Jump to content

Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Belarus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scouting in Belarus

[edit]

Article(s): Scouts-in-Exile, Scouting in Belarus

Request: Can you folks please make the black areas red and crisper defined? This one is about 60 years old, so the copyright is (maybe?) not in question. Thank you again! -- Chris 05:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphist opinion: I'll set to work on an SVG > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 07:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i've done the outline, where should I upload it to, if it is copyright free then i'll upload it to commons > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 08:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure that this image is free of copyright. PD-Russia means that the image must have been published before 1954 but the author must also have died before that date in order for the work to be PD. We don't have the name of this person, so how can we tell for sure? Logos are only PD in Germany, not in other nations, so please don't upload the file to Commons. They have deleted a ton of logos for this exact reason. Valentinian T / C 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up Valentinian. Hows this for the outline Chris ? (PS: went ahead and coloured per your instructions, added text and cleaned up a bit ( And just noticed MediaWiki's changed the font of the text when rendering the SVG, when we are happy with the position etc, i'll convert it to path so it won't change the font) ) > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 08:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just remembered to tell you guys, I am not going to be here (off on Holiday) from 23rd August till 3rd SEptemebr, sorry for any inconvenience caused. Have Fun ! > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 19:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two leafs look very thin. The original fleur-de-lys has broad leafs with a line running down the centre. Could you make them more like the original? Valentinian T / C 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The base idea is really good, thank you so much!
As per Valentinian (nice to have a heraldist/vexillologist here!) the petals do look thin, actually part of the petals are missing in the redraw.
Also, the redraw is much more angular than the original, which though small, should have rounded edges throughout. Is there a way to start with the base image, rather than having to redraw it?
As to the font, you got the characters exactly, but they should all be upper case, not upper-and-lower. (and sans-serif like Helvetica or Arial if you have it)
That's all I see for now, thank you so much! Chris 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay 1) I've now put the extra part of the petals (don't know why I left it out ...) 2) As for the text, it is kind of hard to put it in upper case as the characters aren't english, though they may look it, could you get the Belarus's Scout Motto off the Scout Motto page and convert it to uppercase, then I can put it in 3) When you talk about the angular thing, do you mean that all the corners should be rounded on the emblem?

Anyway I off on holiday now, so don't rush to answer the questions. See you soon ! > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 06:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting and pasting from the Cyrillic alphabet article, I get "БУДЗЬ ГАТОЎ" as the uppercase version of the motto. I've uploaded a new version with that text, converted into a path so that there can be no rendering problems. I've also smoothed some of the curves a bit, and added missing background to the lower petals. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ilmari, the text is perfect! Kiitoksia paljon! :) I've put up another graphic to point what I see still needed. Chris 02:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The changes I see needed are:
  • there should be no "crimp" at the top, the petal should be less angular
  • the sash should be straight on both edges, not curved
  • the lower petals are much smaller than in the original
  • the center of the bottom loop should not be red, just the loop itself

Chris 23:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guys i'm back ! Just made the changes to the the logo as stated above & in the instructional image, how does it look ? > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 08:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Welcome back! If the middle petal could be a little rounder, think an onion dome, that'd be great, then the only other thing left to be done is to make all black details red. This should at the end only be bicolor. Thanks! Chris 21:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This okay ? Edit: If it isn't, could you draw an image that I can trace? > Rugby471 talk ⚔ 16:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby, you so rock, this is great! Thank you! Chris 21:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image Image:Association of Belarusian Guides.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The use of a logo to illustate an organisation mentioned in passing is not at all justified. The logo of the subject of the article will generally be a useful addition to the page, as will any other logo (such as the logo of another organisation, or a past logo of the subject organisation) if the logo itself is in some way relevant to the article (and, if it is, it will almost certainly be discussed). See the logo guidelines, the non-free content guidelines and especially the non-free content criteria. Also note that it is the responsibility of those wishing to include an image to demonstrate its policy compliance, not the other way around. J Milburn (talk) 16:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of images

[edit]

Okay, the number of images has been way scaled down, j milburn is just having a WP:POINT violation at this point. Two images is not excessive. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of any image must comply with the non-free content criteria. An article does not have a certain number of non-free images that it is "allowed" to have- it should have as many or as few as are needed. That logo (and possibly the lead one now I have reviewed it) are not required. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bollocks. I am getting a third opinion. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The use of any image must comply with the non-free content criteria." "Bollocks." Says it all really, it's fairly clear that you have minimal respect for our non-free content policies. Please provide some policy-based reasoning. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no respect for those who violate 3RR to prove a point, as you just did. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not violated the three revert rule, and even if I had reverted more than three times, I am allowed to revert as much as I need to to enforce policy. You really should read the pages that you cite. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it, it says Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. The key word is unquestionably. Obviously I question it, or we wouldn't be having this impasse. With the second image, you just removed the text from the article that relates to the image, in its caption. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is only worth talking about in a caption, it can hardly be considered significant. Further, it means that the image is effectively self-verifying. Finally, the caption offers no real commentary, it only says what it is. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's forget about the 3RR and get to the points:
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget made pretty much all the policy points here, but I'm just going to correct both of you on a point you've mistaken.

