Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2009: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:57, 28 February 2009

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting. 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.

←

→

Henry Allingham

Shouldn't he have a Project tag, since he is prominently mentioned in the Portal? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Scout userbox

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes/Scout}} has been updated. The "member of" section is now a variable, allowing custom use. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes/Scout-former}} to exactly the same, including creating a documentation page, although I left the hat image rather than the badge. However perhaps the two can be merged together with an extra parameter for the Scout-former box.

Good- now we don't need special templates where we have one or two members of an NSO. It should be possible to merge a number of these templates and use parameters— I will take a look at this when I finish playing with the sidebar. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a bit easier than what I anticipated. I wrote the template code so it is fairly obvious how to expand it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes/Scout/testcases is done using the single template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Userboxes/Scout/sandbox. I have not done anything on the box colors: discuss it on the template talk. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 03:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. You are a genius. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Now with the ability to set a custom NSO name or to customize the entire message, now with free documentation! --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 15:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any discussion elsewhere. I think this should be put in place now. It is excellent. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we then consider merging other userboxes into this one? It can replace at least twelve of them. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I just simplified some code, which involved renaming a parameter. Let me double check this before going live. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WPScouting Navigation

Template:WPScouting Navigation/sandbox I am updating {{WPScouting Navigation}} in the {{WPScouting Navigation/sandbox}}. The sandbox version has both the old and new style as I cut and paste. Please comment on the talk page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the new one, but can live with the old one if the new one doesn't have support. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

There was discussion about updating to {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}} a month or so ago and I committed to refreshing it. The new one will be smaller if it is not expanded (I will document that) and can be placed on user pages more readily. It can also be edited more easily by tenderfoot editors. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. please comment or edit as desired. Setting |expanded= to all will expand all of the groups, setting it to a groupname such as general will expand only that group. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

02 Raffles Scout Group

This article was merged to The Singapore Scout Association and redirected there in July 2006. It has now been recreated, although it is different from the original. I am not sure what to do about it, but I am concerned that it will be precedent for a whole rash of other troop articles in Singapore. The Singapore Scout Association was last year a directory of troops, but they were removed (not by me but I wondering whether to). Since I was the person who did the redirect in 2006, could others look at this. I do not want to give the impression I "own it". --Bduke (Discussion) 22:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only claim to fame is the oldest one. It's also a brag article ("Prominent", "dominated competitions" etc). I doubt it'd survived an afd. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I put it up for one. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If one Group gets it's own article, they soon all will as many groups have some "claim to fame". As this is against established procs, I'd agree with AfD - with content being dumped to ScoutWiki if deletion agreed. DiverScout (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it can be merged and redirected to Raffles Institution (Secondary), it probably more notable in the Raffles Institution than in the Singapore Scout Association. --Egel _Reaction? 13:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good idea. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of Boy Scout Troop Management Software

Useful as this may be, Wikipedia is not a how-to. Can we Scoutwiki this somehow instead? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

See discussion on the article talk page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Scouting for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Eustress (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Will check it out. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

GirlGuiding New Zealand

This article is huge and cumbersome, should it be split? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Better to reduce it to the essentials... --jergen (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jergen. Are the songs copyrighted in a way that we should remove them? That would cut the size down for a start. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Are the songs essential or notable? The article is long, but not dense; much of it is in list format. The TOC is so long because almost every paragraph is a separate section. Before we cosider a split, it needs a major copyedit. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Did a major cleanup, shortened the TOC, removed badges and songs. Still needs some copyediting. --Egel _Reaction? 11:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Homenetmen

