Talk:High Adventure Bases of the Boy Scouts of America
|WikiProject Scouting||(Rated B-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 "To Do List" item on defunct BSA High Adventure Bases
- 2 Title
- 3 Schiff
- 4 Good enough to get out?
- 5 Nice Picture Fix
- 6 Time to Go Live?
- 7 Significant Source on Region 7 Section
- 8 Time to go Live?
- 9 Should I Expand Descriptions in/on References?
- 10 Time to Go Live?
- 11 Drop the top level template?
- 12 Better as a list?
- 13 New Contributions to Maine High Adventure Section
- 14 Title for Region 7 Canoe Base / Northern Wisconsin National Canoe Base
- 15 Paul R. Christen National High Adventure Base
- 16 External links modified
"To Do List" item on defunct BSA High Adventure Bases
(this section pasted in from Wikipedia Scouting Project ToDo article discussion section)
An item on the "to do " list is: "Defunct BSA High Adventure bases: National High Adventure bases such as Maine, Land Between the Lakes, Region 7 Canoe Base."
And I wrote in: "I could do most of a Region 7 article (though the base has had 2 names) Or should it be one article for all defunct BSA HA bases?"
There was no response.....I probably wrote it in the wrong place. I have a lot of expertise/knowledge on the Region 7 base. My article would be a little heavy on OR vs. sources, (and I would put it into the main article space that way) but I don't mind taking the risk of dealing with that issue. But, to take it on, I would like some reading on notability from this group before I started, and thus support on notability in the event that I proceed and a notability issue arises. And a reading on advisability and notability of a Region 7 article specifically, vs. a "Defunct BSA High Adventure bases" which I could also start where the initial content would primarily be just on the one base.
What do y'all think? North8000 (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
As you see from the section right above, there is little discussion here. Being from Oz, I have no knowledge of these bases. However, I suggest you add material to some other Scouting article - State, Council, Region or whatever. Then if discussion starts on the talk page you can argue for forking it off into a separate article. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Where in Australia is OZ? We know how to get there from Kansas via a tornado, but that's about it. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree: start it in one of those articles and see how it grows. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine except that I can't find a place for it. Current BSA high adventure bases each have their own article. The main BSA article is overly brief in proportion to it's huge scope (100 year old multimillion person organization) and doesn't even have a high adventure bases section. And the task of a Wikipedian grade summary of other current and past BSA high adventure bases is beyond my time limitations.
Plan A: The best idea I can come up with is a new "BSA High Adventure Bases" article with very brief summaries on the current ones with links to the Wikipedia articles, then a section on past ones, with real coverage of Region 7, and mentions of the other defunct ones. Presumably the summaries of the current ones and the other defunct ones would grow over time at which point the "BSA High Adventure Bases" would become a good article.
It wasn't really a high adventure base. But it was in a very small club (like only 1 or 2 beyond high adventure bases) of "national camps". I lean towards putting it in anyway, but noting that it was not actually a high adventure base. North8000 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC).
Good enough to get out?
At what point is this article "good enough" to be out there amongst the rest of the wikipedia pages? I think it is there or very close to there now, and suggest moving it to its own page. More edits will obviously happen, as that is a goal of wikis, but all the main details are there. - IanCheesman (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking that myself, that it should be launched soon. But.....
- I have to fix the scrambled wording on Land between the Lakes.
- I'm uncomfortable with the "defunct" word. I know that it's correct by it's definition, but in the USA it has negative connotations beyond it's official meaning. If I remember, someone changed it to this and so I thought I'd mention it here first in the discussion section. North8000 (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Nice Picture Fix
Nice fix on the picture
When I took it I was wrestling with what to do with the graphics beinng at a different angle than the patch border. And so I went with aligning it to graphics. You chose the better solution which was the "average" of the two. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. See Category:Boy Scouts of America logos for some simple rules and a handy upload link. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'm still learning my way around Wikipedia regarding images. I think I learned that they want to make "fair use" so difficult in order to force everybody to use other use-rationale categories where they give up all useful rights to their work. Which I'm happy to do with a picture I took. But all of the other stuff I have yet to learn. What really mystifies me is why they consider jpg to be a less preferred format. North8000 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
- Use the upload link for national logos; the council subcat has a link to upload council/lodge/camp logos. JPG is good for photos, but PNG is more efficient for logo type images. PNG supports a transparent background which means the off-white shading in infoboxes does not contrast with the white background of the image. IfI can fix pretty much any image that needs cleanup. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Time to Go Live?
I'm done with my main initial work. (unless there are issues)
I think that the title should be per Gadget850's recommendation.
I thought I'd throw this question out and wait a week for thoughts: Time to go live?
If so, who should put it up?
