Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2016

This page 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.

I searched and I did not find any articles for specific Troops in Scouting. However, I find this peculiar, since many Troops seem to meet WP:GNG, such as possibly Troop 380 in Golden Empire Council because of the notable event of the loss of their Scout Alden Brock at the 2015 Philmont Scout Ranch flash flood (currently under construction) as well as having their own website and possibly other news coverage related to that Troop. Has there been discussion before that was against making articles of specific Troops? I believe it would make sense per WP:GNG, but we would need an infobox, such as Template:Infobox Scouting troop. I highly suggest names such as Troop 380 in Golden Empire Council to disambiguate, since there are probably a ton of Troop 380s in the United States or elsewhere. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

These are some examples of articles about Scout Groups: Category:Local units of the Boy Scouts of America, Oxford University Scout and Guide Group, Delftsche Zwervers. Very few Scout Groups meet WP:GNG, but many have there own website. I think significant coverage of a Scout Group related to a single event should be covered in a section in the article about the event. Only when a Scout Group has significant coverage related to multiple events we should think about an article about the Scout Group and the Scout Group itself is exceptional, like "the first....", "the only..." etc.. --Egel _Reaction? 12:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Many troops seem to be technically notable, but not necessarily being involved in any significant or important events. My point is, people may come to the internet to look for information about specific troops, and Wikipedia may be the place to put things like this, as long as it has at least 3 diverse news or book references from different time periods. I think Troop 380 in Sacramento may be notable, definitely because of the Philmont trek where they experienced a huge flash flood that took the life of one of their Scouts (the article is finished by the way, feel free to read or edit), and I also found a Boys' Life mentioning that the troop apparently traveled to Minnesota in 1996 for boating. Besides that, the troop has a website with newsletters highlighting other events, history of the troop, and meeting schedules. I personally think the troop could pass as an article. I'll try to create it, but if it's deleted then I guess oh well. Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The Troop's own website is a primary source, and therefore can't be used to meet WP:GNG, and a Troop travelling halfway across the country for an excursion is not uncommon. I know that WP:ONEEVENT refers specifically to individuals, but one must also remember that notability is not inherited; vis., a group is not automatically notable because it contains/contained a notable person, and a person is not automatically notable for being part of a notable group. The existing article is sufficient, but if you were to compose a draft article for us to review, we'd be able to better determine whether it is suitable. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Order of the Silver Elephant, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the low level of activity, I think it is time to retire the project. Thoughts? -- Gadget850 ^talk 18:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the activity is low, but the project allows a few of us to keep more in touch with Scouting articles than we might without it. I support keeping it, but it needs a little effort. Can the few of us that are still active put the project welcome on the user talk page of editors who edit a Scouting article as a fairly new wikipedian. I have been trying to do that, but I will try to be more active in doing it. It might attract some new members. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The fact that the question was even asked shows a lack of vision-retirement was long overdue. Agree with BDuke, what we need is outreach. Scouting is still growing, we need to look at why we're not.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Most Scouting subjects already have an article. What still can be written, are articles on important people in Scouting outside USA and England, smaller and / or historic National Scouting Organizations and important camp sites outside USA and England. But those can have a discussable notability. The nice articles have already been written, maintenance is a lot less fun. --Egel _Reaction? 07:57, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure it's not as fun, watching vandal edits and seeing articles written 10 years ago with little activity (as is the case throughout Wikipedia now), but there are occasional gems still found, and we shouldn't throw up our hands and retire.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess one thing we should think about is whether we need a project leader/coordinator/whatever. I do not know and I am not looking to do the job. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I think a leader was necessary when we were in the booming growth stage, as we were working out what is notable or not, smoothing out disagreements and developing the Scouting WPMOS. I don't think we need someone to disseminate information from The Wikipowers That Be, or to get certain articles up to featured status or on the mainpage, I think we're all fairly adept at moving ourselves around. That being said, I miss Randy. Wikipedia eats its own, so I am also not looking to do the job.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Way back when Randy was the leader, I had the job of asking the community whether we wanted him to continue. This continued with Ed for a while. I will therefore do something similar and take responsibility for closing this discussion around the end of this month. Let us have your views. Do we want a convenor or do we agree, as I am inclined to do at this point, with Kintetsubuffalo? --Bduke (Discussion) 05:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I never got around to closing this discussion in October, but I guess we just carry on without a leader. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The population table is not sorting properly, should we remove the commas?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: The problem was not the commas. Aruba had a membership value of "na," which caused the table to sort the column as text rather than as numbers. I removed the "na" and added a note that Aruba's membership data was not available.  Done — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This morning here in Aus my watchlist was full of Scouting articles showing an edit from a bot warning about blacklisted references. I think all or at least most are links to an archive of Johnny Walker's history that used to be at html:www.scouting.milestones.btinternet.co.uk. Is there agreement that in general Johnny Walker's history is a good source? If so how can we go about cleaning up this mess? A good example is Michael Baden-Powell about Michael's involvement with the charity that looks after B-P's old car Jam-Roll. It is an excellent source for that. In addition to that artilce, there are:-

