Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2021

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 2015←Archive 2019Archive 2020Archive 2021Archive 2022Archive 2023Archive 2024

Deleted Categories

Category:Girl Scouts who have earned the Gold Award

Category:Girl Scouts who have earned the Gold Award is up for deletion. The discussion is underway. It is analogous to Category:Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). Gender equity is important. 71.178.131.19 (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

They already closed it. Also the Eagle category is now up for deletion. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 30 North8000 (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

CFD notice (or more appropriately, lack thereof)

I came to this talk page to see if there was ever any notice given to the recently concluded discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 30#Category:Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). I do not see any. I've noticed a pattern in recent years of XFDs which exclude notice to editors possessing topical expertise in order to game the result. Is this something of concern to any of you? To me, it smacks of WP:OWN on the part of those editors. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:09, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@RadioKAOS: As the editor who nominated those categories for deletion, please allow me to say that it pained me as an Eagle Scout. However, my personal feelings do not trump Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP:OCAWARD states that categories for awards are appropriate only if the award is a defining characteristic of a large majority of recipients. While becoming an Eagle Scout is, in fact, a defining characteristic of the youth who earns it, by the time someone has gained notability sufficient to warrant a Wikipedia article it has become almost a footnote in their personal history. For example, when Gerald Ford, Steven Spielberg, or Neil Armstrong are mentioned, no one first thinks of them as Eagle Scouts but rather as POTUS, movie director, and astronaut, respectively.
Please note that I did notify the editors who created the categories here and here; the talk page of the the editor who created Category:Distinguished Eagle Scouts was courtesy blanked and protected a few years ago, so I was unable to leave notification there. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 07:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
@Jkudlick: I don't care much either way; I've never found categories to be useful. But you are positing / applying a much more stringent interpretation than is the norm. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Evrik: That's not how it works. Policy-based arguments are given much more weight than WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OSE. That's why they are called "!votes," because you aren't voting where the majority wins, you're stating your opinion and giving your reasoning behind it. Without a sound rebuttal to WP:OCAWARD, these categories do not meet the currently accepted criteria for inclusion. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • To answer your original question about notifying the WikiProjects, that now happens automatically on the main WikiProject page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting, so the manual tags on the talk page are no longer needed. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Background The damage that award categories do with hindering navigation cannot be overstated when you look at the train wreck at the bottom of this article, which is far from unique with world leaders. DexDor wrote a Wikipedia essay describing this concern in more detail. There was a broad consensus with many editors to strengthen the wording of WP:OCAWARD which now reads "a category of award recipients should exist only if receiving the award is a defining characteristic for the large majority of its notable recipients." That's a really high threshold.
Even if we disagreed on individual discussions, I hope this background shows a sincere effort to improve Wikipedia on both sides. Thank you both for your contributions to Scouting articles! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I know that many editors disagree with that essay. --evrik (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Then those editors are free to begin discussions to change the current consensus. Until then... — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Sure, the essay is just one person's opinion for background. The new wording of WP:OCAWARD is based on a broad consensus though and is an editing guideline. What do you think of the current categorization of Olav V of Norway? - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Adding to the mix

Any thoughts? --evrik (talk) 23:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't do or use categorization so I don't have expertise there. But one comment......Eagle Scout and Girl Scout Gold "awards" are not awards in the normal sense. They are objectively earned rather than "awarded" and are the highest level of this. Basically like earning a PHD degree at a university. North8000 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Clean up the membership list

Any ideas? I just asked @Rcsprinter123: who seems to have done it the last time.

--evrik (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

We should add a sentence or two of instructions. First to tell people to keep adding their name to the newer periods. Also that they just need to consider themselves to be active in order to add their name to the current list. I also would not add "inactive" to any more headings. Too much work, and unnecessary work to determine that someone is inactive. They are just listed as active for each period or not. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Guyana Scouting/Guiding

Hello, I'm working on improving articles on Guyana, and there's a few weak stubs under the subject of scouting. They're reliant on primary scouting sources and only one very thorough secondary source. Firstly, if anyone here has a keen eye for secondary sources on Guyanese scouting I'd love to flesh these out with better sources.