Jergen has just copyvio-blanked Homenetmen, in order to bolster his argument for removal of Scouting in Syria. The Homenetmen article has been edited by dozens of users, there is no way the whole article is a copyviolation. Please review. If it was a new article by a single user, then it would be copyvio, this borders on POV. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not attacking Jergen, he's a great editor and usually easy to work with. But twice reverting a new article to redirect without discussion, and then copyvio blanking another article used to bolster the discussion appear to violate WP:POINT. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the page from the history tag here. The whole lot has been copied into the article. It is a total copyvio. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Then it calls for a rewrite, not blanking and possible deletion as an article. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Chris, the copy-vio tag is appropriate as the whole article or very close to it is involved. It allows someone to rewrite it in a sandbox and then ask an admin to put it in place. We are not talking about one paragraph here, where that can just be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can't revert the article to a point before the copyvio, then the tag gets applied. We then have to work through the process to reboot the article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Images from the German federal archive

As most of you may know, the German federal archive did upload part of its images to commons. Among the lot are some Scouting images, most from germany, but also from other countries. There is a nice one of Edward VIII (then Prince of Wales), but I did not find a place for it yet: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-07754, Prinz of Wales verleiht Preise an Pfadfinder.jpg

Other images include:

Perhaps some of these images can be of use. --jergen (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

National Organization of Russian Scouts (Scouts-in-Exile)

Can admins and others please take a look at this? New users are edit-warring, saying we should be hands-off when they make unWiki-like edits. Please see the talk page. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

SPA sockpuppets are also vandalizing my userpage, not a coincidence, their only edits are those two. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have started a dialog at User talk:Beetlejuice 87. This appears to be a new editor who needs guidance and a bit of handholding. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I Semi-prot'd the page. If it is socking, see WP:SPI (the new SSP/RFCU) — Rlevse • Talk • 21:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Scouting WP invite

{{Scouting WP invite}} has been updated:

You are invited to participate in WikiProject Scouting, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about Scouting and Guiding. You may sign up at the project members page, or sign up for our newsletter.

More information

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Scouting Ireland

There is an edit war going on about whether WOSM affiliation of this association covers the whole of Ireland or the republic only. This is unscout-like. I have removed all reference to WOSM until such time as a decent reference is given and I have fully protected the article for now. See Talk:Scouting Ireland and the talk pages of the two editors involved. Please keep an eye on it as I will be off wiki for a while. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Joy, THE TROUBLES come to Scouting. Good call Bduke. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It may be spreading to Scouting in Northern Ireland. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You have my full support Bduke. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this matter is resolved now and I have unprotected the article. Any further intrusion of "THE TROUBLES" will of course lead me to come down like a ton of bricks on the unfortunate editor who tries it on -:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs)

Change from "Scouting in ..." to "Scouting and Guiding in ..."

Last autumn, we started a discussion on the possible renaming of all articles titled "Scouting in ..." to "Scouting and Guiding in ...": Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 5#"Scouting and Guiding in ..." instead of "Scouting in ...". We never came to a conclusion, so nothing was changed.

Today, Chris put the page User:Jergen/Scouting in X to Scouting and Guiding in X in my userspace, as a framework for possible changes. Before doing anything, I'd like to have more input on this.

One thing needing further discussion are those countries using solely "Scouting" (eg US, Japan, Taiwan). I'd leave these alone, but that would break the systematic approach. --jergen (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The last point you make is the crux of this issue. US, Japan, Taiwan aren't the only ones this affects. Other Asian and some South American countries don't call girl units guides. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

These can go either way, there doesn't have to be a one-size-fits all approach. In fact, for those countries, the S/G can be made a redirect back to S. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 10:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree: The article title should reflect the situational reality— if the county has Scouting and Guiding, then title it so. If only Scouting or Guiding, then make it so.