• Scouting in the East Midlands
• Senior Scouts (Baden-Powell Scouts' Association)
• Rover Scouts (Baden-Powell Scouts' Association)
• Roland Philipps
• Scouting in Wales
• Mafeking Cadet Corps
• Scouting in South West England
• Scouting controversy and conflict
• World Scout Indaba
• Scouting in North East England
• Scouting museums
• Scouting
• List of Scouts
• Humshaugh

Of course there may be others that are not on my watchlist. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

A bunch on my list too, and Johnny walker is an excellent source.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue is that the site where the history was archived (archive.is) is on enwp's blacklist. If the information was archived on another non-blacklisted site, then the links should be updated to remove the blacklist warning. Right now, I'm at work, and all archive websites are blocked. I can try to look after I get home in the morning. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC) @Bduke and Kintetsubuffalo: Actually, if the information is good and the specific link is free of spam/malware/etc., then following the instructions at {{Blacklisted-links}} will allow the specific URL to be whitelisted. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Walker's history is, without most pictures, at http://scoutguidehistoricalsociety.com/ . Is this an archive or a the new site for Johnny Walker's history? --Egel _Reaction? 07:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

@Egel: It appears to be an archive since most of the images seem to be missing, but it is still a much better choice than using a blacklisted archive site as a source. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this was discussed back in 2006, but I think it's time to take a look at it again, especially because it was never written into the MoS. There's now a decent amount of variety among the state articles. I think a lot are starting to get cluttered as one or two editors come in to update their home councils while not changing anything on the other councils. What about this layout for State articles?

1. History
   1. Historic Council Table (Example from Georgia)
2. Boy Scouts of America in State today
   1. Council A
   2. Council B
   3. Etc
3. Girl Scouts of the USA in State today
   1. Council A
   2. Council B
   3. Etc
4. References

I don't think any of the Councils should have subheaders since most only contain one sentence (such as the Order of the Arrow headings). The list of districts for each Council is also not needed. If there's enough referenced information to warrant a subheading, then I think the Council could use its own article instead of having large unwieldy state articles. I do think we should use the infobox for each council though, but limit the parameters to Owner, Headquarters, and Founded. Everything else such as membership numbers and council leadership change yearly and will quickly go out of date. I think those should mostly reserved for specific Council pages. We should possibly also put a hidden tag under each Council header saying that if someone is wanting to expand or add more referenced information, then they should consider expanding it to an independent article. It seems like some of the most useful State pages also have maps for the entire state as well as county maps for the individual councils as opposed to using the council logo (Ex: Scouting in Arkansas). However, I think district restructures are common enough that the Council maps should not designate specific districts. Thoughts? Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 18:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to take that on,... but it looks like a lot of work, especially gordian knots like Massachusetts and Connecticut.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

