Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting
Scouting Project‑class | |||||||
|
Article | Content, remarks |
---|---|
Scouting | Describes the movement of Scouting: history (founding, growth), activities one does in Scouting, organization, should cover both male (Boy Scouts and Cubs) and female (Girl Guides and Brownies), younger/older sections, international |
Scout Movement | redirect to Scouting |
Boy Scout | About the boy 11-17 years, activities he does in Scouting, Troop/Patrol, Scout Law, Motto, Uniform. Not about history, not about the organization or movement. This article should include a remark that girls may follow this line of Scouting too, instead of being a Girl Guide (Europe/World line of thinking) |
Scout | remains disambiguation page |
Girl Guide and Girl Scout | About the girl, article equivalent to Boy Scout |
Girl Guide, Girl Scout | redirect to GG&GS (US line of thinking) |
Cub Scout, Brownie (Girl Guides) | About the little boy/girl, equivalent to Boy Scout |
Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell | About the person Baden-Powell, and his personal history. Not about the Scout movement other than his input/influence. Lots of redirects here, btw. |
Boy Scouts, Girl Guides, etc | General summary pages that have see also links to other Scouting pages. Used to avoid to lead users to more indepth articles, no longer disambiguation pages due to all the confusion of different naming conventions. All other plurals redirect to the singular per Wikipedia standard, not to Scouting or a separate organization oriented article |
WOSM, WAGGGS | Articles about the current international organization. Not about the Scouting movement, history pertaining to the organization only. |
L. Ron Hubbard has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cirt (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
A project userpage side bar
The Yorkshire project has a neat sidebar that you can add to your user page. It is at {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Sidebar}}. Click here Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Sidebar to see it. Would be a good idea if we had something similar? It needs to be aligned to the right I think. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- We could use the project template: "WPScouting Navigation" or a modified version thereof. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- And upgrading that to use {{sidebar}} or {{sidebar with collapsible lists}} is on my do list. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Collapsible lists please. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- And upgrading that to use {{sidebar}} or {{sidebar with collapsible lists}} is on my do list. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Scouting Sections Infobox
I propose that we deprecate {{Scouting Sections Infobox}} in favor of {{Infobox WorldScouting}}. Only a few articles use Scouting Sections, and WorldScouting has had the Next and Previous fields for quite a while. Compare the infobox in Cub Scouts (The Scout Association) to Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Fine with me. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- {{Scouting Sections Infobox}} is no longer used. I am going to put this up for deletion. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm probably not welcome here, but...
...has there been any progress in terms of removing all of the logos that are not absolutely necessary from scouting articles? I see that one that lingered on my watchlist, Scouting in Romania, still has a non-free gallery. Is this article an oversight, or has nothing been done? J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is some progress, but this may take a while. See further up at #Scouting logos and non-free perceived overuse. Please remember that your remarks apply to some 300 articles. --jergen (talk) 18:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Gadget850 has been working on this hard, I'm sure he'll give a progress report. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- We are not doing a shotgun approach. We look at each article and image and evaluate the images. If the image is not appropriate in that article, then we look to see if there is someplace where it will properly fit and move it. If we can't fit it, then we let it go. We also update the rationales. It is a bit of a slow process, but we are working on it. A few of the articles that have been worked:
- Age groups in Scouting and Guiding: all logos removed from list
- Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America): all logos removed from list; all deleted except for a few that are used in other articles with context
- Trexler Scout Reservation: historic logos with no context and incorrect licensing removed and deleted
- There have been a lot of one off instances where a logo was used in a main article and in parent or child articles: in most cases I have deleted it from all but the main article. I have not even started to work the Scouting by country articles. I did try to search for the gallery tag in the Scouting articles a few days ago, but the server kept crapping out; I need to get back to that.
- Would you take a look at Talk:Yawgoog Scout Reservation#Segments.
- --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- None of the segments shown in Yawgoog Scout Reservation reaches the threshold of originality; they should all be retagged as public domain. --jergen (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- We are not doing a shotgun approach. We look at each article and image and evaluate the images. If the image is not appropriate in that article, then we look to see if there is someplace where it will properly fit and move it. If we can't fit it, then we let it go. We also update the rationales. It is a bit of a slow process, but we are working on it. A few of the articles that have been worked:
- I have tried to add some discussion to the logo's in the articles about nso's in former Dutch colonies, for instance: Surinaamse Padvindsters Raad does it make sense? --Egel Reaction? 18:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- A logo inherently represents the organization, thus you don't really need a critical analysis of the logo. What you really should have is content on the organization represented by the logo. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine for the article on the organisation, but the mistake is the belief that any article that mentions an organisation has some kind of right to have an image of said organisation's logo. I can see progress is being made here, so I am happy to leave you to it- I'll certainly keep an eye on how things are going and join discussions, but I'll leave you to do most of the actual removing. J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- A logo inherently represents the organization, thus you don't really need a critical analysis of the logo. What you really should have is content on the organization represented by the logo. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Your tone and your attitude are why you perceive you are not welcome here. You'd be most welcome if you'd stop talking down to us. There is no "mistake", it's a difference in interpretation. There's nothing to "leave us to", we're all grownups and even put our pants on by ourselves. We don't need anyone to "keep an eye on" anything, but thanks, daddy. Do you even understand how filled with condescension your writing is? Treat us like people and you're welcome anytime. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
asked on Jergen's talkpage, unanswered
Jergen put an awful lot of (unexplained) work into splitting Russian articles into "in exile" and "Russia", and then piped them right back to Scouting in Russia. What is the purpose of that? Is someone planning on writing the articles? I'm not, and I see no need for the split thus. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Muslim American Scouting
Has anyone ever heard of this? http://www.masscouting.org/ Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- No. It looks like something separate from BSA, like Royal Rangers. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I can't tell if this is supposed to be a separate Scouting organization or if it is a group like the National Islamic Committee on Scouting. I have added this to the todo list at Talk:Scouting in the United States for monitoring. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- According to these sources they belong to the Boy Scouts of America and Girl Scouts of America.
[1], [2], [3], [4], [5]-Yours in Scouting Phips (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
New articles
When you find or create and tag new Scouting articles, please add categories to them. You can rate them too, but I don't mind rating them. 00:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Image:Scout logo2.svg
Recently some new users have expressed that they do not feel Girl Scouts get equal time at this Project. That is both understandable and unavoidable. The vast bulk of Internet users are male and American, so unfortunately the Project has a BSA systemic bias it does not intend, just as the whole of the Wikipedia is pointed that way. However, we can be more proactive. I propose sending Image:Scout logo2.svg to the Graphic Lab to have the hollow trefoil filled in with green, so that both the boy emblem and the girl emblem have substance, bulk and texture. When I first designed the original, I didn't even think about that, I was trying to simply incorporate both emblems. Now this seems like a natural progression. Any thoughts? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have been meaning to bring that up. When we use the logo on a green background, the trefoil pretty much disappears. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
-
Symmetrical version with filled in trefoil
"eco-scouts on the coast of Black Sea"
Interesting the permutations one finds googling. http://www.eeiu.org/chapters/sevastopol/updates.html Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- See Green Scouting. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
use of WOSM photos
Do we have any sort of permission from WOSM, or how do we obtain it? I found this rogues' gallery http://www.scout.org/en/our_organisation/governance/world_committee .
