this is a project that is not about Guiding. In the worldwide context, 'Scouting' is not the inclusive word that it is in the US, it is an exclusive word that says 'No Girl Guides Here'. If the project is serious about getting non-US women involved, then it must change to using inclusive language - which means changing the name to something like Wikiproject:Scouting/Guiding.
--Robminchin 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Robminchin, Guiding and Scouting are two completely different aspects. Most of my scouts don't agree with the view point that Scouting also covers Guiding. I full support a name change to incorporate both Scouting and Guiding under one topic. Also, I'd recommend that if a country has a separate Scouting and Guiding organisation (These being officially WOSM or WAGGGS organisations) they get separate articles. If a country has any non-WOSM or non-WAGGGS scout/guide (These being Scouts under the definition of scouting - Not something like BP Scouts which have their own international organisations) organisations they have a section in the WOSM/WAGGGS recognised organisations article. Hope this makes sense... Jediwannabe 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am impressed by Robminchen's arguments and it reminds me of working with Student Scout and Guide Clubs in UK in the 1950s and 1960s. I am going to change my mind yet again. It is very important indeed that we are seen to be inclusive of Guiding. If other organisations find this less inclusive (see my comment above) then that is unfortunate but it is less important than being inclusive to Guides. I think the name should be changed to Wikiproject:Scouting and Guiding. We can use a redirect and work together to correct everything. Sorry, Rlevse, it has to be done. --Bduke 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No one has yet to tell how Guiding is so different other than the girl side simply considers itself different. I still fervently believe that making it two separate names perpetuates it being two movements and that simply isn't true. It's like saying "Black and white Americans" vice "Americans". Making separate terms perpetuates the separation, making one term doesn't. I will not support a name change.Rlevse 08:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rlevse. BP founded ONE movement using ONE method. To carry the opposing arguement to its logical conclusion (those supporting rename), the project name should be "WikiProject Scouting, Guiding, Boys Brigade, Royal Rangers, etc and so on"...just where would the cut for being important enough be made and how long to make the name? Sumoeagle179 08:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Let us take a reality check on this point. I have just looked down the list of Wikiproject Scouting participants. There appears to be nobody who lists Boys Brigade, Royal Rangers or any other organisation that is not Scouts or Guides. The articles on these have either been written by people interested in the organisation who did not then join our project or by Scouts or Guides wanting to fill in gaps. They have of course often been added to by Project members. For many of these organisations we really have no evidence that they think of themselves as using the Scout method or think of themselves as part, in some vague sense, of the Scouting movement. In fact what little evidence we have is to the contrary - see Talk:Girls' Brigade. They might well think that we have done an imperialistic grap for their territory! Keeping all these groups in the Project is not important. Treating Guides on a equal basis as Scouts is very important. --Bduke 21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with BDuke here - the Boys' Brigade was started a little earlier than the Scout Movement, and while it might have some parallels to Scouting, it is not related - unlike Guiding, which came about because of a desire to provide the Scouting method to young girls/women as well as to young boys/men. I think we should maintain a focus on Scouting and Guiding, as any relation to other youth organisations like the BB is mostly incidental. Horus Kol 08:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Two more thoughts-unless I'm totally misreading some of the above, some posters are trying to make the argument that Scouting and Guiding are tied together only with the thinnest of threads, as if by chance, and have precious little in common. I can put the lie to that specious argument with the fact that so many of the world's organizations are joint, even their logos superimpose the trefoil and the fleur-de-lis. They serve the same need, for different markets, if you will. And if I have read too much into the above, my apologies.