- Any thoughts? If not, I'd move it to main article space in 1-2 weeks. North8000 (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The lede is wrong. It should start "BSA High Adventure Bases are .." Perhaps "BSA High Adventure Bases are high adventure facilities operated by the Boy Scouts of America at the national or regional level." I'm not sure about how to explain this is also about past bases. BTW, "Oz" is just an abbreviation for Australia. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- Well, we took out the "scope" statement out from the lead. A "plan B" could be to just consider "past and present" to naturally fall under bases, and let it play out as with any article. Or, find a way to insert "past and present" into one of the sentences in the lead. The other challenge is how to have the lead not conflict with this via making "current tense" statements about the overall subject of the article. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
- High Adventure Bases would be lower case here, since the phrase does not refer to any particular one. The cites need to be cleaned up (I did the R7 Canoe Base). More references would be nice for the defunct bases. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I tried for more references on the KY and Maine bases. That was all I could find without making a life out of it. Regarding closed bases, don't forget that my expertise/resources regarding closed bases / where I started on this was Region 7. I just did my best on the other 2 closed ones. There are probably people out there who have more expertise/resources on the other 2. Maybe they would emerge when it is put up.
- We should take some time to implement the other feedback from y'all before we put it up.
- The referencing is standard for Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners with citation templates. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Significant Source on Region 7 Section
I got a lot of additional information and knowledge material from Bruce Richardson's Region 7 Web site. He has put a huge amount of work into it. I want to make sure to credit (reference) his work fully and prominently. I have used / credited his site on one top level reference and one deep (on particular history item) reference. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Time to go Live?
I think that I'm about done for now. Not that it can't be expanded / improved over time. How 'bout everybody else?
Should I Expand Descriptions in/on References?
I was thinking of expanding descriptions on the references that I put in, but then thought that maybe this would be wrong, particularly since I know gadget850 has worked on some of them. For example, wherever the reference is a web site or section of a web site to say so, when it's a magazine to say so etc. Or would this be contrary to the norms? North8000 (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Time to Go Live?
Time to go live? And if so, what's next? No big hurry, but from my end I'm pretty much done for now.
And after that the Main BSA article has zero on high adventure bases. My thought would be a 2-3 sentence section in there on high adventure bases with internal links to this article plus the individual articles on the current high adventure bases.
- Looks like the title should be "High-adventure bases of the Boy Scouts of America". See http://bsajamboree.org/scoutsource/Media/LOS/All/H.aspx for the hyphenation rule. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Gadget850. I would tend to think the other way. I'm thinking that it was just a bit loosely written, and that the practice is no hyphen when referring to such bases, not just when it is narrowed to one base. The strongest statement I see that way is the first sentence on the main high adventure base page of the official BSA web site ".....at one of the BSA's High Adventure™ Bases" http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HighAdventure.aspx
To jell where we're at on this
I propose that sometime during the last week of April or the first week of May that Gadget850 or me moves this into main article space under the title "High adventure bases of the Boy Scouts of America" North8000 (talk) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Drop the top level template?
I think we should drop the top level template on this regarding source types, with several thoughts leading to this. First, as far as I can see, the "affiliated with" is template wording and not policy. Most importantly, the provided sources are reliable with respect to the material which uses them. BSA is a decentralized multi-million person organization. I don't think it useful to categorically classify writings from any element of it about any other element of it as being primary to too close too constitute a reliable source, particularly for the nature of material in the article. The material in here is mostly detailed, uncontested facts of the type that outside media is not prone to covering. And certainly within the realm where primary sources are fine. Any issues can be addressed individually, IMHO it does not need or benefit from such a template sitting at the top of the article page forever. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 11:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Without delving too deeply, I think most of the sources already in the article are reliable and there is nothing wrong with having them there (except for maybe what are in the current version at footnotes 2, 7, and 8 which seem to be unofficial, self-published websites). But several policies and guidelines make clear the preference to also have RS's that are third-party sources, including notability (which I don't question, but still needs to be shown via third-party sources to reach GA status) and avoiding giving undue weight to an institution's own discussion of itself. For more on the policy and guideline support for this see WP:INDEPENDENT. That means that at least some third-party sources should be introduced and the tag should remain until they are. Templates, inline or top, are not necessarily knocks on the article, just pointer on where the article can be improved en route to good article status. I have to imagine there are books published by non-affiliated publishers and magazine articles from RS magazine and newspaper articles from RS newspapers to be found. If I am wrong, then the subject is not as notable as I assume it is. Novaseminary (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- Lets leave the template as is per above talk.
- Regarding those three noted sources, I guess that "unofficial" would be a plus with respect to the issue noted in the template. Regarding the one on Philmont, what in this article is the tip of the iceberg anyway; (I have several full sized books on this facility) that website just provided a quick third party ref / secondary source for a statement in there. For the two on Region 7, the website used is mostly a collection of materials, documents and photos by others, with a small amount of material authored by the person who runs the web site. The heavily used reference at this site was a document authored by someone else.