- Most from WOSM site is under a Creative Commons Public License see: http://www.scout.org/en/copyright . --Egel Reaction? 16:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- WOSM excludes commercial usage in its CC License, so the material is not usable in wikipedia. --jergen (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Nav templates
I would like to standardize the way we do our navigational templates. Currently, some are mixed and a bit confusing. This is a general outline; specific changes would be discussed on the template talk pages. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Gadget850, you are THE BOMB at this stuff. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
BSAseries
- {{BSAseries}}: replace with {{Scouts BSA}} (which needs more work). BSAseries is the only template of it's type and uses a big chunk of the article space
- support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Scouting Sections
- {{Scouting Sections}}: deprecate and replace with NSO specific nav templates
- This one I don't understand what the issue is, it seems like a good one to me. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- NSOs with multiple articles should have a specific navbox. Compare the section links at the bottom of The Scout Association and Scouts Australia; the first uses Scouting Sections, the second uses the Scouts Australia navbox. I would rather use the navbox alone, as it can list more related articles. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Country and NSO templates
- Separate Scouting by country and Scouting by NSO templates:
- Scouting by country templates should include only the main article for each NSO and any regional article that cover all NSOs.
- Scouting by NSO templates should cover only the NSO, its sections, any other related content and regional articles specific to the NSO.
- Example: {{Scouts Australia}} is about Scouting in Australia; it should include only the main article for each NSO and none of the section articles; NSO templates should be created as needed
- We should examine each template and rename as needed to properly reflect the content; country templates should be renamed to Scouting in country; NSO templates should reflect the NSO name
- Example: {{Scouts Australia}} should be about the NSO; {{Scouting in Australia}} would be about the country
I disagree about Australia. Scouting is not so complex here that we need two templates. {{Scouts Australia}} is fine, but it should be renamed to {{Scouting in Australia}}. The sections are specifically called Scouts Australia Sections, and we can add the B-PSA sections as the only other organisation that exists, although on a small scale. We do need to address Guiding in Australia, but we just do not have an editor interested in it. I plan to have a review of all Oz articles soon, but I am tied up right now. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Scouting
- {{Scouting}}: this template has grown to the point where I am no longer quite sure of its purpose; it think it was supposed to show our FA and GA articles. I propose that it reflect only those articles that are international or universal.
- Remove Scouting in the US and UK; replace with their own their templates per above
- Persons and places should be those of true international importance.
- I would say Robert Baden-Powell · Olave Baden-Powell · Agnes Baden-Powell · Daniel Carter Beard ·
William D. Boyce· Frederick Russell Burnham ·George Thomas Coker·David Cossgrove·Olga Drahonowska-Małkowska·Charles Eastman·Arthur Rose Eldred· William Hillcourt ·Andrzej Małkowski· Ernest Thompson Seton ·William A. Smith·James E. West· J. S. Wilson and maybe add László Nagy (Scouting) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- I would say Robert Baden-Powell · Olave Baden-Powell · Agnes Baden-Powell · Daniel Carter Beard ·
- Merge {{IntlScoutsGuides}} into Scouting
- support Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- support but remove the other Scouting articles section as there is no clear inclusion criteria. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Brian, explain the last bit? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is a section called "Other Scouting articles" which contains Category:Scouting organizations and associations · Mafeking Cadet Corps · The Scout Association of Hong Kong · South African Scout Association · Scouts Canada. What is the criteria for inclusion? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'd take that out too. It looks like someone was just adding their pet projects, like with notable people. Poland and Hong Kong do not have global (or regional) impact. For good faith, maybe it's just that those articles were well-developed. But there's still no justification for them in the template. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Names
I am proposing some template naming standards:
- NSO specific templates should be "Scoutorg xxx", where xxx is the abbreviation; example {{Scoutorg BSA}}
- Country templates should be "Scouting in xxx" where xxx is the country; example {{Scouting in the United States}}
This will help to clarify use; for example, if {{Scouts Australia}} about the NSO or the country. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. I have been guilty of shifting the emphasis of a template without renaming it. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Specific recommendations
- {{Scouts Australia}} rename to {{Scouting in Australia}}
- {{AmScoutbystate}} merge to {{Scouting in the United States}}
- {{ScoutingUK}} rename to {{Scouting in the UK}}
- {{Scouts UK Counties}} merge to {{Scouting in the UK}}
- {{GirlguidingUK}} rename to {{tl|
- {{Scouts Canada}} rename to {{Scoutorg Scouts Canada}}
- {{Scouts Canada Provinces}} merge to {{Scoutorg Scouts Canada}}
- {{IntlScoutsGuides}} merge to {{Scouting}}
- {{BSAseries}} delete in favor of {{Scoutorg BSA}}
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 10:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Southern Region (Boy Scouts of America)
I expanded this from an absolutely non-notable section article, but upon thinking about it, there's really no way this can grow separately. What if I expanded it to Regions of the Boy Scouts of America, and included historic information about the original 12 and the later 6? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Regions and areas are administrative groups of National and are not incorporated; their notability outside of National is shaky. History can go in
Regions of the Boy Scouts of AmericaHistory of the Boy Scouts of America; really it is just we used to have 12 regions, then they merged. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)- Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Err- typo. If we only want the history, then add it to the history article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 10:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
New user page
I have a new user page, based on User:Phaedriel's. Mine is in a common Scout color motif, green and gold. Let me know what you think of it all and if you have idea's on how to fill up the body. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Cool! With the addition of purple, it looks like one of those Mardi Gras cakes. ;) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Project logo
Chris pushed for improvements to the logo:
-
Current
-
New
-
lighter
-
color-match
-
darker with fade created for us for comparison
If there are no objections, I will upload the new version over the old. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- With original name do you mean Image:Scout logo.svg or Image:Scout logo2.svg? First would make more sense but second might be more used. Whichever way we go it would only take a short time on AWB to change all pages to point to whichever name we pick. /Lokal_Profil 13:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. Scout logo2.svg is the one everything uses now, but Scout logo.svg is a better name. Do you have a working knowledge of AWB? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have AWB. Most use is in templates, so it should be an easy update. It is used a lot in
{{portal|Scouting|Scout logo2.svg}}
, but I am going to replace that with {{Scoutingportal}} so we don't have to do image updates all the time. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have AWB. Most use is in templates, so it should be an easy update. It is used a lot in
- So which name do you like? Maybe upload it over both. I think the change should be universal across wikis, for my original reasoning. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Let's go with Scout logo.svg. I just created the new portal template and will update articles. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Groovy for our Project's use, but I do think it should be put over both, anyway. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Where did Chris push for this? This is the first I heard of it. I like the old one, the one we currently have. For one thing, the green in the proposed one is too dark. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Agree about the green. Colour match them as Chris says at the top of this section but to the lighter green of the Guide symbol. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Up at #Image:Scout logo2.svg. Pay attention. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's what I get for being so busy. I can support this if the green is lightened to match the GGGS image on the right. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Aaigh, I should have kept my damn mouth shut. Why the lighter green? The image looks crisp and textured with the darker green, I was suggesting go the other way with the GGGS one. Please explain. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Throw up a version of both greens for both images. Right now the dark green looks too dominating. Or perhaps a shade in btwn the two would be best. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Scouting - Consider that we mostly use this logo at smaller sizes on a green background. I think the lighter green is going to wash out. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Ed, that's a beautiful illustration of why I think the darker green is crisper! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Infoboxes aren't green, project tag isn't green, and this proposed design only has green part way around it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The image is used in the following templates:
- {{Infobox WorldScouting}}: green background
- {{WPScouting Navigation}}: green background
- {{Scouting}}: green background
- {{ScoutConventions}}: green background
- {{Scouting WP invite}}: ivory background (used to make the trefoil stand out, but not that well, otherwise I would have just gone with all green)
- {{ScoutingWikiProject}}: buff and white backgrounds
- {{Scout-stub}}: white background
- {{Scoutingportal}}: white background
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 10:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I hesitate to get into this discussion, but these examples do seem to indicate that this use of the image promotes Scouting and underplays the Guiding part. The trefoil is hardly visible in many of them. May be we need to rethink both the images and the background to give equally weight to the symbols of both Scouting and Guiding. Apologies to the guys from the US, but I think in terms of the two movements as Scouts and Guides. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't hesitate— this applies to all of us. I think of Scouting and Guiding as different facets of the same movement, but in the U.S, we have Girl Scouts. Some ideas:
- Enlarge the trefoil as in Image:Association des Scouts et Guides du Congo.png
- Please don't hesitate— this applies to all of us. I think of Scouting and Guiding as different facets of the same movement, but in the U.S, we have Girl Scouts. Some ideas:
- That almost weights it the other direction. Because the trefoil is darker than the fleur-de-lis, it gives the visual effect of being larger anyway, which seems to be what Randy objected to. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Have the trefoil in WAGGGS blue like Image:WAGGGS.svg
- Ah, no, we intentionally made it green to 1) match with BP's colors and the Scout WP emblem, and more importantly, that would put it in copyvio territory and then we couldn't use it. Or are you saying the one with both the fdl and the trefoil? In which case, the best logos visually are bicolored, get into three and they are distracting to the eye. But we can try it. However, notice discussion and work on this at the Graphics Lab has dried up. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- I meant to color the trefoil blue instead of green.
- Ah, no, we intentionally made it green to 1) match with BP's colors and the Scout WP emblem, and more importantly, that would put it in copyvio territory and then we couldn't use it. Or are you saying the one with both the fdl and the trefoil? In which case, the best logos visually are bicolored, get into three and they are distracting to the eye. But we can try it. However, notice discussion and work on this at the Graphics Lab has dried up. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Have the trefoil in WAGGGS blue like Image:WAGGGS.svg
- Have the trefoil offset left and up with the fleur-de-lis superimposed (I have seen something like this somewhere).
- You're thinking of Switzerland. That personally looks way too corporate to me, and away from the look of the badge, which are the key components of Scouting uniforms. Many of the European and South American emblems have turned into trendy corporate numbers, which do not lend themselves to good badgework. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not side by side, but shift the trefoil to the left half the image and up by half.
- You're thinking of Switzerland. That personally looks way too corporate to me, and away from the look of the badge, which are the key components of Scouting uniforms. Many of the European and South American emblems have turned into trendy corporate numbers, which do not lend themselves to good badgework. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Have the trefoil offset left and up with the fleur-de-lis superimposed (I have seen something like this somewhere).
- note Green and yellow do not suggest Scouting so much as they suggest BP, those are the heraldic colors he chose. If we were to give it a Scouting (well, WOSM) bias, it would be purple. Yellow and green steer clear of purple and blue so as not to give any such leaning either way. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
"Scouting and Guiding as different facets of the same movement" PRECISELY. It all goes back to BP. They are not separate movements, just as BSA and TSA are not separate movements, just different facets of the crystal of the ONE movement that BP started. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
BP's colors were green and gold/yellow, that is what we should stick to, the source of it all. I simpler and more traditional the better. No corporate logo style, no cross so it won't allude to one religion. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK. How about we keep the new version of the logo and superimpose it on an ivory oval or roundel, creating a badge. That way the green trefoil does not wash out. Simple edits like this I can handle. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
What do you think? I changed the green to the WAGGGS version and added the oval. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I like the one with the ivory background. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- It just got loaded over. I will deal with this tomorrow. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Lokal Profil just created GGGSgreengold3.svg for us, I have to say I prefer the crisper, sharper coloration. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Where are we on this? An editor tagged this as "resolved", I'm not sure we are. Thoughts? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Someone overwrote the one with the ivory background, Gadget was going to fix it, that is the one I liked best. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
1- Current
2- Dark trefoil
3- Light trefoil
File:Scout logo1a.svg4- Light trefoil with oval- OK- I took the new new version and added the oval background. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- I like the ivory one. I support it. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK- I took the new new version and added the oval background. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so it looks like there's support for different variants, shall we poll, like when we created the original 2 1/2 years ago? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Knock-knock. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Which one do you like? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 00:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Knock-knock. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Scout logo poll
How long should we let the poll run? It's been 10 days now. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- 1- Current
- 2- Dark trefoil
- I prefer this one. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I like this one. DarthGriz98 04:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer this one. Egel Reaction? 10:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- my choice too. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC).
- B (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- 3- Light trefoil
- 4- Light trefoil with oval
- I prefer this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- The oval reduces the size of the visual logo. The point is to make all of the elements clear. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is clear, with the version you prefer it blends into the background, this one makes it stand out. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- The oval reduces the size of the visual logo. The point is to make all of the elements clear. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- The really dark one that you like doesn't show up at all on dark backgrounds but the one with the oval will show on all backgrounds. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Guide logo poll
How long should we let the poll run? It's been 10 days now. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- And the participation has been abyssmal. We should get more particpants. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- 1- Current- Light trefoil
- we should use the same logo for the whole project except maye for the one that is on the GGGS task force logo and for that I vote for the one they are already using. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- We only use this as a task force logo; changes should start at the task force level. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I vote for the current task force logo. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- 2- Dark trefoil
- I prefer this one. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer the darker one, it has a more depth. DarthGriz98 04:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I favour this one. Kingbird (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I also favour this one.-Phips (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Portal tags
From Wikipedia:Portal: "While the top-level portals are linked to directly from the Main Page, individual portals are linked by placing {{portal}} on a page. However, in the main namespace, these templates should not be placed in articles, but instead should be located at the top of an article's talk page, often due to being integrated into WikiProject banner templates."