Second, WAGGGS itself is partially culpable for the lack of information available on these associations-their printed materials are usually lackluster, their website is more colorful than useful, and when I dropped in at the local Girl Scout office to see if I could get more information, I was treated as though I had ebola. We're asking the right questions, but we should not blame ourselves for any cultural or gender bias, we're trying to do the best we can with the materials available out there. Chris 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent points Chris. Rlevse 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
The analogy of "White American" and "Black American" does not, unfortunately, hold outside of countries where the division is into "Boy Scouts" and "Girl Scouts". To a British Girl Guide, using "Scouting" is more akin to trying to use "White American" as an inclusive term to cover Black Americans! Guiding is not Scouting simply because that is the meaning of the word in most english-speaking countries. There may not be a logical explanation for it, any more than there is a logical explanation for an awful lot of differences between British and American english, but it is a fact of how the language is used that Scouting simply does not work as an inclusive term to encompass Guiding.
I also think the Guides would be most distressed to be told that BP founded only one organisation when it is quite clear that they were founded as a closely linked, but most definitely separate, organisation.
--Robminchin 13:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sumoeagle179 said one movement with one method, not one organization. There's a distinct difference.Rlevse 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I apologise to Chris (and anyone else) if it was my previous post that gave the impression that the shared history and many commonalities of Guiding and Scouting organisations were being ignored. I was trying to restrain myself from starting a pointless exchange along the lines of "But B-P wrote...". Kingbird 16:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
One method? Note that BP and his sister Agnes wrote a separate book for Girl Guides though it pulled a lot from his original book for boys. How much? I don't know. It would be a useful non-wikipedia project to get the full text of both books on line (they should both be out of copyright). Historically the orgs for Guides (including Girl Scouts) and the Scouts have been parallel but borrowing from each other. I suspect sometime in the future WAGGGS and WOSM will merge. Note that both already have co-ed organizations (though in the WAGGGS case less than a handful of their organizations are co-ed and belong only to WAGGGS [e.g., Slovenia, Spain, Greece] though others are co-ed but only the female members belong to WAGGGS and the male members to WOSM). --Erp 02:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the Scout method applies to all. Can you show us a Guide method? I have never seen one, but maybe it's out there somewhere. Rlevse 02:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that some Guiders would talk about a Guide method as including "encouraging girls to be self-assertive in a girls-only environment". I also suspect that Guiders do not use the term "Scout method", but perhaps call it "BP's methods" or the "Scout and Guide method". Can any Guiders throw light on this. {{unsigned|Bduke}]
In 1918 in "Girl Guiding", BP wrote: "Our method of training is to educate from within rather than to instruct from without; to offer games and activities which, while being attractive to the girl, will seriously educate her morally, mentally and physically." Sound familiar? A rose by any other name is but a rose. Rlevse 03:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
"The Scout/Guide Method" Bharat Scouts and Guides, "The Scout and Guide Method" Partnerships, "Using the Girl Guide method " Refugee Reproductive Health, "The Guide/Scout Method" Welcome to Europe --Erp 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
3 of those 4 also have Scout in the title and none of them teach anything about the method significantly different from the Scout method. Rlevse 03:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I deliberately chose exemplars of different ways of referring to things; it was not meant to reflect how common any one usage was. I think we have two things to consider (a) whether there is a distinction between Guide method and Scout method and (b)what terminology to use: "Scout method" "Scout and Guide method" "Scout/Guide method".... If they are not separate and we are talking about a generic method then I think we should be using Scout/Guide method or something similar (note that two of my examples are in WAGGGS/WOSM sponsored events). --Erp 22:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions

I have thought of two possibilities that the GG/GS folks may want to consider. I've seen both used in other WikiProjects in similar instances. Both would keep the GG/GS group as a sub part of the larger WP:Scouting and yet give them their own name and own "wiki entity". These ideas are 1) a WP:Guiding as a subproject of WP:Scouting and 2) WP:Scouting taskforce named Guiding. If you are not familiar with project taskforces, see WP:MILHIST as they have dozens of them. Rlevse 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing about that is that I don't think we have enough female editors/GS/GG specific editors to keep such a thing moving. Also, I would like to throw it out there that when the British Boy Scouts came to the US and went camping with my brother's troop, they always bring Girls with them. I am not sure if they are Guides or they are simply female Boy Scouts, but nonetheless they come. I am/was/always will be at heart a Girl SCOUT. That's right, a scout. Guiding is scouting. I'm sure that my sisters in scouting/guiding around the world with agree with me when I say that indeed we are all sisters in well, scouting. Whether it is under the name Guiding or Scouting no matter if our founder was Anges or Julliet, we are all sister scouts. Another comment, if women/guides are so distraught over such issues, why won't they speak them out here? I have yet to here of any Guiding disent. If I am wrong then I'm sorry, but I would like to hear first hand their side of the story rather than what we would assume they would say. Darthgriz98 15:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
They were Scouts, the British (WOSM) scout organisation is co-ed. There is also a British (WAGGGS) Guide organisation.
