Talk:Brownies (Scouting)

Scouting Top‑importance

	Scouting portal Brownies (Scouting) is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

US

Is it possible that the main article title should be edited as well? Brownies in the US are not Girl Guides in any way, shape or form. Brownies are a level in the Girl Scouts of USA. I agree with the other posters, this article is sort of a mess.

Why is each country's variant listed (so clumsily)? If this is deemed necessary, why is the US ommitted? --Belg4mit 05:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the US Girl Scouts seem to be largely omitted from wikipedia's coverage, is this related to some copyright issue (a la Boy Scouts (whom are covered) or Scientology? --Belg4mit 05:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the international article on the Brownie section, with information on the variation... see Cub Scout or Beavers (Scouting) for the Scouting analogue.

With regards to the GSUSA - they are not ignored as such, but the Scouting WikiProject is driven by editors mainly from the BSA, with a smaller number from UK, Australia, and other countries with Scouting and Guiding. I don't know if we yet have anyone who is specifically interested in GSUSA. Horus Kol Talk 18:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

There is conflicting contributions in this article with regards to the Brownie Guide motto - and without any references to back up the contributions, it is going to be difficult to resolve. Does anyone know where we can find sources for this information? Horus Kol Talk 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Male "Guides"

Male members of Guiding organizations are normally called Guides or (in some rare cases Scouts. --jergen 17:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brownies open to girls and boys

Since about 1990 Brownies has been open to both girls and boys in most countries. Could someone verify/explain this statement? I know that some Brownies take both boys and girls, but do most? I was under the impression that most WAGGGS members have kept their girl-only status. And why 1990? Kingbird 20:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 1990 for the date when opening Guides to boys seems to be correct--as long as there is no source for a special date. Could also be Beginning in the 1990s some organizations opend Brownies to both ....

Most countries is not correct. There are several coeducational organizations but large parts of Guiding remain girls-only. If I remember correctly, WAGGGS estimated in 2000 that about 0.1 % of its members were male (about 10,000 of 10 million). Numbers must have gone up: My association named about 20,000 males for WAGGGS-membeship in 2002 (?).

A problem with this is the fact, that WAGGGS sees also the Cub Scout sections in SAGNOs (Scouting And Guiding National Organizations" with membership in WAGGGS and WOSM) as part of the Brownie program. And there are far more SAGNOS with a coeducational Cub Scout section than with a coeducational Brownie Guide section. --jergen 06:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a FACT that they are open for Girls and Boys. When the Scouts allowed some girls to join, there was a stipulation that boys would be allowed to join the Brownies or Guides. Also, on the Cub Scouts page that is incorrect, because in some countries girls are not allowed to join and it's boys only. How do I know this? My neighbour is a Cub Scout leader --88.111.189.181 15:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Guiding UK (including Brownies) is Girls-only check their website http://www.girlguiding.org.uk/ . Sorry you need a better source than your neighbour. --Egel _Reaction? 16:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - I am talking about the Brownies - as is so to speak - they are open to both boys and girls. --88.111.189.181 16:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In which country? Not in the UK, and looking at your ip you are from the UK. Cubs are open to both boys and girls in the UK but not the Brownies, Brownies is girls only. But it is different in other countries. In some countries Brownies and Cubs are single sex, other counties is one or both open to both boys and girls. And there are countries without Brownies, only Cubs --Egel _Reaction? 18:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this also apply to things like the Trefoil Guild? 86.147.154.138 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK promise

There appears to be a contradiction in the wording - although it may just be a case of phraseology. The text reads "The promise was changed from 'To love God' to 'To love my God' ", but then goes on ........ "The earlier version (extant 1980) was: I promise that I will do my best, To do my duty to God............"