So I started cutting through the gordian knot of Scouting in Massachusetts, but I stopped halfway through because I realized all the infoboxes are making the article look pretty bad since they are not lining up with the small section for each Council. Any thoughts on how to improve the overall article? Just cut out infoboxes or maybe just make a table for all of them? Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 15:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Can people look at this article and give opinions on what should be done with this? Part of the confusion to me is that the references section is a mish-mash of mostly parathetical notes, with a few refs.Naraht (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I tagged The Ideal Scout (Milwaukee) as possibly not meeting the Notability guidelines. From what I can tell, this is just a copy of The Ideal Scout statue and the article itself is half about the original statue and half about the Scout Office this copy is in front of. Since copies of this statue are very common, I don't think it meets the criteria for its own article. The picture and the information on the Scout Office could be used in the Three Harbors Council page. From what I can tell, it mostly exists to be part of the List of public art in Milwaukee and Template, but those links could easily be redirected to the Council. I couldn't find an active wikiproject that the Public Art would fall under. Thoughts? Deflagro (talk) 20:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I see that Kintetsubuffalo has proposed to merge The Ideal Scout (Milwaukee) into Three Harbors Council. I'm not sure what information could be merged other than the trivial information that they have one of numerous copies of The Ideal Scout. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 00:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I had suggested merging the cited information on the Scout Office as well as the picture. The rest is just fluff. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 05:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Completed the merger following consensus from three editors and no opposition after a week. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion going on over at Talk:National Capital Area Council#Proposed merge with Goshen Scout Reservation about whether or not GSR is notable enough to have an independent article or if it should be merged into the Council article if anyone would like to comment. Thanks! Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed and resolved several times already. --evrik ^(talk) 20:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I followed a vandal, who used my name in his vandalism, down the rabbithole and found that this crapmagnet has been restored. I have again tagged it for merge, individual lodges are not notable outside their councils.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support. --evrik ^(talk) 15:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
• Just do it! --Bduke (Discussion) 22:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

The Template:Scoutstat BSA figures are from 2013 and the reference is dead. The most up-to-date figures that I can find that aren't rounded are in the 2015 Report to the Nation, but it does not have all the broken out information that it used to. It has you Cub Scouts, youth Boy Scouts, youth Venturers, youth Learning for Life, youth Explorers, and total Units. It doesn't give any figures on adults nor does it break out units into Troops/packs/etc. The Annual Report just rounds to the closest thousandth (or millionth) Can anyone find a better source? Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 21:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

There's several discussions regarding merging camp articles spread out over several Talk pages, so I think that's a sign that it's time we reexamine our WikiProject MoS on the subject and build Project-wide consensus instead of trying to building piecemeal consensus on each individual article. As a Project, we've run the gamut on what we consider notable for summer camps and whether or not they deserve their own articles and some of our participants are understandably protective of their home summer camps. Looking around at other non-scouting camp articles, it looks like the project's previous standards (and my own) were higher than Wikipedia's as a whole. I'd like to propose a new MoS on determining when a Scout Summer Camp deserves a stand-alone article:

1. The corresponding Council article can stand as a C-Class article without the summer camp section
2. The summer camp article can stand as a C-Class article on its own

This ensures we have quality articles while also giving the camp article's a chance to grow. By setting the standard of C-Class, that requires the camp has independent sources and will keep us from having an unwieldy amount of stubs/start class articles. Thoughts? Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 13:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree with your proposed changes. I think it would be a good idea to explicitly add something that says something like "notability for the scout camp outside of council published material should be established" or something like that. I think just saying C class isn't specific enough. As you see, there is a major issue in these articles with Ownership and/or Conflict of Interest.Marauder40 (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point about explicitly saying it. From my understanding, the main difference between Start class and C Class is the presence of reliable sources. I think scout camps are probably more notable than a majority of the non-scouting summer camp articles because they at least draw from a wider audience. In my opinion, we could therefore consider them notable. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 14:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The problem with just saying RS are required is you get into arguments about the quality of the sources, like the discussion I am having on the Goshen page, where someone claims that a local paper doing a quick human interest paragraph, reporting on a local scout troop going to the scout camp is a 3rd party reliable source establishing notability. I personally don't think a lot of scout camps should be moved out of the council pages, but some can if the articles are beefed up a lot more and some 3rd party notability can be established. Marauder40 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

For the third time, a short article about a scout troop trek at a specific place to support the claim that scouts trek at that specific place does not equal "poor source." Also, your blatant mischaracterisation is not fooling anyone. Abel (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, your "source" does not support the line it is supposed to be referencing. I am not mis-characterizing anything, but let someone else comment on the issue.Marauder40 (talk) 12:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This has all been discussed before. Honestly, I can't find the discussions from ten years ago where we hashed this all out. If you're talking about this section, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/MOS#Non-national articles, I would ask that you look at the old discussions. @Kintetsubuffalo: may know where. I would say that any article that can exist as a Start Class Article and has sources should be it's own page. --evrik ^(talk) 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

There are proposals about several camps. I am not really sure how to judge these camps, but I think we should take a look at the whole wider issue. The resolution Evrik talks about was some time ago and Wikepedia had tightened up. I took a look a some of the articles and they are very short on reliable independent sources. For the UK camps, I think there are only articles for the National Activity Centres and not for camp sites run by Counties or Districts. Let us have a wider discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. --evrik ^(talk) 21:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