On the other hand, I think merging the articles Guyana Girl Guides Association and The Scout Association of Guyana into the Scouting and Guiding in Guyana would make sure all the relevant information about these groups stay in one place- giving (familiar and unfamiliar) readers a better sense of how these work in Guyana, as well as aid editors who might have information and updates about the total organization but only update one article. Naturally, redirects would serve to maintain the structure of infoboxes for Guyana in a global context.

I hope taking a proactive approach is appreciated; if anyone has better ideas to improve the overall quality and visibility of these articles, please let me know, cheers! Estheim (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not happy with this proposal.
  1. Scouting and Guiding are separate organisations in Guyana, even if they share the same pedagogic framework.
  2. There is currently a lot of content on the SAG and very little on the GGAG while the memberships numbers are quite the opposite: SAG had 462 members in 2018 [1] and GGAG 3,971 members [2] - a merged article would not reflect this.
  3. This would break the structure we are using for all countries with more than one organisation.
I even can't see how merging the Guiding part with the Scouting part would encourage new contributors on Guiding topics. In most counties with separate organisations Scouting and Guiding are quite apart - and members of Guiding feel domineered by Scouts when both topics are mixed, and would rather not contribute in a joint article.
I've got the feeling that you are misunderstanding the fundamental differences between Guiding and Scouting. Your proposal does not feel gender sensitive and may easily lead to the marginalisation of Guiding in Guyana within the Wikipedia. --jergen (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Not merge the articles! That would have some side effects, such as having to delete the logos. --Egel Reaction? 17:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see why merging means deleting the logos? Is there a policy about logo use that would be problematic, can you be more specific? I'm really looking for ways to address these articles being poorly sourced stubs- do you have any idea to address that? Estheim (talk) 18:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Fair use issues. --evrik (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I avoid all to do with images because I've seen the drama. But out of curiosity, what IS the issue? Is a logo ONLY for use on a page titled for the logo? (best guess?)Estheim 13:42, January 19, 2021
I would love that, @Evrik:. I've maxed-out my lay-person skills, which is why I'm here in the first place. Do you have any ideas? Estheim 13:42, January 19, 2021
The articles only have primary sources @Evrik:, and all of the secondary information is in a solitary news article. Do you have some ideas to get quality secondary sources for this topic? I fix up articles about Guyana- getting blood from a stone is what it's all about. But, I still need the stones. Estheim (talk) 19:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The Stabroek one is the 'solitary source' I mentioned above. I'll work with the girl guide ones though, those are very promising! Estheim (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably there is also something interesting between these links:
--Egel Reaction? 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You know, when I took on editing this page, has always been in good faith, and with as much care as I can muster with the understanding of people's attachments to a subject, but I'm not pleased with Jergen's insinuations and some very pointed passive-aggressive edit summaries of my 'deep misunderstanding' and 'obviously mistaken interpretation'. I appreciate someone stepping in and saying 'I'm a pro, I got this', but not to be bullied for taking the initiative. If just mentioning 'redirect' was seen as a personal attack, then I'm really sorry I ever came up with it as a suggestion- however I find is beyond the pale to be accused of 'marginizing' an international organization, especially in the context of Guyana. Nobody cares if my feelings are hurt, but wow, is this how things work around here? Am I banned from working on scout articles in my sphere of interest? Estheim (talk) 11:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC) and rename the article

Your repeated proposal was: "With so little information on GGGA, I consider merging it with SAoG and rename it" despite the membership numbers and despite the fact that both are distinct national organisations in distinct international bodies. With or without purpose: This would have marginalised the girls oriented GGGA.
And yes, I've the feeling that you know very little on Scouting and Guiding which lead to misunderstandings. A sentence like "Higher levels of organization include Divisional Commissioners and Western Hemisphere Regional Committee of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS)." doesn't even make sense to me. How are individuals (Divisional Commissioners) and the regional governing body of an supranational organisation (Western Hemisphere Regional Committee) organisational levels of a national organisation? I'd rather prefer no content instead of plainly wrong content.
There is a number of Scouts and Guides around. Please ask them if you miss out on details about Scouting and Guiding. --jergen (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "The articles only have primary sources @Evrik:, and all of the secondary information is in a solitary news article. Do you have some ideas to get quality secondary sources for this topic?" I think that some leniency on primary vs. secondary is available. Also the wp:notability ecosystem probably has and would approve this as a separate article which someone might also call leniency. From what I gather here a merge or deletion sounds like a bad idea. Which to me leaves "leave as a stub" or "expand" as the two good choices. Particularly with the "primary/secondary" leniency, one choice is to do what article building is about which is finding and using sources. The other is to leave it as a stub. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Historically notable Scout camps

I moved this long neglected article, Historically notable Scout camps, out of the incubator. Have at it. --evrik (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

New RfC

Feel free to weigh in. --evrik (talk) 04:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Are former Scout camps that are re-purposed still of interest to this WikiProject?