But from a Girl Scout perspective is there a HUGE difference in the BSA and GSUSA programs? That is, what lots of BSA-members think. --Egel Reaction? 15:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
But, the point is we are still a scouting program. Darthgriz98 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have started something, have I not, but it was a debate we have to have. I appreciate Chris' comments above, but the real issue is the absence of women editors and that not all of those are in WAGGGS organisations. For example, there is at least one women editor on Australian Scouting articles but she is a Rover Scout not a member of Australian Guides. I really appreciate Randy's attempt to take the problem seriously, even though the basic US response is to think it is not important. It is important and we may well be putting off women Guide editors in countries that think the term "Girl Scout" is a rather odd term. The point that two of us have made about working in Student Scout and Guide Clubs is that this, along with the related SAGGA, is to my knowledge the only umbrella organisation for Scouts and Guides and thus the only place that one is really forced to address the issue. The Guides there very clearly do not let you use "Scouting" as a collective noun. To Griz, maybe you are not seeing this because you are not a Guide. "Scouting" is a collective noun in the US, but not in most other countries. I presume Kingbird is a Guide in UK, so we do have some Guide input. I wish we had more. --Bduke 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh no, I think it's very important, some of us are just on the opposite side of the fence. We've had things like this before, significant disagreements where there may be no way to reach a significant consensus. Why did this not get mentioned when we first named the project? Making redirects due to a rename is not as simple as some think. The portal alone has 150 pages associated with it...then there are a multitude of articles, templates, categories, etc to deal. I simply honestly feel if we use more than one group in the project name, it's magnifying the problem and differences rather than bringing us together and then you have no solid marker to stop adding organizations to the project name, a la Royal Rangers, Boys Brigades, etc. We've always been very clear and careful from the beginning to include ALL groups that use the SCOUT METHOD. To that point, I've never heard of a GUIDE METHOD. If the Guides see themselves as non-Scouts, I can't help that.Rlevse 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I mean no offense to girls who call themselves Guides, but the thing is that no matter what they call themselves, may it be Guides, Scouts, 2Bers, Rovers, Campfire Girls, or American Heritage Girls, they are all in scouting organizations and therefore scouts of one type or another. Darthgriz98 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
For me (I'm male) mentioning Guiding and Scouting depends of the context - but I'm in a unique situation since my association is the only one worldwide with all members named to both WOSM and WAGGGS. So I'm a (male) Girl Guide as well as a Boy Scout...
But we should take this seriously: Scouting and Guiding have the same sources but are - actually and unfortunately - not the same movement. Both world organizations rival on many grounds. One eyample: WOSM celebrates the century of Scouting in 2007 - and WAGGGS will celebrate its jubilee in 2010. --jergen 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The diff in the anniversary dates are two organizations, it is still one movement. Following that reasoning, a "The National XYZ Boy Scouts" who were founded in 1925, let's say, shouldn't celebrate their anniversary until 2025. Boy Scouts and GG/GS were all started by BP, et al.Rlevse 12:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the best solution is a GG/GS taskforce within the Scouting project. The reasons have already been stated. The suggestions made by Bduke in the other subthread have much merit too and could easily be done within a taskforce framework. Rlevse 11:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A modest suggestion re articles on Guiding

When I started this thread I had not thought about the Project name, but I now think it is important. However, let me go back to what I first noticed. I'll restrict examples to my own region:-

  • Australia - Scouts Australia is about the WOSM coed organisation but it mentions Guides Australia, the WAGGGS organisation, as a redlink.
