Talk:Scouts BSA/Archive 2

message: I have just added a popular culture section to this article.  It seemed more appropriate to add it here than in the article about the BSA organization.  If you disagree with my inclusion of pop culture, please discuss it with me here before starting an edit war. Ycaps123 21:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ISCA Journal had an article on all the old films that dealt with Scouting.  I can look it up once this is settled.  I propose a separate article for this, linked from wheverer we want.  Also, putting it in the BSA article cuts out the Scouting movements from othere countries. Rlevse 12:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... I added the pop culture section to the girl scouts article.  I think that it is a FANTASTIC idea to have one article on scouts of both sexes in pop culture.  Maybe this will indeed explode in such huge proportions as to need a dedicated article.  I say that we create a dedicated article now -- we can always merge it later if need be. Ycaps123 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you waiting for: be bold!. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for creating the article, I might have gotten to it eventually.  But I'm a procrastinator -- so perhaps not. :~)  In any case, since all of the info seems to be in the Scouting in popular culture now, I have replaced the original info in [] and [] with with a quick summary.  I hope that this was the correct thing to do? Ycaps123 16:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes is is.  Generally you can take the lead-in from the main article and use it as a section in another article with a link to the main.  It's actually a rather fun article to work on when my brain gets tired of working on the other stuff.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  popular culture 

message: There should be a controversy or criticism section mentioning their ban on gays and atheists. FAL 04:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: I've removed the claim that the chartered organization selects "leadership."  As far as I know, troop leadership comes from the committee, which consists of anyone who cares to join. --Smack (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting.  I don't recall my old troop ever getting anything from its chartered organization (aside from the keys to the meeting place) or giving much back. --Smack (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It depends a lot on the CO and the COR.  Our current CO gives us $200 per year, signs the charter and that's about it- our meeting place actually has no connection to the CO.  In a previous troop, the guy who became the COR (essentially the CEO of my company) a) approached me about switching the charter b) provided anything we needed - trucks, rope, free vacation for camp, etc.  When I originally wrote that chunk of the article, I wrote it to that standard.  BTW: it used to match the same section in the Cub, Varsity and Venturing articles.--Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chartered organization 

message: We have a very thorough subsection on the Improved Scouting Program, but very little information on anything else.  Could we change that somehow? --Smack (talk) 02:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because I have a lot of references on the ISP, and that's the program I started with.  I have more stuff, but it's not as organized. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The jamboree should be emphasized in the main Boy Scouts of America article, as it is common to  all of the programs.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean national or local jamborees? --Smack (talk) 15:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jamboree

message: I added a series box to See also.  Right now it is just a simple table- when it stabilizes, I'll probabaly amke it a template. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Series box

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at WP:LEAD. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, Images should have concise captions.See footnote
*There may be an applicable infobox for this article.See footnote (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
*Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.See footnote
*Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.See footnote
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.See footnote
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. See footnote
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Andy t 22:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NEW Peer Review check

message: It seems the majority of this article is
1. Written by members of the BSA
2. Quated from BSA material
am i the only one who sees something wrong with this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.193.240 (talk • contribs) 
Good question.  We would welcome working with anyone with another viewpoint.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does that make this article different from any other article on a voluntary organization, such as LDS Church or Ducks Unlimited?  What about countries?  Few people will have much to say about a country where they have never lived.  Professions have the same problem.  I can hardly imagine someone writing about nuclear engineering who isn't a nuclear engineer. --Smack (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV vs. NPOV

message: has changed "fit" in the Scout Oath to "strong (fit)."  Is this correct?  FWIW, I've never seen this version. --Smack (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always heard strong, not fit, nor with the parens after it. Rlevse 11:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the BSA website (http://www.scouting.org/legal/mission.html) it is strong, not fit. meamemg 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, what I said is wrong.  I've never seen "fit."  I wonder how that got in there—it's been there since at least since July. --Smack (talk) 03:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scout Oath 

message: Previously on Wikipedia.  Back in March of 2006, we had a consensus to merge the Cub Scouting and the Boy Scouting advancement articles as I have proposed below.  These merges were made and the links and redirects fixed.  In June 2006, User:Cool Cat unilaterally reverted all of these changes.  There was a lot of discussion and acrimony, and we left it as it was.
It is now almost a year since the original merges and the articles in question have stood as stubs since then, with only a few minor edits.  I now propose to reinstate those merges.  These merges are effectively already done, as the information was moved back in March.
Merge these articles into Boy Scouts
* Scout
* Tenderfoot
* Second Class
* First Class
* Star Scout
* Life Scout
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK- I went and moved the material in question, as it should have never been in those articles. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Response: As noted, the merge is effectively done and has been for almost a year.  The only additions of note were lists such as "Famous Life Scouts"- these sections have already been moved to List of notable Scouts.  I really am looking for a consensus here  so we can get these stubs out of the way.   --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Done!  (woof) Looks like the articles went through three renames.  What do we want to do with the unused templates (BSA ranks, BSA advancement and Boy Scout advancement)? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: There needs to be more citations. The subject of the membership controversies should also have a subsection in the article as well. More pictures illustrating the article contents would be good too. Good work, though. I could see this being a GA very soon. :D Kari Hazzard (T | C) 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversy section is in the parent Boy Scouts of America article.  If we include the controversy section in the Boy Scout article, then we would need to include it in the Cub Scouts, Varsity Scouts, Venturing, Sea Scouts and Order of the Arrow articles.  We now have to keep the two articles synchronized as editors make changes to one but not the other, but eight is a bit much.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the controversy really relevant to Cub Scouts, Varsity Scouts, etc. though? My understanding of the controversies is that they are generally directly related to the Boy Scouts program itself. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kari-Nope, the controveries apply to all of BSA, not just the troop level. So, I have to agree with Gadget850, the controversies setup should stay the way it is, with the summary in the BSA article and a link to a main article from there with see also links elsewhere. I do think the request of more refs is legit and as for photos, nice probably, but that alone should not hold up a GA nom. We'll work on more refs. The article should have been put on GA Hold, not turned down outright.Rlevse 21:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be renominated, it's really not an issue. If the concerns are addressed, I'd have no problem promoting it. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is a difference in renom or on hold, renom takes longer because you have to wait, often for weeks, for someone to review it, whereas if it's on hold the process normally lasts no more than 7 days.Rlevse 10:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, as I reviewed your article in the first place and there's nothing stopping me in terms of the GA policy from re-reviewing and promoting it on an expedited basis. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 21:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. I for one will be working the refs heavily this weekend and the BSA artilce, which was put on hold.Rlevse 21:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Precisely.Rlevse 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article nomination

message: Why go for a GA review, when it's already an 'A' class rated article? A class is a higher rating that GA on the rating scale. Just curious. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely.Rlevse 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: Looking good. Well written, well referenced. I only spot one concern. Under youth leadership, there is a long list of positions. Per Wikipedia:Embedded list this should be folded into a series of text paragraphs. Otherwise, I think it's a great candidate. - Mocko13 14:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, pls look over again.Rlevse 14:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review