We currently have the portal tag in the See also section of a lot of articles, and we have it in ((tl|Infobox WorldScouting)). Per the guideline, we should not use the portal in article pages, only on the talk page; we already have the portal in the project banner. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- GTL says or at least said, portal tags go in See also. This conflicts with the above. Even what you quoted does not say it can't be in the banner on talk pages (the portal tag). — Rlevse • Talk • 21:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- GTL still says that Wikipedia:GTL#See_also. We have a conflict of policies here. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- You are right. I have noted this at Wikipedia talk:Portal#Wikipedia:Layout conflict and Wikipedia talk:Layout/Archives/2008#Wikipedia:Portal conflict. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- GTL still says that Wikipedia:GTL#See_also. We have a conflict of policies here. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
See comment at: Wikipedia_talk:Layout#Wikipedia:Portal_conflict — Rlevse • Talk • 11:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I created {{Scoutingportal}} and replaced the old portal tags in all the articles. I also removed the portal tag from articles with the infobox and moved portals from the top of the article to the see also section or somewhere near the bottom (lots of stub articles). I probably got 98% of over 4000 articles. If we update the logo, we can now do it much more readily. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, since my request for help on this one has gone unanswered for months, what do you think of the idea of moving it to Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije, its historical name for years, and tagging it as defunct? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have looked at this a couple of times. My problem is that trying to get a sense of the relationships. Correct me if I am wrong here:
- Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije: defunct Scout organization of Yugoslavia 1951-1995 became...
- Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore: defunct Scout organization of Serbia and Montenegro 1995-2007
- Savez Izviđača Srbije: current Scout organization of Serbia
- Savez Izviđača Crne Gore: current Scout organization of Montenegro
- If Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore is the true and single successor to Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije, then leave the title at Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore and mark it as defunct, split into Savez Izviđača Srbije and Savez Izviđača Crne Gore. (That about killed my cut and paste keys)
- The thing is, because SIJ is the older, longer-period historical name, and covered all six republics at one time, it's the more historical name. Look at the long list of names at Corps of Guides (British India), yet the simplest and earliest one is where the article is parked. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- BTW- using multiple languages in the infobox header is confusing, we can add fields for alternative names used by the organization itself if needed. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- See Template:Infobox WorldScouting/testcases for an example of name labels in the template. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Did Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije rename to Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore or did it split? If it split, into what organizations? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- SIJ renamed to SISCG. SISCG split. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Chris- you are just going to do as you see fit. Yugoslavia was six republics, and it is difficult to get a sense of how the other four fit into Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije and how they split out. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 09:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
:That's unfair. You asked the question, I answered. Why the incivility?- For the question in your statement, SIJ was around at the breakup of Yugoslavia. Four new countries made their own Scouts from their local councils. The country remained "Yugoslavia" for four more years, then changed to "Serbia and Montenegro", hence the namechange. Then that split. I have tagged it as extinct as you suggested.
Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I misunderstood your meaning. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. Yugoslavia was six republics. If the changed their name to Scout Association of Serbia and Montenegro, then what happened to the other four republics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I misunderstood your meaning. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yugoslavia had only two republics between 1992 and 2003. The associations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia left the federal SIJ on 1992/93. --jergen (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
OK. Would this be correct. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Yugoslavia
1951–1995Bosnia and Herzegovina
1992Croatia
1992Macedonia
1992Slovenia
1992Serbia and Montenegro
1995–2007Serbia
2007Montenegro
2007- Make 2008 to read 2007, and it's perfect. The SISCG may have existed on paper, but functionally once Montenegro split, it was two separate orgs. Cool chart! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I also linked the NSOs. The founding years for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Macedonia do not match the infobox in the articles— any ideas? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- gulp* it's kind of a hairy mess, even when it was splitting. I will talk to contacts and try to find out. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Methinks you now understand my confusion. I recommend that we merge/redirect the defunct Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije and Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore to Scouting in Yugoslavia and add this chart. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's a great solution and one I did not think of. I'm for it. Please, then read over the text of the thing, and anything that causes you to stumble, call me on it, like we're trying to do with Vovulaky. I tried just now to fix the opening, and I update-tagged it. I want anyone who reads it to understand what has happened. To quote the great philosopher Elton John, "I guess that's why the call it the Balkans." Or maybe I made that up. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Normally I would be all for keeping notable historical NSOs, but I think this is going to be highly confusing to
the averageany reader. What text am I supposed to review? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Normally I would be all for keeping notable historical NSOs, but I think this is going to be highly confusing to
- The text of Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore. To paraphrase noted bibliophile Ed , "The article is just not clear. If it is not clear to {noted bibliophile Ed}—who have experience in Scouting outside the U.S.—then it is not going to be clear to the average reader." I wrote Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore, and I understand the basic history, so I am too close to it. I need someone to look it over who hasn't been studying this for 19 years. I started this in college, so it makes sense to me. If it doesn't to you, it needs to be fixed. I know, I know, but we can go slow, no one is screaming for its deletion or something. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK. Do you want to change the merge tag? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Some explanations and one proposal
I'll try to explain some of the questions:
- SIJ was a federal body ever since its foundation in 1953. Its members were the respective associations of Bosnia and Herzegovia, Croatia, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia; all founded in the 1950s.
- The associations of Bosnia and Hercegovia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Slovenia left SIJ in 1992/93 and became independent NSOs. All four applied successfully for WOSM membership. (Note: SIJ did not split, the dissidents were free to leave the federation.)
- SIJ continued to exist as federal body composed of the associations of Montenegro and Serbia. It was renamed to SISCG in 1995.
- SISCG as a federal body was disbanded in 2007, the associations of Montenegro and Serbia became independent NSOs. Serbia kept all rights within WOSM while Montenegro had to apply for WOSM membership.
Hope this helps. Piet Kroonenberg needs about 50 pages in The Undaunted vol. 1 for the explanation of Yugoslav Scouting prior to 1994/95; I can't see how this will ever fit in a single article ;)
Some proposals concerning the articles:
- Scouting in Yugoslavia should give an overview of the situation.
- Savez Skauta Kraljevine Jugoslavije should deal with the Scouting history until WW II, since it had a completly different structure than SIJ, not to mention the later communist influences on SIJ.
- Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije should deal with Scouting in Yugoslavia between 1945/46 and 2005, including SISCG.
- Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore should redirect to Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije.
- The articles on the six NSOs of 2008 should mention the formar affiliation to SIJ as well as some core informations on the organizational history.