With having this discussion or trimming to only having articles for national camps? :) For what it's worth, here is the 2008 discussion. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 22:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Local camps only. --evrik ^(talk) 13:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the C Class standard proposed for both the camp and the council article is appropriate. For example, I wrote the B Class article about Camp Pico Blanco and there is an C Class article about the Silicon Valley Monterey Bay Council. They certainly merit stand-alone articles. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 08:12, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is clearly not notable outside the Lake View Park International Scout Centre. There has been a proposal to merge it and 1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group to Lake View Park International Scout Centre. The merge discussion is mainly at Talk:1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group and not at Talk:Old Rajans Scouts Association. There is some discussion at Talk:Lake View Park International Scout Centre. The merge has been supported by international members of this Project, but not by the locals. This discussion is not getting anywhere. The old boys association is not notable outside the international events they help to run at the international centre, which is notable. The Scout Group may be notable, but it is certainly marginal. What to do? There is actually more information on the events at Old Rajans Scouts Association than there is at Lake View Park International Scout Centre. I am inclined to add that information to the latter and propose that the former be deleted. This would get a wider group of editors to look at the issue. What do others think? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Send it to 3O, then merge it as you have outlined.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

3O ?? --Bduke (Discussion) 06:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion. --jergen (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Or the admins. We need something official on this one.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not a matter for an admin. I am an admin, although not really active. We just need more views from other editors. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You've got 2 merge votes, you and me, and 3 local WP:OWN oppose votes. What's your plan to get these extra pairs of eyes, seeing how long these have been tagged? They really need a weeding from outside.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article incubator/Template:Infobox WorldScouting uniform was posted on my page for deletion, I think it serves a purpose, it's just the graphicist helping at the time became inactive.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:18, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

This page was nominated for deletion on 22 June 2016. The result of the discussion was Merge.

Please complete the merge. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This is currently a disambiguation page - and IMO a rather feeble one, which deserves to be worked up into a full article, with many or most of the links reclassified as See-Also's, and the DAB tags removed. It's an important enough topic to not be routinely caught by the WP:Disambiguation bots (which it now is). Narky Blert (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

What is the current full name of the NSO? There is contention at the duplicated article's deletion debate. If the name has changed, the new vanity article should be deleted and the original article parked there.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

According to WOSM it's official name is The Scout Association of Nigeria. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 12:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved and redacted, thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Is this article notable? I know of no similar article. It does not have any independent references and I do not see how it can other than ones supporting individual entries not the topic as a whole. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I say not notable, weed it and stick it in the NSO article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Australian Scouting terms. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I googled it, no dice... We need an article List of local councils of the Girl Scouts of the USA like List of local councils of the Boy Scouts of America-anyone have access to the full list?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Per User:erp-thanks Emma!

With Myanmar, should we change the numbers now?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems like WOSM has updated their Who We Are page to 164. I guess it is official. ~ Ablaze (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Currently the article title is High-adventure bases of the Boy Scouts of America because the Language of Scouting says "high-adventure" should be hyphenated when used as an adjective. However on all the official BSA websites/publications it refers to them as High Adventure Bases (or BSA's High Adventure Bases, National High Adventure Bases, etc). There is also inconsistency in-between the different articles (and also on the High-adventure base article itself) on capitalization, but rarely is it ever hyphenated in our articles. I'd say that hyphenated is not the normal spelling of the phrase. Thoughts on changing the title to "High Adventure Bases of the Boy Scouts of America" (or lower-case)? Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 06:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Deflagro: Since BSA uses the term "High Adventure Base" and that term is used for the High Adventure Base articles, I was WP:BOLD and moved the article to High Adventure Bases of the Boy Scouts of America. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Perfect. I saw it had been discussed previously on the Talk page which is why I brought it here instead of just doing it myself. Thanks for taking care of it! Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 05:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The main article Boy Scouts of the Philippines is suffering from vanity bloat and now content-forking, and could use an experienced Wiki editor to weed it as I have tried vainly to do. Meanwhile, Chief Executive Officers of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines needs to be merged back there.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_7#Template:Scouting_uniform, the main infobox is locked, and I don't know how to do the coding anyway, but I think it belongs nested inside.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to user:Frietjes, this is fixed, we can now add uniforms!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