I just made a note on your page about the U.S. Virgin Islands, as they are served by the BSA and GSUSA. Let's ensure we get these right. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 11:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the Scouting in links redirect to the sole NSO in the country. For example, Scouting in Afghanistan redirects to Afghanistan Scout Association. If you want to see redirects, it is possible to change the link color— I use green; see Wikipedia:Link color. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand, but please, run with it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There are more countries using solely "Scouting" like the Netherlands or only use male and female forms of Scout/Pathfinder like Germany. I think we shouldn't treat "Girl Scout" different from "Pfadfinderin". Best is to do all countries, even when there is no organisation with Guide in the name or no girls-only organisation. The article can, when needed, always also cover the non-existence of Guiding in a country. --Egel _Reaction? 11:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that the title should reflect the reality of the country in question. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I just sorted the list on my subpage, but it may still contain some errors. It is quite clear for most countries/territories, but there are a dozen entries needing further research or discussion: They state the existence of Guiding without any more informations or are very speculative.

I'd propose to change all entries in section 1 to "Scouting and Guiding" and to leave those in sections 2 and 3 at "Scouting". --jergen (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not yet mark all the redirects. I just noticed that the left toolbox now has a "find redirects" that highlights all redirected links. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this move, with the rider added by several that it reflects the situation in the country - "Scouting and Guiding" if both terms are used; "Scouting" only if only that term is used; "Guiding" only if only that term is used. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a country that has Guiding but not Scouting. Peripheral to the topic, did we ever decide whether to count the PR China as having Scouts, as that is the situation on the ground, though WOSM counts them on their list of 6 that don't? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

There is actually one: Scouting in Samoa. But Scouting did exist in the past, so we should move it to Scouting and Guiding in Samoa. --jergen (talk)

How are we going to find a NPOV-way to decide that only "Scouting" or "Guiding and Scouting" is used in a country?

Are we going to find a NPOV-way to decide that the local word for a girl in a organisation that follows the works of B-P should be translated as (Girl) Guide or (Girl) Scout? For example is a "Padvindster", "Pfadfinderin" or "Cserkészlány" a Girl Scout or a Girl Guide? In the Hungarian Cserkészlány is "Cserkész", Scout and "lány", girl. Guide would be something like kalauz, útmutató, példamutatás or kalauzol.
Or when a country uses a different term for a girl, that country has guiding? That should be a more NPOV, but all counties using the term "Girl Scout" should fall in the category "Guiding and Scouting".

--Egel _Reaction? 11:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, one has to check all sources... "Girl Guide" is the correct anwer to your three questions: Netherlands, Germany, Hungary.

Can't understand your comment on countries using "Girl Scout".

The only major problem is the translation of guía scout used in some South American countries: Its literal translation is "Guide Scout". Since it contains the term Guide, I decided to choose "Scouting and Guiding". If you have doubts on some entries pls comment on User talk:Jergen/Scouting in X to Scouting and Guiding in X. We should only discuss the overall renaming on this page. --jergen (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I only want to make the rules clear. Is the rule "if we can find a reliable source that says that the girls in Scouting can be called guides than that country has Guiding" ? For example: United States. <quote>"Number of guides: 3578760 (01/01/2006)" </quote>Or "if we can find a reliable source that all members are called scouts than that country has only Scouting"? For example: Netherlands <quote> "All members of Scouting Nederland are called scouts." </quote> --Egel _Reaction? 15:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC) quotes--Egel _Reaction? 17:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Rule #1 should apply. Reliable sources are the organization itself, the governing international organizations, and reliable external sources.

Your examples are not helpful. What do you want to prove with the link to WAGGGS re GSUSA? It does not mention explicitely Guiding within the GSUSA; the formula "Guiding introduced in" is used on all subpages without reference to the organization's usage. Concerning the Netherlands, I linked another page of SN's website with a stringent usage of "Guide"; if you want us to believe that SN only uses Scout you should start with the organization's officials. - I may misinterpret your intentions bringing up these examples since you gave very little explanation what they are showing. Could please make clearer statements?