Comments? I strongly recommend Piet's book as main source for the articles. --jergen (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like Savez Izviđača Jugoslavije renamed to Savez Izviđača Srbije i Crne Gore for a short time, so that is OK. You know how it works; you made the proposal so you get to do it. Just make sure the relationships are clear. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I tried to organize the Yugoslav questions on User:Jergen/workshop/Scouting in Yugoslavia. --jergen (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
These two new stubs are not notable and are likely to be quickly deleted. I have transfered the material that is appropriate to Scouting in East of England#Essex and notified the editor. I await his response. I do not think anything more needs to be done for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've deleted them as merged. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Guiding 2010 Centenary
Per Kingbird, WAGGGS member associations are starting to make announcements about their 2010-2012 centenary celebrations. We should start an article like the Scouting one. For matching naming, I propose Guiding 2010 Centenary . Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
- Since Guides naming started before Girl Scout naming, I support that for a simpler title's sake. Overall great idea. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
problem articles
Hawk Mountain Camp and Oreland Boy Scout Troop 1 have serious issues and may not meet true criteria for notability. Ed has been monitoring these, but a user keeps removing the housekeeping tags. I hate to be drastic, but would putting these up for AfD help to break the problem down? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ed and I have discussed this. AFD them. If he removes the AFD tags, he'll be blockable for disruption with this history. Post diffs of the removals on the talk pages of the two articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I had been trying to give the concerned editors time to fix the articles, but there appears to be no action other than removing the merge and notability tags. I anticipate that I will take these to AfD. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pls afd and let me know the links. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I had been trying to give the concerned editors time to fix the articles, but there appears to be no action other than removing the merge and notability tags. I anticipate that I will take these to AfD. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Camp Onway
What do we do with Camp Onway? This is a former camp of the Yankee Clipper Council that is now owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I asked over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement if they wanted to take it over, but there has been no response. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- Apply same standards as our other camp articles. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Permission granted to use material on http://n2zgu.50megs.com/INDEX%20SAW.htm relating to World Scouting
Hi, I'm working with WP:OTRS. I'm a scouter myself, just I don't have much time to get involved with this project. However I'm here to confirm that we have permission to use the content of that site that relates to World Scouting.
Specifically from the email: "There is no copyright on any of the material. I release all the material to be used for the public good." You guys can consider that no rights reserved or public domain.
As the material on this site may affect more then one article I'm asking for ideas on how we can make it clear that using this material is not a copyright infringement, but it is clear why material is copied from that site to wikipedia should someone ask. We generally affix {{PermissionsOTRS|id=2008092910033111}} (that is the ticket ID for this ticket) to the talk page of articles with a short explaination of what the ticket covers. I've already told you guys what it covers, just ideas on how to make it clear on multiple articles are welcome.... perhaps a template "article encorporates text from blah blah" or similar is worth thought. —— nixeagle 19:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- The first section I checked at http://n2zgu.50megs.com/YUGO.htm seems to have content that is a duplicate of http://www.pinetreeweb.com/yugohome.htm; specifically "A Brief History of Savez Izvidjaca Jugoslavije". Sampling shows that the last updates were in 1999. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- How do we know it wasn't copied the other direction? Issues such as these need worked. But for material with no issues, just affix the tag nixeagle showed to the talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Small National Scouting and Guiding organisations
As noted on the main page of the Project, Girl Scouts of Jamaica is at AfD, I have supported there the merge to Scouting in Jamaica. However, this raises some general issues about articles on individual National Scouting organisations, particularly for small countries. The Girl Guides Association of Jamaica is a stub. The Scout Association of Jamaica is rather longer although I suspect the history section may have been lifted from somewhere. Increasingly I have come to the view that we should just have one article and cover all NSOs in the country for situations like this where that is manageable. I would strongly urge that the name of the article should be "Scouting and Guiding in Jamaica" (in this case), where the term Guiding is used, as the term "Scouting" is not always understood to include "Guiding". This could also apply at State level in some countries. We are close to that in Australia, just needing to add about Guiding in each state article. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- You put up a number of different questions, each of them needs IMO a seperate discussion. So I'll try to split this. --jergen (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Scouting and Guiding" implies it's two movements but it's not, it all came from BP. The earliest troops had girls tagging along as they wanted in on the fun but mores of the time caused them to form their own troops. It's one movement. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Small organizations
Articles about small organizations put up a number of problems:
- Notability: "National" organizations with a small number of units do not meet the notability criteria as described in WP:GROUP#Non-commercial organizations ie their activities have mostly regional scope even when these organizations claim national scope.
- Sources: WP:GROUP#Primary criteria requests independent secondary sources. This is even a problem with the smaller members of WAGGGS and WOSM - even the publications of these international bodies can be seen as self-published: They are mainly composed of material provided by the respective member organizations.
- Conflicts of interest: If you have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl Scouts of Jamaica or similar debates, you can see that most statements adopt something I'd call a "WikiProject Scouting point of view", saying nearly everything in Scouting is notable and should be presented at some place in Wikipedia. This POV is something apart from the Wikipedia:Five pillars, especially from WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
So what can we do with the stubs on small organizations:
- Including stubs in the overviews could be seen as a bias towards WOSM and its members since there are far more stubs on Guiding than on Scouting organizations.
- We could lay back and wait for the expansion of the stubs. This would be the Wikipedia way, but I've little hope that it works in this specialiced field.
- We could start article drives, eg sorted by continents.
Just my thoughts. --jergen (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Merging to the larger article is prob best as we don't seem to be able to get enough people working on our articles for the long term to support the other options. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree that these small groups should be automatically deleted, where suitable information is available to provide a full article. Using this policy blindly over the whole of Wikipedia would delete the majority of content from several projects. For an immediate example, few of the museums listed on Wikipedia can be considered to claim national scope. None of the heritage railways can. It would be also hard to justify a lot of the military history content.
- I know that we disagree on this, but I feel that all associations, whether WOSM or not, have an equal right to placement here - provided that there is third-party referenced. If they are a one-group association, the article should state this - but the content should still be made available on Wikipedia for those interested in research. What would be the minimum size before an Association were permitted to have an entry?
- I do feel that, where there is insufficient information for a full article, short entries on the appropriate "Scouting in ..." page is a better idea until information can be gathered is better than a stub entry, but that is as far as I would be willing to go. DiverScout (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I did not propose automatic deletion, did I? I pointed to some problems, where IMO the procedures and rules of WikiProject Scouting contradict the general rules on en.wp. This may look like an exclusionist point of view, but you should remember that I started contributing first on de.wp which has very strict rules concerning notability and sources.
- Museums, heritage railways and military history can not be compared with associations; if you would have had a look at WP:GROUP you would know that this notability guideline does not rule them. So put them away. We are not discussing them.