  • PNG - The Scout Association of Papua New Guinea is the WOSM organisation and it has a paragraph on Girl Guides Association of Papua New Guinea, the WAGGGS organisation.
  • New Zealand - Scouting New Zealand is the WOSM organisation and it has a paragraph on Guides New Zealand, the WAGGGS organisation, as a redlink.
  • Solomon Islands - Solomon Islands branch of The Scout Association exists, yet is not affiliated to WOSM, and it includes a paragraph on The Girl Guides Association of the Solomon Islands, which is affiliated to WAGGGS.

Now it is great that material is there about Guides in these countries, but the pattern is clear. The Scout article is important and the Guide material is less important. This is not intended but it is the impression. The last example is particularly offensive in that the Guides are further developed in terms of international affiliation than the Scouts (I do not intend to say that any person who contributed to this article has been offensive, but it is offensive to the Guides). I propose that the Guide material in each case be removed from those articles and put into a new article stub for the Guide Association in each country. This puts them on an equal basis and may encourage the Guide stubs to grow. Maybe there are many other places where this can also be done.

I have now created these four new stubs for the Guide organisations in these countries by moving the material from the four Scout articles. I would like to propose that this be a standard for the Project. The wording might be something like "In articles about the WOSM affiliated Scout organisation in a particular country, there should be no mention, other than a "See also" link, to the equivalent WAGGGS organisation. Material about the WAGGGS organisation should be put into a new article, even if only a stub". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs)
That's fine with me, except it should cut in both directions, not only WOSM-WAGGGS. Rlevse 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Reword and put in the standards page. However, I very much doubt that we have a WAGGGS article for a country and do not have a WOSM article for that country. That is why the debate has started. Female organisations do not have the status of male organisation and the web is male dominated as well. --Bduke 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My second suggestion is that the category "Scouting in Australia" be changed to "Scouting and Guiding in Australia". Maybe this could also apply to countries that have Guides as well as Scouts and such a category. What do people think? I might add that every article in that category at present is a Scouts Australia article except for Baden-Powell Scouts which is in several Scouting in XXX categories, perhaps wrongly. I think it is down at this level where we can be more carefully inclusive. The UK of course is another place where something similar perhaps can be done. --Bduke 07:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up redlinks as you suggest is excellent. They may well send an UNINTENDED message that Guiding is not important. I'm sure no one did that on purpose as the problem is few editors knowledgeble on the GG/GS issues. The "Scouting and Guiding in XYZ" idea is certainly less of a problem than a project rename, but I think a better one is to make a SEPARATE "Guiding in XYZ" category and put whatever appropriate there. Rlevse 11:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
On my first point, it is not a question of cleaning up redlinks but giving equal treatment to Scout and Guide organisations in a country. I'll do what I suggest for the 4 countries above tomorrow and people can see whether they want to do it in other cases. On my second point, does Rlevse's view have other support? If so I will do that for Australia when there are more articles. It is more of an issue for UK. However, where do articles on UK Girls Brigade go (if any)? --Bduke 11:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse's suggested subproject or taskforce with a Guiding label is interesting development. I'm daunted by the extra work that either of these suggestions would require of someone though. Perhaps if the point is to make women and women's information better represented in the project, then a WAGGGS taskforce would better fit the bill. By using the WAGGGS label, we are not excluding Girl Scouting, or discourgaing people of any sex who want to contribute. Could a taskforce be disbanded in the future if it had addressed the problem, or is that not how they work? Kingbird 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A taskforce is nothing more than a group of people interested in a particular part of a project. It can be as simple as adding a subpage to the project page and they using that as their meeting and info place. The MILHIST project also adds a tag to the talk page banner of taskforce related pages that says "this article is supported by the XYZ taskforce of the MILHIST project". I'd do the tag additions if you want to pursue this part and set up the subpage for you if you like. So, the backend work would be minimal to the taskforce members. Rlevse 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)