One more example for my position: If Country C has five organizations for girls and only one of them uses "Guiding" (or its equivalent), the article should be named "Scouting and Guiding in Country C". --jergen (talk)

I think all countries with Scouting/Guiding for girls should have "Scouting and Guiding in Country C" independent from the usage of term Guide/Guiding in that country. --Egel _Reaction? 17:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is the slightest doubt, we use both Scouting and Guiding. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So say it simple, I have doubt with all most all countries. --Egel _Reaction? 15:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What kind of doubt? Do you doubt that the countries listed in User:Jergen/Scouting in X to Scouting and Guiding in X#Countries using both terms are using the term "Guiding" for Girls in Scouting or do you doubt that the remainder does not use it? Your comment is not vey helpful. --jergen (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: Perhaps you might feel that this whole renaming issue is original research or unappropriate. If so, please state this clearly. --jergen (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel that this whole renaming issue is based on original research except for countries without Scouting/Guiding for girls. --Egel _Reaction? 17:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

~~:::::Girls who are Scouts are Scouts, not Guides. DuncanHill (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)~~

And this glib comment brings what to the discussion? Of course, girls who are called Scouts are Scouts, those called Guides are Guides. This has been covered ad infinitum. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to chase you off, we've been over the naming issue for months, and the blanket comment simply added nothing. If you meant something else, please expand it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

While it would be nice if we had agreement about a process for all countries, I would hope that lack of such agreement would not stop some articles being renamed to "Scouting and Guiding ..". I made this point long ago, but I will repeat it. In some countries, generally those with one dominant organisation affiliated to WOSM and one dominant organisation affilated to WAGGGS, the two arganisations are called "Scouts" and "Guides" respectively. Nobody understands that the term "Scouts" or "Scouting" includes Guides, just nobody. This is the situation in the UK, Australia and New Zealand for example. Not changing the title is just stopping those in Guiding from even looking at the article unless we add lots of redirects. But the redirect solution means they still see links to "Scouting in X" which they will ignore because they think it refers to "Scouting", not "Guiding". I do not see how this involves original research in any way. Indeed I do not understand Egel's point. Could you give an example of a country where it might be OR. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Solve this by discussion or by poll?

After having resorted part of the list again I think that we should come closer to a solution of this naming problem; researches and discussions on thefew open or missing entries would take lots of time, and before investing it I'd like to have put a direction on this matter.

We could

a) discuss it for a defined period (or until we reach consensus); I'd prefer a defined period over an open-end discussion

b) start a poll on it (3 options: General "Scouting in ..."-approach, general "Scouting and Guiding in ..."-approach, differentiated approach).

If we decide for the "differentiated approach" either by discussion or by poll, we need rules. If you prefer a poll for solving this, I'll prepare it including a proposal for the "differentiated approach". --jergen (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

support poll, also with a defined period. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Preliminary support for a poll, but I would like to see details of exactly what we are voting on. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'm confused: are we polling on what we will poll about? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 00:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it (and Jergen correct me if I am wrong), Jergen proposes a poll with three options:

leave present naming as it is, Scouting in X
rename all disambigs to Scouting and Guiding in X
name each on a case-by-case basis, sometimes redirecting Scouting and Guiding in X back to Scouting in X for international readers

Then after a reasonable amount of time, a week (not months again), we close the poll and implement the closest to consensus. If we leave it open to discussion without a defined period, we tend to talk things to death and then change nothing. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris is right on the options. A poll would go on a subpage (*), mention the preliminary discussions and explain pros and cons for the options.

(*) I prefer a subpage, since this allows to put the decision outside of the day-to-day discussions. I'll prepare a proposal. --jergen (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See my proposal for a poll at User:Jergen/workshop/Poll. Please feel free to add pros and cons or to comment on the proposal. --jergen (talk) 09:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You have clearly and concisely stated the proposals. This needs to move to a subpage of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting and begin the poll. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 18:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Most definitely NOT. The wording is not yet agreed. Discussion is still continuing on the talk page. I am also not convinced that the wording of all three options is quite as neutral as it could be. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll work on the wording later today. If you feel something is not as neutral as it could be, please change the wording or comment on the talk page; I'm no native speaker of English, so I don't get all subtleties. --jergen (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