- For me, an association can reach notability by age, size, media coverage or historical impact. "Size" is the most difficult of these criteria and should be seen in relation with the country's population (eg the Association des Guides et Scouts de Monaco is notable because it is the only organization in Monaco and the country has only a very small population; a German organization of the same size would not be notable). --jergen (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, you didn't this time - and I didn't accuse you of it this time either. I simply used my right to express an opinion on this open-source media. Luckily, from the sound of it, this is not de.wp. so I stand by my comments. Oh, and please don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument. I can play the same game, but it's not appropriate to the spirit of Wikipedia.
- With reference to the tiny German associations, although I'd agree that "single troop" types would never have enough information for their own article, perhaps they ought to have a listing, or even a paragraph entry on the Scouting in Germany page where third-party reference exists. DiverScout (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Copyright concerns
We have a lot of copyright problems. Bduke mentions The Scout Association of Jamaica: The history section was recently copied from [6]. Yesterday, I came upon Scouts Australia, also with a copyvio since its very first version in December 2004. I think we need something like a taskforce to check all articles tagged with mid importance or higher to avoid further problems. This problem is far more pressing than the fair use of images: If we loose an image, we still have text informations; but if an article is deleted as copyvio, all information is lost. --jergen (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Same basic response as above, probably only the regulars would end up on the task force, but yes, this needs fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tell me on my talk page what the Scouts Australia's copyvio problem is and I'll try to fix it. I have not time this week however. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think all of us are just going to have to do our best. If I suspect copyvio, I remove the offending content and note the source in the edit summary. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Tell me on my talk page what the Scouts Australia's copyvio problem is and I'll try to fix it. I have not time this week however. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Same basic response as above, probably only the regulars would end up on the task force, but yes, this needs fixed. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
"Scouting and Guiding in ..." instead of "Scouting in ..."
I'm with you that "Scouting and Guiding in ..." is far better for most countries. But there is one problem: Actually we use Template:Europe topic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) etc for navigation in most of the national overviews. These templates require a systematic approach to article names. If we change only a part of the articles to "Scouting and Guiding in ...", we have to stop using these templates or to create lots of redirects or to develop new templates of our own.
If I could decide, I'd move all articles to "Scouting and Guiding in ...", but I fear that this could be seen as unappropriate especially by US editors. --jergen (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- "Scouting and Guiding" implies it's two movements but it's not, it all came from BP. The earliest troops had girls tagging along as they wanted in on the fun but mores of the time caused them to form their own troops. It's one movement. THis basic topic comes up from time to time as it did when we were formed and the consensus decision as always been to leave it just Scouting. It is ONE movement not two. And the US is not the only country that has Girls Scout (as opposed to Guides). Japan, Thailand and other countries do too. Jergen's point about the articles and templates having consistent naming is a good one too. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not think we can have a standard usage here. Where the term "Girl Scout" is used, "Scouting" is fine and covers everything, but the situation is quite different in countries that use the term Guide. This is particular true in those countries, mostly English speaking, that really have one dominant Scout organisation and one dominant Guide organisation. If you use the term "Scouting" in the UK or Australia, nobody, just nobody, would think you were including Guiding. It really would be a good idea to add information about Guiding to the State and Territory articles here in Australia, but it just can not happen if the names are still like "Scouting in Victoria" and not "Scouting and Guiding in Victoria". It would be misleading people. Some people too would think it was male dominance. It is one movement, but it not called the Scout Movement (if you want to include Guiding) in UK and Australia. It is called the Scout and Guide movement. Also we should not be driven by template structure. The template Jergen mentions already has trouble with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scouting in England is a redirect to Scouting in the United Kingdom. The others are articles in their own right on Scouting (not Guiding) in an EU approved region of the UK. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Bduke ist right on this - and it is not only a UK/Australia question. Most female members of the merged European organizations would rather say "I'm a (Girl) Guide" than "I'm a Scout" when using English even when their native languages have no distinction for the genders in Scouting. --jergen (talk) 12:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- How about:
- For regional articles where there are Scouts and Guides, then we change the name to "Scouting and Guiding in..."
- For regional articles where only Scout is used, leave the article name at "Scouting in..."
- Templates should be changed to match
- I had only recently noticed the use of topic templates such as
{{Europe topic|Scouting in}}
. I was already planning to propose a master Scout topic template to incorporate all of these.
- I created {{Scout continent}}. If needed, we can copy any of the continent topic templates to a template subpage and customize it.
- That leaves our prime Scouting article: should this be renamed?
- --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- How about:
For the Girl Guides in the UK it is important that it is not one movement and that there are two movements. I remember the discussions, talks and votes on the ISGF World Conference in Vienna and the position of the Trefoil Guild UK.-Phips (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- And so they deny that it all sprang from BP or what? The first Girl Scouts/Guides were tagalongs. And our main article Scouting nor our project should not be renamed. It all sprang from the same roots. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not often criticize our coordinator but I do really think that you are looking at it from the US prospective where the term "Guide" is not used. Let us look at the articles from the UK that refer to real Scout/Guide cooperation. We have Scout and Guide Graduate Association, Student Scout and Guide Organisation, Oxford University Scout and Guide Group and National Scout and Guide Symphony Orchestra. I have been associated with the first three of these and I can tell you the Guides would have had our guts for garters if we had not included "and Guide" in the name. It is not a question of whether we are two movements or one, nor is it anything to do with history. It is simply that the term "Scouting" is not generally understood to also include "Guiding" in places where the original girls organisation is called Guides and not Scouts. We have to go along with how words are understood, even if it is messy with no one solution that fits all. I am not, BTW, agreeing with international articles such as Scouting being renamed. I think we can explain things in the article. However, we can not do this in articles like Scouting in Scotland if we included Guiding there and we should be renaming Scouting in the United Kingdom to Scouting and Guiding in the United Kingdom. The original girls organisation was never called Scouts. I think I am prepared to go along with Ed, but I'm too busy this week to look at all the ramifications of it. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am in general agreement with Bduke. Kingbird (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am in general agreement with Bduke, too.-Phips (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- As above. Bduke is correct. DiverScout (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Somebody just uploaded a cool new picture to this article, and added that a previous editor had stuck in kind of a resume-can someone with a fresh pair of eyes help rewrite that stuff into an article? Thanks, Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've made a start but it still needs more work. Hoping someone else will contribute too. Kingbird (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you so much! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Templates
A number of templates have been created or merged recently. Please browse through WP:S-tmp to review these.
A very recent Scouting template is {{Scout continent}}. This replaces {{Europe topic}} and related templates, and will allow us to customize these as needed.
{{Infobox WorldScouting}} now has name label parameters. These may be used for officially used translations or for alternative legal names.
I have also created a new quote template: {{Quote2col}}. This allows for quoted content in two columns and should be useful where text may be presented in original and translated versions, such as Scout Promise.