In 2015, Camp Eagle Island in New York state (now known as Eagle Island Camp) ceased to be operated by the local Girl Scouts. It is now operated as a youth camp by a different organization.

It has the {{WikiProject Scouting}} template on its talk page. Does that template need to stay there or should it be removed? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the project template. But IMO a now-gone scout camp is of scouting interest. The operation as a scout camp is scouting history, just like any other scouting history that is no longer present. I've written article sections on ones that are gone in High Adventure Bases of the Boy Scouts of America. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, definitely still relevant to this project. Many geographic places have Scouting related names. The articles on places where Jamborees were once held often mention that fact. It's important that people with Scouting knowledge oversee the relevant content for accuracy. HiLo48 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with HiLo48 and North8000. It's still of interest from the standpoint of historical accuracy.  JGHowes  talk 13:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

BSA Leadership

Anyone want to improve this article so we can nominate it for DYK? --evrik (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help with Golden Pheasant Award

Dear members of The Scouting project, I am Konstantinos, from the French Wikipedia and I am sorry for my poor English. I am presently working on ex-king Constantine II of Greece biography and I found in the English version that he was awarded, in 1964, the Golden Pheasant by the Japanese Scout Association. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any official reference of that, nor in any article or other source. So I wonder if anyone here could help me to find a good reference. It would be very nice, because that's the only point I couldn't verify and reference in the French article... Thank you very much, Konstantinos (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

  • @Konstantinos: My best guess is that the information you need is here: 䝪䞊䜲䝇䜹䜴䝖日本連盟 きじ章受章者 [Recipient of the Golden Pheasant Award of the Scout Association of Japan] (PDF). Reinanzaka Scout Club (in jp). 2014-05-23. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-08-11.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link) --evrik (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Newsletter April 2021

I just published our first newsletter: Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Newsletters/April 2021 I am looking for ideas and volunteers for future efforts. --evrik (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Newsletters/May 2021

APO templates

I am going to redirect the first to the second. Before I do, does anyone remember the whole brouhaha about userboxes? Also, will the redirect be some sort of cross platform issue? --evrik (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

FAR for Mackinac Island

I have nominated Mackinac Island 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 "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Another category bites the dust

Thoughts? --evrik (talk) 22:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

BSA Commissioner AfD

Feel free to weigh in. --evrik (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

These were all deleted.

All the linking articles are found here. We appealed to the closing Admin here: User_talk:Randykitty#Close of Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America). Anyone want to discuss a Wikipedia:Deletion review? --evrik (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

  • To me, this looks like a very US-centric problem. Scout Commissioner explains the meaning of "commissioner" in the context of Scouting which should be enough for most people outside of the BSA.

Since the meaning of "commissioner" is organization specific (and even varies within BSA), my preliminary idea might be to consolidate all of the above into one BSA commissioner article. And most of the above titles would be sections within it. I'd be happy to help. We should ask to get all of the above userfied. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