- I think that substantial outside source references are available for all of these. Possibly not for all of the "mundane" factual material, but available for the facilities. The challenge with the former ones is that most or all of their existence was before the internet, or heavy use of it, and so many of the sources are off-line and so this will be a slower building process. North8000 (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't give up on pre-internet subjects! I'd try some Google Books text searches. I have to imagine that since there are multiple books on just one of the facilities, there has to be good coverage of the others in similar books and magazines (and they might have their own books). A quick search for "High-adventure base" came up with hundreds of hits, including some that seemed especially detailed and possibly useful as RSs (a write-up in Backpacker, for instance). Novaseminary (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, they are not combined. You have to do a separate search on http:\\books.google.com. Here is the one search I referred to above. You can limit it to books/magazines with full text (by selecting it on the left), but even getting hits to sources you can't read in full on google can still give you leads. Novaseminary (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Better as a list?
Would it make more sense to use what is here to improve the various bases' individual articles, create an article for the former bases (or even individual articles for each former base), and create an article for the one other base in development that does not already have its own article (assuming notability can be shown), and then turn this article into a list article with a brief lead explaining the connection between them? It doesn't seem there is much about them as a group that makes discussion of them as a group worthwhile (instead of individually) other than the fact they all happen to be run by BSA at the national level. If there were more to say about them collectively (like, e.g., there is at National Park Service which discusses the collective history of U.S. national parks and the service making that article have content independent from, if complementary to, that of each particular national park), I would lean the other way. But it is not there now and I can't imagine there being much of that sort to add. Novaseminary (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
- This started as a Scouting Project "to do" list item....to make an article or articles on the former bases, and I took it on to get it started. It was determined that each of the former bases clearly merited at least an article section, but it was not clear whether they merited separate articles. The second aspect was that there was a missing "tier"....the topic as a whole of (at least current) high adventure bases needed to be covered somewhere, but trying to introduce them individually in the main BSA article in order to point them to individual articles would probably be too much for the main BSA article. (has to cover a 100 year old multi-million person organization). What it ended up as is a sort of middle of the road solution, somewhat of a "list" article (with a couple sentences on each, links to individual articles) on the current bases, and an article on former bases. Not as structurally tidy as I would consider ideal, but it did create much needed coverage and add a lot of good content, as well as a landing place enabling a brief entry in the main BSA article. North8000 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
New Contributions to Maine High Adventure Section
Glattonfolly, nice additions to the Main High Adventure section.
We should find a place to put that one deleted source back in.
Can you find any sources to add for the new material?
Title for Region 7 Canoe Base / Northern Wisconsin National Canoe Base
I originally chose "Region 7" because that was it's name for the majority of it's existence. The one reference that spans it's entire existence also calls it that. An editor changed it to "Norther Wisconsin National Canoe Base" I think that the merits of that would be that that was it's most recent name.
What do y'all think is the best name? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well the original "to do" from project Scouting was Region 7, it's name for the lion's share of it's history was Region 7, all of the main sources used that as it's name (and just noted the other two names it more briefly had, (Northern Wisconsin National Canoe Base being one of those other two names) I plan to take it back to Region 7 Canoe Base. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Northern Wisconsin National High Adventure was the final name, changed for consistency. Similarly, the Northern Tier program is the most current name and is references as-is. However, for the majority of Northern Tier of its existence (until late 70's) was called in some form as Charles L. Sommers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
- What does everybody else think? My thought is that it should be Region 7, for the reasons described above. Most notably, the Region 7 was the name for the vast majority of its existence. But my REAL thought is that job one is to make this the best article possible, including if opposite my "Region 7" opinion. BTW, regarding any experiential bias :-), I went there twice, once under each name. What do y'all think? North8000 (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems more consistent use the title of the final or current name of all high adventure bases. Kind of a contrast, if you were to consistently use the longer tenured name this would be confusing for Northern Tier. Most of the current material I have seen references the closed program as Northern Wisconsin National Canoe Base. The SAA in it's FAQ for the Triple Crown has chosen to reference the Northern Wisconsin instead of Region 7. I've met a lot of folks who are still upset over the closing, I'm sure this drives some the conflict over the name. (by 126.96.36.199)
- I just want to do whatever is best. I also mentioned this question at Scouting Project and BDuke there suggested either dual name or the final name. North8000 (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll leave it as the final name. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Paul R. Christen National High Adventure Base
- Agreed. The "Paul R. Christen National High Adventure Base" or the "Paul R. Christen National High Adventure Base at The Summit".  ZybthRanger (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High Adventure Bases of the Boy Scouts of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211190042/http://www.katahdinareabsa.org/content/4126/Maine_High_Adventure_Base/ to http://katahdinareabsa.org/content/4126/Maine_High_Adventure_Base/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.