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Image issues (again)
I have started listing problems with images at WP:SCOUT. I am doing a quick pass through a lot of articles and listing the issues as I see them. I am not checking the image rationales or sources. There are thousands of articles, so my hope is that my fellow editors can look in depth and resolve the issues at hand. Because of the way I am doing this, there will be false positives, and I will miss some issues. Let me categorize the issues I have seen:
- Postal stamps and covers. Non-free images of this type must have explicit related content on the issuance of the stamp or cover; they cannot be used as simple illustrations. In some cases, they seem to be used to prove the existence of an historical group; in my opinion, this is not a reliable source. If the image is truly free, then it may be used freely.
- Historical images. Non-free images of this type must have explicit related content. If the image is truly free, then it may be used freely.
- Articles with problem image galleries or using non-free logos as list icons. These articles are generally lists type articles with no associated content. For example: Israel Boy and Girl Scouts Federation shows the emblems of the organizations within the federation, but other than the list, there is no related content. We need to expand the article to include content on each of those organizations and move the logo to the appropriate section, or delete the logos. Another example: Scouting in Australia; this is an easy fix: the first four logos are redundant as they are already in the related article, the fourth needs to be moved to the article Scouts of Australia.
I know this is not a popular subject, but we need to police ourselves. As concerned editors work these issues, simply strike them from the list. I have worked the country articles for Africa and Asia and will continue to slog through the rest. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Let me clarify another issue. Even if an image is free, it can be used, but should
still needs tohave some sort of context. Some of these images give the impression they were just stuffed into the article. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC) (comment revised)
- Let me clarify another issue. Even if an image is free, it can be used, but should
Example
- Could you please have a look at Føroya Skótaráð and check if this solution [7] is acceptable? I just want to check with an example before starting. --jergen (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- The logo's need some discussion.
- FH -> Salvation Army Scouts/LIFE SAVING SCOUTS -> buoy [8]
- KFUM Skótarnir I Føroyum -> YMCA/YWCA triangle + lily
- etc. see for example Surinaamse Padvindsters Raad --Egel Reaction? 09:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- If I understand Wikipedia:Logos right there is no need to discuss a logo. This guideline states that an organizational logo is very similar to an individual's portrait - and portraits are not discussed even if they are non-free.
- However, the meaning of a logo would be a helpful information for the reader; but there should be a reliable source for the interpretation. Otherwise the interpretation could be deleted as original research even if it is common sense as in Surinaamse Padvindsters Raad. --jergen (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Logos is about the logo of the main subject of the article and only in that case there is no need for discussion. You can use a logo for identification of the article. When you want to use multiple logo's you have to follow: WP:Fair_use#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. A strict interpretation gives: "multiple logo's can't be used", a free as possible interpretation gives: "only logo's that are discussed can be used". --Egel Reaction? 11:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- I do not interpret Wikipedia:Logos as restricted to the main subject - where is this mentioned in the guideline? As long as this is not proven I'll refrain from inserting trivial explanations as proposed by Egel. --jergen (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Current logos may be include in the main article on a subject, and do not have to be discussed in detail as they inherently describe the organization. The policies and guidelines do not cover historical logos. Let's try a little common sense here: free or non-free, if we include an historical logo, there must be some reason for doing so. Examples:
- Bandalag íslenskra skáta: What makes the "historic badge" important to the article?
- History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America): This is full of historical images, but each has related content.
- Also: note that I am not just going around deleting all of these images. I am listing the issues I see and giving everyone a chance to fix them. I have gone through all the Scouting in Africa, Asia and Europe articles; I am going to take a strategic pause here. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 12:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- First: The only use mentioned in the guideline is "in the infobox of articles". Second: When you use Wikipedia:Logos on multiple logo's, it starts to contradict guidelines with a higher priority and policies. --Egel Reaction? 12:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Current logos may be include in the main article on a subject, and do not have to be discussed in detail as they inherently describe the organization. The policies and guidelines do not cover historical logos. Let's try a little common sense here: free or non-free, if we include an historical logo, there must be some reason for doing so. Examples:
- I do not interpret Wikipedia:Logos as restricted to the main subject - where is this mentioned in the guideline? As long as this is not proven I'll refrain from inserting trivial explanations as proposed by Egel. --jergen (talk) 11:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Logos is about the logo of the main subject of the article and only in that case there is no need for discussion. You can use a logo for identification of the article. When you want to use multiple logo's you have to follow: WP:Fair_use#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. A strict interpretation gives: "multiple logo's can't be used", a free as possible interpretation gives: "only logo's that are discussed can be used". --Egel Reaction? 11:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- The logo's need some discussion.
Images and NPOV
As far as I understand WP:NPOV applies also to the illustrations of articles. We should also bear in mind that an illustration is an eye catcher, it is one of the first things most of the users remark when calling up an article. This means that we can not go on and just remove only the images from articles like Scouting in France that are in use in other articles. If we would act this way, we would put undue weight on secondary or tertiary organizations, some of them non-notable in the terms of Wikipedia. --jergen (talk)
- If the organization is not notable enough for an article, then is it notable enough to include the logo? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- In my opinion: No. There is no need to show the emblems of non-notable groups. But that is only my opinion, this [9] shows that other users have a different sight. --jergen (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- WP:NFC says under Unacceptable use, Images: "5. An image to illustrate an article passage about the image, if the image has its own article (in which case the image may be described and a link provided to the article about the image)" As far as I understand you must read this for logo's as "A logo of a organisation to illustrate an article passage about the organisation, if the organisation has its own article"
- We must take two steps: first, we must remove the non-free images from articles like Scouting in France that are in use in other articles. Second, we must look at the remaining images if we want to use them and in which way.
I personally think the undue weight put on secondary or tertiary organizations in the "Scouting in ..." articles is no problem because it is compensated in the articles about the primary organizations. The total Wikipedia must have a NPOV.edit:can't be "compensated" in this way- --Egel Reaction? 14:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- No, it is not only Wikipedia as a whole needing neutrality. Each and every article has to be written taking a neutral point of view. As this is on of the five pillars of Wikipedia, this is one of the very few questions that we can not discuss or even overrule. --jergen (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
new website all of a sudden dead
Does anyone know how to retrieve a cached copy of a website? The Zimbabwe Scouts seem to have a new logo, which I found at http://www.zimscouts.co.zw/ but did not save a copy, now it says the site is gone. Help? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- No copy at archive.org. I can't find a Whois for Zimbabwe , so I can't see the registration. There is a Google cache,[10] but no graphics. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- The site is live again. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Image:--ScoutsChris3.jpg
Would anyone know when the badge in Image:--ScoutsChris3.jpg started to be used by Scouts Canada? Or who created it? If so, please do update the image page. Many thanks! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to know where the fact it's still copyrighted was found. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- See dual thread on this on mine and White Cat's talk pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Scout and Guide logo polls (how do we proceed?)