  • Kintetsubuffalo, J Milburn has not violated WP:3RR. He stopped exactly at three reverts.
  • J Milburn, you should not be violating WP:3RR for any reason. Doing such can be classified as an edit war and may get you blocked. If someone is about to initiate an edit war with you, it's best to have a discussion, such as this, on the article's talk page, and in extreme circumstances, ask for page protection.--Iner22 (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iner, while I agree with you in principle (I would much rather discuss the matter than edit war) there are exceptions to the rule, one of which is "Reverting the addition of copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy.". There is perhaps a debate to be had about whether this is "unquestionable", but that is a different issue. J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have twice today added new content for this article, so the images are justified, and twice they have have again been removed. Please Iner22 and Gadget850 look over my new edits and see what possibly I am missing. I am trying to be accomodating and keep being met with bad faith. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images are still not justified. Why do you believe that they are? You've added a brief mention of one of the logos (it's not even sourced, so I don't know how you can argue it's significant...) and the other logo isn't even mentioned. If you have an issue with my conduct, contact me on my talk page, but if anything is an assumption of bad faith, it's the way you treat me like a troll and accuse me of breaching any policy you can find. J Milburn (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Scouts formed the organization Belarusian Scout Association Abroad (BSAA), which existed from 1945 to 1951 in Germany. Unlike the other organizations, however, the BSAA did not survive to witness the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Regional Scouting divisions of Belarus include the GomelScouts in Gomel. Because usage of the Belarusian language and the Russian language are contentious issues in the country, the emblem itself is captioned in English.

In my opinion, neither of these have significant related content. Why is the BSAA important; what influence did it have? Gomel is a city: what makes GomelScouts so important that they need their own logo? Either create an entire section on these groups or let it go. --Gadget850 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably, an article, or, if you'd rather keep the information here, significant, sourced discussion of the logos. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or an article, even a stub, but one that does show notability. --Gadget850 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on these, just added a cite, but I will be away for the weekend, please let the status quo stand while I am away. Surely I am showing that this is important for me; for you both this may just be an exercise in policy but for me this is a subject I have studied for nearly 20 years, however I now live 6000 miles away from my source material boxed in storage. I do not claim ownership of any article, but certainly I have a greater stake in these East Europe ones. I am not going to just "let it go", I will still be here after you both have gone back to the topics that make you passionate. This is mine. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate that, and I can see that you are willing to work with this. I will not touch the article for a few days, to leave you to work on the issue. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belarusian Scout Association Abroad.svg

[edit]

Dear user Kintetsubuffalo File:Belarusian Scout Association Abroad.svg - no sign BSAA, as the motto has no relation to the organization. It's all nonsense of one of the modern leaders of one of the Belarusian organization of the scout. Please don't make this change, because it's not true. --Gruszecki (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The onus of proof for those claims is on you, you can't just claim that without proving it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have protected this page to prevent edit warring. Please discuss this issue here rather than changing back and forth. I, or any other administrator, will remove the protection once a consensus has been reached on this talk page. My protection does not endorse the current version of the page- I have no view on the issue, nor will I offer one. A request on the relevant WikiProject talk pages will hopefully bring more eyes to this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have gotten confirmation that Gruszecki is knowledgeable in the subject and is acting in good faith, but the fixes have to be done compliant with Wikipedia methods-specifically sourcing of claims or evidence of alternate interpretations. I believe I have a good rabbit hole for these and will be contacting Gruszecki once all is in order.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how it looked sign organization actually: [1]. And the motto of the Belarusian scouts never sounded as: «Будзь гатоў!». This Russian-language form («Будзь готов!») that uses one of the modern Belarusian scout organizations. «Be prepared!» the Belarusian scouts always was «Напагатове!» ([2])--Gruszecki (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're making progress! However, the fixes you want to make have to be done compliant with Wikipedia methods-specifically sourcing of claims or evidence of alternate interpretations.
The emblem you want to remove is from The Undaunted by Piet Kroonenberg, who is considered the expert on Scouting in Eastern Europe. Which makes it both sourced and researched, so we have to answer-what then is the current emblem used in the article? Is it a different organization?
This sign has no reason. Not even a historical source. ZBSCh this is BSAA. In Belarusian — «Згуртаваньне беларускіх скаўтаў на чужыне», English — someone translate «Belarusian Scout Association Abroad». --Gruszecki (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Belarusian Scout Motto article is completely unsourced, which means we have to find another way to prove what you say is true.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scouting_and_Guiding_in_Belarus&oldid=1202734949"