added to the proposal

Chris and I are disagreeing on the poll page about whether the categories by country should be renamed also. If say Scouting in Australia is renamed to Scouting and Guiding in Australia, as it should, then it makes sense for Category:Scouting in Australia to be moved to Category:Scouting and Guiding in Australia. In fact it makes no sense if this is not done. On the other hand, Scouting in the United States should not be renamed and therefore Category:Scouting in the United States should not be renamed. The category name should follow the name of the article which is the main page in the country category. I propose that this be added to the proposal. If it is not discussed and determined now, a discussion is bound to start on this as soon as the discussion on the article name is determined. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I propose that this be held off until the present poll is complete, it unnecessarily complicates a long-standing issue that needs to be settled of its own merits. At this time the only category that would warrant a name-change, based on the results of the present poll, is the parent category in which the national disambigs are nested. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should include it in the poll. Different naming systems for categories and articles don't feel go. When first preparing the poll, I did not see the full scope of possible changes. --jergen (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian and I seem to be talking about two different things. I am only talking about the broad category all such articles go into. He seems to be talking about national categories. Somewhere there is a disconnect. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right about what I am saying. It is normal for the name of the category to mirror the name of the main article, so if the article in "Scouting and Guiding in XXX" the category should be "Category: Scouting and Guiding in XXX". If the article in "Scouting in XXX" the category should be "Category: Scouting in XXX".I want us to vote on the two together because they are linked. This is not adding confusion. It is simplifying matters. I think Jergen is agreeing with me. I suggest we let this discussion run for a few days to let others comment. I am going to shut up on this topic for a while. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now I get it. You weren't talking about creating new parent categories based on usage of naming conventions, just naming each as case-by-case. We're on the same page, that is reasonable. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes- the category and the country article should match. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Good, so are we ready for the poll? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I just made some minor changes that should cover the comments of Bduke. But we should give him some time for commenting again. --jergen (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is time we had the poll on this. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Could somebody, who is more familiar with the relevant procedures and necessary announcements, please move the page into the project space and open the polling? --jergen (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have indicated on the poll page and above that this is now closed. Can we get a bot to do some of the work, based on the list of those to change? --Bduke (Discussion) 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tim Jeal

The article on B-P's biographer was removed from the province of the Project, but I added the Project tag back. However I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the article is almost all about his book on Stanley with very little about his book on B-P. That needs to be rectified. We need to get a broad range of reviews of the book. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I commented there. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The book is covered in Baden-Powell (book). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I was suppose to discuss it here first. Sorry about that. As I explained in the talk page, you can't consider it a good source of history on scouting, when it contains such idiotic claims about why Baden Powell was a homosexual. The New York Times article I linked to, shows several examples, and this has been discussed in the Baden Powell sexual orientation article. The number of idiotic claims the book makes, to convince people the guy is homosexual, is absolutely ridiculous. I would like to nominate it for deletion from this list. The book claims that he was sexually attracted to young boys. Dream Focus (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not think your continued use of terms like "idiotic claims" is helping your argument when you do not appear to have read the book and are basing your opinion on a review in a newspaper. As User:Gadget850 says on Talk:Tim Jeal this book is one of the most important and scholarly biographers of Baden-Powell. Anybody who wants to understand the man must read it. Now what is Jeal saying? Well it is complex so not easy to summarise, but he is not saying that he was homosexual or that he behaved in any unacceptable manner with children or indeed adults. He is saying that his personality contained features of suppressed homosexuality of which he was undoubtedly not aware. I think that explains quite a lot about B-P that previously was not clear. It is also of course a very small part of the whole book, but is the part many journalists concentrated on. Of course, Tim Jeal and Baden-Powell (book) should be included in the articles of interest to this Project. What do you mean by "I would like to nominate it for deletion from this list"? What list? What are you trying to delete? --Bduke (Discussion) 04:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The passage DreamFocus is concerned about is IIRC less than %5 of the book. DreamFocus seems to want to remove the project tag from the article talk page. I can not support that. The tag should stay in place. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

