Talk:The Scout Association of Hong Kong

Let's go for FA

• PS, Henry, shall we list SAHK for FAC? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC).

Gentlemen, I see you both have done lots of good work on SAHK, but may I suggest you have more diverse sources of refs that from various parts of the official organization site? I think this could be an issue on a FAC. Sumoeagle179

• Yes, that would be a serious issue to still improve. And I think some more illustrations wouldn't be amiss. And a good copy-edit is never wrong. Would you care to contribute? Please? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

...

• KUDOS for whomever wrote the sovereignty section. It's very interesting. I'll ref it.Sumoeagle179 21:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Henry Li of wikiproject China fame.

• • a) Ref two should maybe be split into a separate note seciton like was done with Scouting b) I looked for more refs outside the official association, but there aren't many, this could be a FAC issue c)it assuredly get pinged on something, they usually are, but will come out a better article, so much depends on who looks at it.Sumoeagle179 16:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

PS, maybe list it for a Peer Review on the SCOUTING PROJECT page, not the wiki PR page.Sumoeagle179 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello all, I've back from jamboree while you were discussing and copy-editing. Wim van Dorst, it would be interesting to have make it FAC. The article requires significant improvement to be a feature article. Some sections need to be expanded. Sumoeagle179, there're few English websites other official website as Hong Kong Scouting material is largely in Chinese and Cantonese. Here is a list of English references obtained from a book:

• Bell, M. (1985) A History of Scouting in Northern Ireland, U.K.
• Bulletin of Catholic Ladies Union, Oct., 1913
• Daily Arrowe (U.K.) 5 th August, 1929
• Daily Arrowe (U.K.) 8 th August, 1929
• Gorden, A; Brooks (Ed) (1982) 75 Years of Scouting, A History of the Scout Movement in Words and Pictures, The Scout Association, Portsmouth, U.K.
• Headquarter Gazette, Feb., 1912, The Boy Scout Association, U.K.
• Hong Kong Commissioner Report (1924) Boy Scout Association, Hong Kong Branch, H.K.
• Hong Kong Commissioner Report (1925) Boy Scout Association, Hong Kong Branch, H.K.
• Hong Kong Commissioner Report (1929) Boy Scout Association, Hong Kong Branch, H.K.
• Hong Kong Commissioner Report (1930) Boy Scout Association, Hong Kong Branch, H.K.
• Hong Kong Commissioner Report (1951) Boy Scout Association, Hong Kong Branch, H.K.
• Hong Kong Daily Press, 17th, April, 1912
• Hong Kong Standard, 13th November, 1949
• Hong Kong Scouting Gazette, Vol VII, No. 2. Feb., 1941
• Jamboree Journal (1929)
• Powell, B (1908) Scouting for Boys
• Rosenthal, M (1986) The Character Factory, Baden-Powell and the Origins of The Boy Scout Movement, Collins, U.K.
• Saunders, H. G. (1947) Left-hand Shake, Collins St. James's Place, London
• South China Morning Post, 17th April, 1912
• South China Morning Post, 6th April, 1922
• South China Morning Post, 25th June, 1954
• The Boy Scouts Association Documents, No. 026, 1773, 20661, 5699, Imperial Headquarter Registry
• The Boy Scouts Association Document, No. 2066 Scout International Relief Services

I did not sign up for any projects here, including wikiproject China. :P — HenryLi (Talk) 12:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This is getting awful close to a FAC run. What do you guys think?Rlevse 18:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think yes. There it goes. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)