Shouldn't the first part read "The promise was changed from 'To do my duty to God' to 'To love my God' "?
Obscurasky (talk) 10:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another problem with these universal articles that aren't so universal. This type of detail belongs in the Girlguiding UK article, especially since it applies to all of the age sections as they have similar wording in each promise. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a slight error in the wording of my earlier post, which I've now corrected. I do understand your point about universal articles, but what's your opinion, specifically, on wording in this article? Should the text be changed to read "The promise was changed from 'To do my duty to God' to 'To love my God' "?Obscurasky (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made this change, as part of a wider clean up. It seems pretty clear that the wording should read "The promise was changed from 'To do my duty to God' to 'To love my God' ", but if I'm wrong someone can correct it. Obscurasky (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly wasn't 1980 that the promise was changed. I was a Brownie from about 1984 to 1987, and the promise was the one given here as the 'pre 1980' one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.254.177 (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canada name change

Shouldn’t the article mention the decision by the Canadian branch to change the name of the division?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brownie (Girl Guides). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923205059/https://girlguiding.org.uk/Files/historyflash.swf to https://www.girlguiding.org.uk/Files/historyflash.swf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 October 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There's consensus for move to Brownies (Scouting) with capital S. There's no clear consensus on where to redirect the former title. So in the meantime I will leave it in default redirect mode to Brownies (Scouting) until a new discussion found consensus on where it fits between Brownie or Chocolate brownie. Now editors can join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_November_6#Brownies. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brownies → Brownies (Scouting) – I highly doubt this is the WP:PTOPIC for "Brownies". Redirect the current title to Brownie (disambiguation page) after this move. feminist (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support and raise PROPOSAL: After the move, redirect the current title to Chocolate brownies, not to the Brownie disambiguation page. While "I highly doubt" is not evidence for or against a given topic being a primary topic for a given term, searching at GOOGLE is, and what I see there when I search for "brownies" is a boat load of Chocolate brownie recipes, not the girls.Brownies should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Chocolate brownie.--В²C ☎ 20:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, S in Scouting should be lowercase s, per Gonnym. --В²C ☎ 00:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting is capitalized in this sense in English, per Scouting WikiProject MOS-elks and lions are wild creatures, while Elks and Lions run charities; masons build structures, while Masons have secret handshakes, and so on...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:59, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: probably should be (scouting) with a lower-case "s". --Gonnym (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lower case "s", I'd agree that the scouting isn't primary, but not sure if the chocolate is, even though Google shows it to be, I'd expect more people would use the full term when searching WP than Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If we start playing the game of guessing how user search behavior is likely to be different on WP than on Google and adjusting our likelihood-to-be-sought estimates accordingly, we're farting all over WP:NOR, not to mention that we have no way of knowing what that answer is really, and are probably just as likely to be wrong in one direction as another. Makes more sense to use Google as an objective measure and assume WP is close enough... --В²C ☎ 00:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think swapping a PT for a topic of this size is a good idea, as this has been as the base name for quite a while, once this has been moved and been stabel for a while, then we could see if the chocolate is primary. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given that external links to the page will also end up on the wrong page. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Brownies (scouting) and support moving Chocolate brownie to Brownie Rreagan007 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed as Beavers (Scouting), since Scouting when part of the organization is capitalized, but Strongly oppose the suggestion to make Chocolate brownies the primary redirect. The loss of "chocolate" is a North Americanism, it isn't a global Primary Topic In ictu oculi (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support, capitalized as proposed as Beavers (Scouting), thanks In ictu oculi for recognizing the capitalization usage; but also Strongly oppose the suggestion to make Chocolate brownies the primary redirect, also per In ictu oculi--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:13, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to Brownies (Scouting). There is no primary topic so the dab page should remain untampered with at Brownie. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The chocolate brownies are more known than the scouting thing, I also agree once moved the current title should redirect to Chocolate brownies. –Davey2010^Talk 23:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support (no primary topic), and I'm not sure about the capitalization of "Scouting" (neutral on that). Redirect "Brownies" to the Brownie disambiguation page, since there's no primary topic. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nomination as written. In Britain and other countries, Brownies are part of Guiding, not Scouting. They are different things. Moving it as proposed would introduce an American-centric title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like an argument for a WP:SPLIT. --В²C ☎ 22:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving Brownies to Brownies (Scouting) (capitalised since it's in reference to the organization), creating a redirect from Brownies (Guiding) to Brownies (Scouting), and then redirecting Brownies to either Chocolate brownie or Brownie (whichever the rest of the discussion decides should be the name of the article; I am neutral there), since the dessert is the ubiquitous primary topic in both the plural and the singular. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:08, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.