3.7% to be a bit more precise. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The article should be tagged as low on the Importance scale because the article explains every little about B-P that has any relevance to Scouting. --Egel _Reaction? 12:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. That part I agree with. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk#Slanderous attacks on Boy Scout founder, based entirely on one writer's imagination. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting#Tim Jeal
→ Talk:Tim Jeal#I erased the scouting project tag
→ Talk:Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation#valid references? How are those references valid?
→ Wikipedia:Help desk#Slanderous attacks on Boy Scout founder, based entirely on one writer's imagination

National Organization of Scouts of Ukraine

A week ago an editor made an edit to this article, newish but with contact info that was later removed. I used the contact info, and found that he is Andriy Chesnokov, International Commissioner of National Organization of Scouts of Ukraine. At my request, he graciously supplied me with information, translation and two more emblems. The organization is new, still a framework, and does not have a website. Another editor today disputes that Chesnokov is indeed the IntComm, though he consistently identifies himself as such. Your thoughts? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am that "another editor". The thing is that in 2007 scouts-delegates on NOSU Congress has elected National Council with 16 members. Also at congress Chairman (Lev Zakharchyshyn) and Vice-Chairman (Valeriy Tantsiura) were elected. Since that time there were no congresses of delegates and no meetings of National Council to elect somebody else. That's all. --Yarko (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Андрій Чесноков" is mentioned twice on the site of Plast: http://www.plast.org.ua/news?newsid=2472 http://www.plast.org.ua/news?newsid=2461 , the last one says in translation: "Ukrainian delegation consisting of chairman nose Levko Zaharchyshyna, Vice Chairman nose Valeria Tantsyura, international komisara Andrei Chesnokov i member council nose Dmitry Muzala vidbuvaye July 11 to Republic of Korea to participate in vosmiy World Conference skautyzmu." http://www.scout.org/en/content/download/11029/90938/file/C0811Ukraine_e.pdf says the same, so Chesnokov is indeed the IntComm. --Egel _Reaction? 13:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Could it be that Chesnokov was never elected but is acting IC? That would make this whole matter a misunderstanding. --jergen (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear collegues! I just want to point you on that fact that all that story about A. Chesnokov on IC is awfull misunderstanding. Once wrong putted information to mass-media caused this situation that we have now. That's why it's very important to make Wikipedia clear from wromg prejudiced information. I just can't get it - how somebody could be elected on some position without any elections? There were no elections for this point - it's a fact that nobody can refute. --Yarko (talk) 08:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

All content of Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources. Currently, we have the WOSM circular on Ukraine as sole source on the leadership of NOSU; WOSM is IMO reliable on Scouting issues. As long as there are no contradicting sources, we have to believe that A. Chesnokov is the IC of NOSU, following basic Wikipedia principles - even if this information is wrong. --jergen (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing reference systems? - advice wanted

I'd like some practical advice. An article I started a few years ago has recently had a banner added to it acknowledging the references section, but asking for inline citations. I've still got my sources, so I can go back and fulfill this request, but I'm having trouble working out exactly what is good practice in this scenario. Should I just delete sources from the current list once they become inline citations? Do all sources end up in one section at the end (in two formats)? How should I proceed in converting the article? Kingbird (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See WP:S-REF. Once you work your sources to inline, delete then from the list. The reflist will then populate. Don't forget to include page numbers. I suppose I've become an expert on this, so please ask me if you need more help. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 19:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Refs are one of my speciality too, so ask me too if you like. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Scouts' Day

Scouts' Day is coming up in about two weeks, but looking at this article, it would appear only a handful of countries have special Scouts' Days. What about your country? Take a look and add it to the list! Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Scouts' Day isn't coming up (unless that is the name in your particular country); World Thinking Day or Founders' Day on February 22 is coming up. I think the article needs some work. Perhaps a division between National Association special days and WOSM/WAGGGS special days.--Erp (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Never heard about Scout's Day in Germany - all organizations celebrate (World) Thinking Day, even those with WOSM membership only.