North8000 & all, If you want any/all of them userfied, just let me know whose userspace. Go Phightins! 18:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Phightins I'll take them. If evrik wants them (including Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America) )they should get them, either if they say so quickly now or else I could move them there if they say so later. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
See User:North8000/Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America). Note that the rest are redirects and that this page was deleted per consensus here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America). All best, Go Phightins! 20:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Quick note, the closer did not even assert that there was a consensus. IMHO the result was clearly "no consensus". The rationale given was the closer themselves deciding that it did not meet GNG. North8000 (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What do you think about putting all of this into a new article under a broader name like "Commissioners (Boy Scouts of America)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by North8000 (talk • contribs) 10:24, April 19, 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not pushing for any idea, I just wanted to make sure we sort through the possibilities. So let me make a "devils advocate" argument to help sort this out. The title and lead of the previous article are oriented towards the year-round unit-level at home service. The other types of material and sources could be considered to be outside the scope of that topic. Plus there are other types of commissioners (I've been both a unit commissioner, a scout camp commissioner, and an "exploring commissioner" (many decades ago) ) Also, of the AFD / appeal topic, that could narrow/ reduce the sources applicable to any determination on the topic. So, a fresh new article on a slightly broadened topic and broadened range of source relevant to the topic title that can be included and used in any determination. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The article that was deleted had "good bones." It covered all aspects of Commissioners in the USA. I think could use some expansion, but truth be told. If we build enough support for it, we should appeal the deletion. --evrik (talk) 02:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In essence I was proposing a brand new article with a slightly broader title/topic that would include all of the material from the deleted article plus more and more sources. Let us know what you decide and I'll support/help either way. North8000 (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that all that is needed is one general article, Scout Commissioner, that explains the world-wide use of the term Commissioner in Scouting. Commissioners in the USA, the UK or any single country are just not notable. --Bduke (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think there is room for both. The tepid response to the AFD is what caused the articles deletion - not its worthiness as an article. --evrik (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
  • This all needs to be restored. I do not understand why it was deleted in the first place, since Commissioner service has been a central part of the BSA's volunteer status since the founding of the organization in 1910. We have had a National Commissioner, regions have had Regional Commissioners, and most importantly, local BSA Councils, their Districts, and many units have had Commissioners to support the unit service role of the movement. Settummmanque1720, 5 May 2021 Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
  • That something "has been a central part of the BSA's volunteer status since the founding of the organization in 1910" does not mean it should have an article. It means it should be covered in at least a sentence in some article. I also think that this discussion is rather US-centric. Do we really need an separate article for Commissioners in every country in the world? I think not. --Bduke (talk) 02:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Indeed, Scout Commissioner is US-centric, and it covers quite enough about Commissioners in the U.S. I guess that they do indeed have an important role, but that does not mean that they need an article to themselves. More material, if needed, could be added to the main article on the BSA. Material about Commissioners in other countries should be added. --Bduke (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If an article about US Commissioners is not notable, there are few other articles that we should quickly delete as well, like Wood Badge (Boy Scouts of America). What's the problem here? They may not have world-wide significance, but last time I checked this is the English Wikipedia. Yes, the Commissioner plays an essential role in US Scouting. I happened to have been a District Commissioner at one time. Scouting in the USA would not exist except for commissioners. Seems pretty notable. Restore the article. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 05:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, I only happened to be an Assistant District Commissioner for Leader Training at one time. All you say is true, but in my opinion it can all be said in the article about the BSA and the article about Commissioners. The Wood Badge in the USA does seem to be rather different than the Wood Badge I have from South Yorkshire in UK and the one I was once involved with at Gilwell Park, but I still doubt it deserves a separate article. However I will now shut up. --Bduke (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I took a back of the envelope guess that even just in the the US, it's about a dozen roles that hundreds of thousands have served in over >100 years. I mentally contrast that with the sports SNG which is that if one person did it for a living for one day they get in as wp:notable. Common sense needs to prevail here somehow. North8000 (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Me personally I'd be happy to weigh in at a deletion review or to take the lead on a new slightly broadened article. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd help but not take the lead.North8000 (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The deletion of commissioner article is up for review

I went ahead and posted this, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 July 2. --evrik (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

AFD Round 2

Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America) is now open at Articles for Deletion

Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America) was at AFD, then originally closed as delete, then appealed and the result was to re-open the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America) North8000 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrator

It seems that we no longer have an administrator to help us when we need one. Is any member an admin? I resigned as an admin a while back - too old! --Bduke (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Squirrel Association

This article needs a few other people to think about it. It is difficult to see that on it's own that it is notable. Perhaps it should be merged into Squirrel Scouts (The Scout Association) which is what was the result of this experiment in Northern Ireland. What do other people think? --Bduke (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

When the topic is enclyclopedic (like this is) I'm a bit biased towards having an article. Looks like it has one GNG type source. I'm on the fence on this. North8000 (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Archive_2021&oldid=1093988675"