It's now up and running, Template:Infobox WorldScouting/testcases, I've been adding uniforms to articles, basing the colors on what the article told me or going with what I see on the websites. If you have better information, please introduce it! :) See List of colors (compact) for ideas. Thanks to Egel and Jergen, and a Burmese editor for fixing my guesswork! I'm finding some emblems are out of date, as I go to the website, also there are some image issues with the new uniform stuff- I have a request for fixes at the Graphics Lab, to the girl's hand, but there are other issues I see. If we can get them to fix that, there are some other problems we can get fixed later, maybe you can help me make a list? I think we need:

• need overseas cap, bucket hat, bush hat
• side-by-side boy and girl or different levels (Cub/Air/Sea...), beta-tested and it didn't work (It works now, I really can't thank user:Frietjes enough!)
• maybe light, medium and dark flesh tones?
• I'd rather the background be transparent rather than a white box offset
• Some countries such as Australia have a two-tone pattern uniform, trying to figure out how they rectify this, like the infobox at FC Barcelona

... what else?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

• t-shirt/sweater (the present shirt but without pockets, collar and buttons would be good enough), short and long sleeved.

All the colours of Scouting Nederland: Scouting_Nederland#Uniform

--Egel _Reaction? 14:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Egel: Frietjes discussed how many uniforms we could put in the infobox, 3 uniforms is pushing it, but maybe a separate graphic could be rendered for countries that have so many uniforms... but she's a coding expert, not graphics far as I know.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

So this is a very nit-picky and US-centric, but would it be possible to raise the Scout Sign to a right-angle, or even code that as an option? It's weird seeing it on the BSA page with the elbow at the side when that is incorrect by BSA standards. If it ends up being too much work, it's definitely not the end of the world! Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 05:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Deflagro: It's a good request, I put it in 4 days ago, see Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop#WikiProject_Scouting_uniform_template--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: I just took a look at that page. While I see your request for fixing the girl's version (sign straight up), I don't see the specific request for making the arm a right-angle as in the BSA version. Am I missing the request? Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 06:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Deflagro: Okay, _that's_ nitpicky. ;) Seriously though, you can explain it better than I, please tack your request into the Graphic Lab page section, any editor is free to add in, and it would get movement on the fixes! Cheers--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:42, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Apologies. I have not been thinking about this. I am not convinced it is a good idea. Uniforms differ so much between sections, plus Sea Scouts and Air Scouts, that there are far too many to have in the infobox. They also change quite frequently. I do not think we will either be correct or inclusive. I think our articles should handle uniforms by a reference link. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns, and that's what we're discussing above. Now there is a toggle option for 3 uniforms, which should be enough for the standard branches, and Egel has done a nice workaround on Scouting Nederland for the 6 Dutch uniforms. Because as you say uniforms change quite frequently, a quick change of the color hex code will update the uniform. I too think our articles should handle uniforms by a reference, but thus far they haven't, for the most part, and we frankly don't have the manpower/interest right now to do all that. This is a workable solution, better than nothing, we just need to get the kinks out.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if we did not have good sources for the uniform in the body of the article, we do not have good sources for the uniforms in the infobox, so we should not add them to the article, in or out of the infobox. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Bduke: that I think BSA has too many variations to encompass the uniform in the infobox of the corporate page. I think it's a better fit on the individual program pages. I've added it to Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting, Venturing, Sea Scouting, and Varsity Scouting and therefore removed it from the "corporate" BSA article. But I don't want to step on anyone's toes since I know a lot of work has gone into this. So anyone feel free to revert if you think it needs some consensus building. I think it seems like a natural fit with the individual program articles. Deflagro ^Contribs/_Talk 23:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's a great solution for that case, and the uniform toggle should be modified to suit each article as necessary. I just put the uniforms on the "corporate" pages as that was going down a list. Don't worry about toe-stepping, the only bad action is inaction (well, and vandalism....) BTW, I hate, and I think B-P would hate, that Scouting has become "corporate".--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

In 1999 at the World Scout Conference in Durban, South Africa, Resolution 4/99 was adopted by the Conference on Gender Balance in Scouting, urging all National Scout Organizations to adopt gender balance programs. Philippines is coed but still uses "Boy" in their title, can we confirm about Suriname?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Boy Scouts van Suriname is coed, but there are no good refs. Boy Scouts van Suriname has no website. The only thing I can find, is that the organisation sends mixed delegations to international camps, like this one: Boy Scouts van Suriname naar Japan. --Egel _Reaction? 16:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