Okay, we gave the polls 10 more days to get more member participation, with moderate results, it's coming up on that 10-day mark, how do we proceed? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- What are the results? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The results are:
- Scout logo poll
- 6 votes for #2- Dark trefoil
- 2 votes for #4- Light trefoil with oval
- 1 member comment without vote
- Guide logo poll
- after one vote switched, all 7 votes for #2- Dark trefoil
- I think after a month or more from when we started, that's all the participation we can expect. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then let's close this and go over to the dark side. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I also recommend that we rename these to logical names such as "WP Scouting logo" and "Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting task force logo". --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Then let's close this and go over to the dark side. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Please vote at the polls below. These polls will close November 20, 2008:
Okay, it's coming up on that 10-day mark, how do we proceed? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The image is used in the following templates:
- {{Infobox WorldScouting}}: green background
- {{WPScouting Navigation}}: green background
- {{Scouting}}: green background
- {{ScoutConventions}}: green background
- {{Scouting WP invite}}: ivory background (used to make the trefoil stand out, but not that well, otherwise I would have just gone with all green)
- {{ScoutingWikiProject}}: buff and white backgrounds
- {{Scout-stub}}: white background
- {{Scoutingportal}}: white background
1- Current
2- Dark trefoil
3- Light trefoil
File:Scout logo1a.svg4- Light trefoil with ovalScout logo poll
-
1- Current
-
2- Dark trefoil
-
3- Light trefoil
-
4- Light trefoil with oval
- 1- Current
- 2- Dark trefoil
- I prefer this one. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I like this one. DarthGriz98 04:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer this one. Egel Reaction? 10:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- my choice too. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC).
- jergen (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- B (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- 3- Light trefoil
- 4- Light trefoil with oval
- I prefer this one. Number 2 won't show up on dark backgrounds. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I vote for this one. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no strong views between 2 and 4, which are clearly the front runners anyway. However, if 4 is selected I would prefer the green to be the same dark green as 2. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Guide logo poll
-
1- Current- Light trefoil
-
2- Dark trefoil
- 1- Current- Light trefoil
:I vote for the current task force logo. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)- 2- Dark trefoil
- I prefer this one. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I prefer the darker one, it has a more depth. DarthGriz98 04:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I favour this one. Kingbird (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- I also favour this one.-Phips (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I switch to this one. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- jergen (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. This one is best. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Closed. Though renaming is good in theory, four other language Wikis and some 20 other language articles use the logos we create here. What that will do is actually create more logos/names/whatever out there. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I propose we overwrite some of the redundant/obsolete ones, and pick the shortest/least cumbersome name for the main one. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Your previous statement implies that by changing the original logo, we are imposing our views on the other projects. Seems to me that they should be informed and allowed to choose their own version. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 16:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, wasn't trying to do that, just was seeking uniformity throughout, like all Wikis use the disambiguation arrows and so on. If you can speak Polish, please let them know. ;) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, have tagged talk pages at four Projects and nine portals with " Scout and Guide logos redesigned
- The Scouting WikiProject has redesigned and chosen two new logos, with crisp coloration, bulk and texture, and with the hollow trefoil for the WikiProject logo filled in with green, so that both the boy emblem and the girl emblem have substance.
- Image:Scout logo3.svg|new WikiProject logo
- Image:GGGSgreengold3.svg|new Guide taskforce logo "
- Bueno? Now how do we change over? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have updated the templates, userboxes and a few other uses. I will update Image:CopyrightScoutlogo.svg. After the server indexes catch up, I double check for other uses of the old logos. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just as I predicted, this looks fine on light backgrounds but terrible on ones like these here: James_E._West_(Scouting)#External_links — Rlevse • Talk • 01:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have updated the templates, userboxes and a few other uses. I will update Image:CopyrightScoutlogo.svg. After the server indexes catch up, I double check for other uses of the old logos. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse at Arb elections
Our lead coord, Rlevse, is running for arbitrator. Editors who wish to vote for or against candidates may do so at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote. Five persons will get 3-year spots on Arbcom (the normal term) plus two more who will get one-year spots due to early resignations. Posted in the same vein as the admin notices. JGHowes talk 21:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
CNJC reassessment
Hello, I was just wondering if I could get a reassessment on the importance level of Central New Jersey Council. I recently gave it a very significant clean up and believe that it could be upgraded from low to mid-level importance. Thanks for taking the time to look. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Importance levels will not be reassessed for single articles without exceptional conditions (eg for councils: very high impact on national Scouting). Importance levels were decided some times ago (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Assessment#Importance scale).
- But we can reassess the class. The article is currently at least C-class, so I'll change the assessment. --jergen (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- BTW: We should review our rating system; the importance scale does not seem consistent (eg: District articles have the same importance as smaller national organizations.) and is certainly not up-to-date with our policies concerning sub-national topics. Further on, we should review and reassess all Scouting articles: Many articles are expanded or merged but not reassessed. Perhaps our next collaboration? --jergen (talk) 10:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Jergen's upgrade to C class is fine, no problem there. Importance levels was done soon after we formed the project and it's rare there'd be a valid reason to change one. However, I do agree there are some inconsistencies that have crept in. One reason is people have an understandable bias towards their own country. Jergen also hints at a good question, is a large district more with thousands of Scouts and lots of long history more or less important than national organization of a small country with only a few hundred Scouts? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I only asked for a reassessment of the importance level because it's implied that such a request is allowed. In your "Requesting an assessment or re-assessment" section on the Assessment page, there is nothing that says importance levels will not be reassessed. I suggest you take that into consideration and think about clarifying that on the page. I also agree that you need to rethink your ratings system. If councils that do not have an impact on a national level are not reassessed into the mid-level importance, then I also suggest you clarify that as well. Currently, it says "articles on the regional or local level within all countries (councils, districts, counties, states, provinces, etc)" are part of the mid-level importance. Quite frankly, that whole page is rather unclear. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- IMO, all articles on sub-national structures are of low importance. These articles do not contribute to the general understanding of Scouting and contain mostly the same informations (founded, merged, runs the cambs A, B and C, has a honor society). We have a lot of these articles thanks to the overweight of US-editors but I would not miss any of them. --jergen (talk) 22:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Jergen on this, though some of the sub-national articles are well-written and even visually striking, it doesn't change their low impact and importance on Scouting as a whole. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not telling you that it should be of higher importance or anything. I'm not here to try to change how you guys do things. What I'm saying is that your assessment information is incredibly misleading. In the chart on the assessment page next to Mid-level importance, it says "articles on the regional or local level within all countries (councils, districts, counties, states, provinces, etc)....fall into this category". You guys are now saying that councils actually fall into the low-level importance category. If that's true, then your chart is incorrect and requires clarification. - Brandon Rhea (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's a great solution and one I did not think of. I'm for it. Please, then read over the text of the thing, and anything that causes you to stumble, call me on it, like we're trying to do with Vovulaky. I tried just now to fix the opening, and I update-tagged it. I want anyone who reads it to understand what has happened. To quote the great philosopher Elton John, "I guess that's why the call it the Balkans." Or maybe I made that up. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- Up at #Image:Scout logo2.svg. Pay attention. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)