For a first step, I added the WTD themes of the last years to the article. Have there been WAGGGS set themes prior to 2005? I could not find anything on 2004 or earlier. The article could use a history section and some more content on activities. --jergen (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Founders' Day! Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy Founders' Day! And many Scout Greetings on World Thinking Day 2009.-YIS Phips (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Witold Pilecki

I have nominated Witold Pilecki for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tom B (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Turnkey template

Would anyone be interested in overhauling this project page with the Turnkey template? It would help make things more readable and organized I think. —Eustress ^talk 00:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Gadget850 just made us a new layout. The turnkey one is gaudy and takes more room. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I like some bits and pieces of it. I will think on this a bit. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Scouting and Guiding national organizations

Would something like this, that lists all regardless of supranational affiliation (or none at all), like http://www.troop97.net/wrldsct1.htm be useful on the 'pedia? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Could be interesting, but would it complement or replace the existing affiliation-based lists? DiverScout (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We have the lists listed at Scout#Youth movement. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Some possible issues:

Compiling such a list could be seen as original research.
There are lots of non-notable Scouting organizations, single troop organizations etc. What are the criteria for inclusion in the list?
A list of this kind is close to an invititon for link-spamming, esp. for the organizations with little or no notability. The list would need regular maintainance.
A complete list cannot replace the existing affiliation-based lists due to its size. http://www.troop97.net/wrldsct1.htm has about 500 entries, but there are certainly more. I'd estimate a total of 1000 possible entries, more, if we'd include historical organizations.

I'm unsure if the benefits of the proposed list overweight the risks and the necessary work. I started a list for Latin America in my userspace (User:Jergen/workshop/South American independent Scouting) which attracts all kinds of advertisment and even edit-wars despite the difficulty to find this page. --jergen (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Lists of organizations and federations belonging to the supranational associations can certainly be referenced, and we already have those. The real issue is with the non-affiliated organizations and their notability.

As to the last issue, try {{userpage|noindex=yes}} to remove your page from external search engines. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

IMO, membership in at least two supranational organizations (WFIS, OWS) is disturbingly unstable. Certainly, we could use the websites as sources, but the respective entries would need constant maintainance. But that's not the main issue. For a (nearly) comprehensive list, we need reliable sources for non-affiliated organizations, understandable notability criteria and lots of still missing informations (mainly on Africa). --jergen (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both Ed and Jergen. I think such a list would have too many problems. The more one looks into some of the small non-aligned organisations, the more one finds that the sources are not reliable. Even as a guide, I would have doubts about using the list Chris mentions at the top of this section. It does not seem to be updated often and we have no idea where the writer of it gets his information. It is not a reliable source. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, just asking. Got it. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Former BSA camps

Does anyone know of any resource discussing former BSA summer camps? I just ran across an article on the Cascade Boy Scout Camp near Durango, Colorado; it has an article because it's listed on the National Register of Historic Places (as the result of being included on the NRHP, such sites have enough published information about them that they are notable, so please don't worry about notability questions), not because it's a camp. Not finding anything on the website of the local Great Southwest Council (or the appropriate Anasazi District page), I emailed the webmaster, who said that he had never heard of the site. Although I know that some councils operate camps in other areas (my home council is the location of a camp operated by the council to the east), I'm assuming that it's not currently in use. Any help? Nyttend (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is/was operated by a non-Scouting organisation? [1] It was originally built through community efforts as a summer camp for boy scouts, church groups, 4-H Club members, and other youth groups from Durango and the San Juan Basin.

Maybe she lived there: [2]

--Egel _Reaction? 18:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I already knew what it wasn't, but I didn't know for sure what it was, until I read that link. Nyttend (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)