We have [[Category:Scout logos]], [[Category:Scouting and Guiding insignia]] and several others with significant overlap and duplication. Any way to control this? I've found several glaring deletes, all nested deeply away.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Can someone with a fresh pair of eyes take a look at the 11th World Scout Jamboree tragedy section? Certainly it's notable, just as certainly it is not the overriding event of the jamboree. I've been trying to catch the enthusiastic editor about notability and undue weight, they just keep stacking the Philippine article, the list of Scouts and now this one... :( --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is game, this is in need of cleanup.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I am just going to start calling this Philsprawl, and I don't mean Philmont. A very eager editor is fond of content forking, and I just keep finding these. Chronology of the Boy Scouts of the Philippines should be merged back into History of Scouting in the Philippines.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

This list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Admins needs to be updated, looks like many of our comrades have Wikiburnout. Is anyone an admin who is not listed? Thanks!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please weigh in either way. I think notability is a lock, sourcing it is the problem.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This article, which I have twice had to move back for MOS, is really just a bunch of incoherent quote blocks. 3 previous sections of late (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Boy_Scouts_of_the_Philippines, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#11th_World_Scout_Jamboree, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Philsprawl) have also dealt with this same overeager editor, who won't abide advice. Can someone jump in here?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags, do we really need all the flags all over the infoboxes in WOSM and World Jamboree articles?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

No, the flags are not necessary. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 03:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I followed the flagbomber down the rabbithole, and found

• Trees For The World found and tagged 11:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC) which I merged to MoP--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• World Scout Collectors Meeting found and tagged 11:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
• Interamerican Leadership Training which I mergetagged to Interamerican Region which I merged to IAR--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

These have all been under the radar for 2 years and could use fresh eyes.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to verify this: http://blogscoutdeantonioalaminos.blogspot.jp/2016/10/si-quieres-saber-sobre-los-aspectos-mas.html "The WSC received an update on the financial situation for the year 2015-2016. A balanced budget for WSB’s operations for 2016-2017 was approved by the WSC. The highly proclaimed WOSM Financial Best Practices approved at the WSC Meeting in Baku (October 2015) was amended to further improve on certain aspects. Following the decision of the current WOSM treasurer, Olivier Dunant (Switzerland), to step down from the position, the WSC approved the appointment of Joseph Lau (Scouting) (Hong Kong) to fill that vacancy."

"It was the last meeting for the Secretary General (SG) of WOSM, Scott Teare, who will retire soon. The SG received a well-deserved standing ovation from the Committee for his dedicated efforts over the last four years in the service of WOSM. The Treasurer of WOSM, Olivier Dunant, was thanked for his service in the WSC. Three outgoing Regional Chairpersons, Irina Pruitze (Eurasia), Leonardo Morales (Interamerica) and Youssef Khaddage (Arab) were also thanked for their active participation in the WSC."--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

... was a Scout in a notable (but not Wikinotable) troop I've been researching. Should I tag him?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:35, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Morocco, Tunisia and Libya all refer to Guides, should we change those category names?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree, and I never really understand the name change from "Scouting and Guiding in ..." to "Scouting in" for counties without a guiding organisation.--Egel _Reaction? 10:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

See [1]. --jergen (talk) 10:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Some countries (US, Japan...) call them Scouts, hence WAGGGGGGGS.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at recent edits to Defunct Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States, if I am incorrect I will revert. This is a problematic editor who had issues with DiverScout and believes the entire Scout Project is out to get him.

Also, I have reverted new maps at WOSM and WOSM membership because the flag-bloat guy (a few sections above) has created new maps only showing WOSM members, not the regions, as we used to do. It was decided long ago (can't find where) that we should color the whole region and only leave out the countries that clearly have no Scouts. Else it will require a change every World Conference when new members are admitted, I don't have the svg skills to update them and this editor only makes a couple dozen edits a year. Thoughts?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

It actually isn't too difficult to edit svg files. I've just taken a look at the file and some countries/areas aren't in any regions. Notably Cuba (cu), Cape Verde (cv), Laos (la), North Korea (kp), French Polynesia (fp), Tonga (to), Kiribati (ki), Maldives (mv), Niue (nu), Cook Islands (ck), Wallis and Fortuna (wf), American Samoa (as) (I used the two letter codes because that is what the svg file uses). I note that French Polynesia and Wallis and Fortuna might be either European because they are French or Asia-Pacific (the wiki page Scouting in French Polynesia says Asia-Pacific but it isn't listed on the WOSM webpage https://scout.org/wosm?language=en#about_18?language=en. American Samoa might fall under Interamerica because US. Maldives is Asia-Pacific (I just checked). --Erp (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment-the question is, do we want to have to change the map each time a country comes in (or goes out, in the case of Albania), or should we have a stable map that shows where the boundaries are when every country is compliant and dues-paid? If you want to change the map, I'm okay. The editor said he will take the responsibility of editing the map, but seeing his track record, how many of his images have been deleted, how much bloat I've had to cut out and merge from his articles, and the fact that he puts his own name in the articles, makes me doubt his reliability.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

French Polynesia, Kiribati, Maldives, : Asia-Pacific --Egel _Reaction? 12:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems French Guiana, Martinique, and Guadeloupe are European since they aer legally part of France (same also with Saint Pierre and Miquelon). [2]. I note if Cuba, Laos, North Korea are gray so should the PRC (however I note that Macau and Hong Kong aren't separate entities in the given file). --Erp (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerning French Scouting: Nearly all "groupes d'outre-mer" are connected to the European Scout Region. Exeptions are French Polynesia and New Caledonia (both Asia-Pacific, associated member) and Reunion (Africa, associated member, since 2001). Even these three are formally part of the ESR and have no voting rights in other regions. --jergen (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on in Moldova today, but both Scout bios are up for deletion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iurie_Emilian, and a different editor notability tagged the national org, all within the last 24 hours. If they're nn, I'll accept it from our members, but I distrust this mass Moldova putsch.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

From a French website, I machine translated Hubert Martin died in 1938 after being able to oppose the admission of the Hitler Youth within Scouting. (original Hubert Martin mourut en 1938 après avoir pu s'opposer à l'admission des Jeunesses Hitlériennes au sein du scoutisme.) I was not aware that the Hitler-Jugend had ever applied for World Scout membership. Can anyone confirm this? I have never seen any mention of this before.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The HJ tried for several years to get admission to the World Scout Movement. In 1933, most non-religious Scout organizations in Germany were liquidated and/or integrated into the HJ, but the relatively small "Reichsschaft Deutscher Pfadfinder" could work on until 26 May 1934. On 19 February 1934, Karl Nabersberg, a high-ranking HJ official, was named international commissioner of the Reichsschaft by Reichsjugendführer Baldur von Schirach. Nabersberg visited the International Scout Bureau and The Boy Scouts Association's headquarters several times and had also contacts to the Scouts de France in 1934. In 1937, he met Baden-Powell. There was also a meeting between Baden-Powell and von Schirach in 1938. All these efforts aimed at the international recognition of the HJ by the Scout Movement.

All activities were cancelled in 1938 or 1939. Instead the HJ founded their own international organization, the Europäischer Jugendverband, in 1942.

Some Materials:

• Discussion in German on that topic: BP und Hitler
• Statement of WOSM: The Scout Movement victim of the Nazi regime
• Baden-Powell's attitude towards dictators is also discussed by Tim Jeals.

Pls don't copy this ad hoc answer to any articles. The topic is delicate and needs good sourcing. --jergen (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I also once found that the HJ had sent a delegation to the WJ 1933. They were not really welcomed by the Scouts, but I do not know if they are admitted to the camp site. There was no delegation of the HJ to the WJ 1937.

WJ 1933 WJ 1937 WJ 1937 WJ 1937

--Egel _Reaction? 10:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks gents. I agree this needs handled carefully, but with proper sourcing, this is valuable information that should someday be in an article. Wow.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

and the same care is needed for people like Cay Lembcke. --Egel _Reaction? 18:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

A fascinating biography; unfortunately my Danish is a bit rusty. --jergen (talk) 09:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

All I added to Lembcke's article was the reference for the Scouting bit.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been trying to weed through Category:Scout and Guide awards, of course there is so much about the BSA I don't know where to start. Other countries' coverage is blotchy, uneven, and in the case of Hong Kong, waaaaay toooooo overdetailed. I propose some sort standardization, along the lines of:

• Ranks in the Scout Association of Blahblahjikistan
• Progress badges in the Guides of Foobaria
• Awards and medals of Scouting Omgvania

I could be way off here, but I am finding a _lot_ of triviacreep.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Anyone?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems a good idea. Go for it. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2016 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)