Talk:Sea Cadets (United Kingdom)

message: There is a very small amount of text on Sea Cadets to be "merged here".  The more important edit is to split that page and create a disambiguation page Sea Cadets (disambiguation).  The whole page at Sea Cadets is quite large and needs careful editing.  Over the next few days I will take a part of it on. Fiddle Faddle 19:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That merge is done Fiddle Faddle 11:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This is not an SCC or RN vessel apart from a tenuous link with Trafalgar 200 I can't see any reason for being used, also I have moved the more boring pictures into a gallery, Grand Turk looks out of place. I will remove it.--Pandaplodder (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Grand Turk 

message: I have just reverted the removal of the section on Trafalgar 200 which was stated by the removing editor to be "Promotional Spam" in the edit history.
Since this is a factual item that happened and also a link to a notable article I cannot understand the removal, but I see every reason to discuss it here, on the talk page.  I will be asking the removing editor to contribute to the discussion here.  Fiddle Faddle 10:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless the user removes the restrictions to use on this image, it cannot be placed on any articles- as it is against Wikipedia image policy to include restricted use images. The user refuses to relicense his images, and responds with personal attacks. All his images are listed for deletion- and they will be deleted as they violate policy unless relicensed under GFDL- so they will continue to be removed. Astrotrain 13:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, and this is the fundamental point, not removed by you.  The process is not designed that way, not intended to be used that way and shoudl not be used that way.  Your role is to nominate for deletion.  It is to argue strongly for deletion, and it is to seek to ensure that your view is exposed to community scrutiny and peer review.  There it ends.  By nominating it for deletion you pass that repsonsibility to other wise heads who will consider the matter and take relevant action.  Fiddle Faddle 14:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are completely wrong- perhaps you should read the image policy before resorting to telling other people what to do. Astrotrain 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am always happy to learn.  Please point me at the artcile and section you are relying on.  In return I can say that I am reading from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images and looking at specifically the instructions, startung with To list an image on this page: and ending with Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days.  It is that sentence Listings should be processed by an administrator after being listed for 14 days that is important, surely.  But your nomination is not there, or if it is I cannot see it.  You have put the tmeplate on the image page, that is for sure, but where is it on the possibly unfree images page? Fiddle Faddle 14:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Trafalgar 200 

message: The most recent edit, which I have reverted and made a note on the editor's talk page about, was to add a Wikify tag.
The reason I removed it was that it appeared to me to be applied with less than usual thought for what might be wikified.  I am raising it here on order that interested editors contionue to wikify this article well and within normal guidelines.  I have invited the editor who applied the tag to come here and tell us what they believe requires attention.  Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I placed the wikify tag on the article for a few reasons.  Several of the section headings have all of their words capitalized.  This should only be done for proper nouns, but since I am somewhat unfamiliar with the subject matter, I did not know which headings are proper nouns. For example, "Links to SCC Area Websites" should probably be written as "Links to SCC area websites", but I don't know if "National Level" and "Adult Staff" are proper names or generic descriptions.  Also, the "External references" section and "Links" sections are confusing and poorly formatted.  Some of the sub-sections are empty, one of them has a wikilink in the title, and some of the links are not bulleted and have stray characters. Would it be possible to format these sections into the usual "References" and "External links" sections with subheadings as appropriate? I can make some of the changes now, but would need input for the capitalization of section headers and formatting of the references/external links. I hope this is a satisfactory explanation. Khatru2 21:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologise for taking so long to get back to you.  I am on a wikibreak.  I have taken your coments to heart and believe I have made the necessary corrections to capitalisation just now, but that is all I have done.  I am basing the capitalisation on my understanding of the formal naming convention of this organisation.  Fiddle Faddle 00:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikification 

message: The following user comment was removed from the article:
"Bold textTS IRON DUKE SCC UNIT 191 RYDAL ROAD/THE PARK HUYTON LIVERPPOOL FORMED IN 1942 IN ARCHWAY ROAD, HUYTON LIVERPOOL ANYBODY WITH ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE UNIT PLEASE ADD TO THIS SECTION THANK YOU,WE ARE WRITING A UNIT HISTORY PAUL JONES (HUYTON UNIT)"
It was left by 84.64.181.68. Khatru2 04:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User comment in article 

message: :Image:SCC badge.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SCC badge.JPG

message: :Image:ISCA logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ISCA logo.gif

message: Is there a list of locations that we could place into this article, similar to Army Cadets Interactive Map so that we could create a list of where different Sea Cadet detachments are?? Jez ☎ ✉ ✍ 18:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations? 

message: No mention of this in the article?
 Junior Leaders Course  it is open to SCC.  --Pandaplodder (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean leading junior? Puffin Let's talk! 15:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Junior Leaders

message: This article needs an infobox and a general cleanup. This includes adding links, removing red links, removing useless information, reformatting lists perhaps into tables, etc. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk |  Sign 12:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox and cleanup 

message: I've just reverted the article to a two-year-old version due to massive copyvios in the lead and elsewhere. Text appears to have been copied from a variety of sea cadet and sea-cadet-related sites, including:
*http://www.carlisleseacadets.org/press-releases.aspx
*http://www.sccheadquarters.com/UserData/root/Files/Unit%20Management/Sea%20Cadet%20Unit%20Constitution/Unit%20Constitution%20%28Ch%201,%202%20and%206%29.pdf
*http://www.tslynx.co.uk/history/index.php
*Possibly http://www.thursoseacadets.com/ (not sure which came first)
*http://www.eastmidlandsrfca.co.uk/news/rfca/2011/february/kettering-sea-cadets-jump-joy-gift-new-name
Some of this may have been their sites copying Wikipedia, but given the sheer volume of Wikipedia text that matches promotionally-phrased content from Sea Cadet sites, I'm inclined to think it's mostly us copying them, especially since much of their content has copyright notices. I'm going to do my best to double-check my work, and I'd welcome any further eyes on this issue if people want to track down exactly what of our content is redeemable and what isn't, but in the meantime I felt it was wise to revert back to a safe-ish version. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive copyvio 

message: The names for the ranks of cadets is wrong or is out dated. It goes New Entry, Cadet, Ordinary Cadet (OC), Able Cadet (AC), Leading Cadet, Petty Officer Cadet (PO). Basically it is Cadet on the end not Seaman. These names I believe are used by the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets but not the Sea Cadet Corps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.39.4 (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cadet Rank Names 

message: I have spotted 2 accounts of duplication, the picture of a cadet (right near the top and then in the Membership Section). The top photo which I changed the caption as the he was wrongly labled as a senior cadet he is only a cadet. Notice his badge with 1 star on it which signifies the Cadet rank. Also the Marine Engineering course is duplicated in the Specialisation and Proficiency section, in the table under the specialisation column.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.20.39.4 (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dupliction 

message: There is no rationale for the cross service comparison table here. It is also a bewildering array of not very correctness. Things in various columns are out of logical order. The best route is to remove all except the Sea Cadets element. Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Cadet rates 

message: The article currently lacks a section about uniforms of the Sea Cadets. The articles for the Army Cadet Force and Air Training Corps each have a section about their uniforms. This article should also have one. --Dreddmoto (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniforms 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
* 
* 
* 
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: I have twice reverted an additon to this page of uncited material. Without citations it can be considered defamatory. With citations in WP:RS it can be considered to be factual Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add that the removed material also included inferences about the leadership of this organization drawn from the uncited facts, which would be considered WP:SYNTH even if the facts about the FOIA denials could be reliably cited. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:10, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Indeed it did.  I understand that people feel strongy about child abuse. They should. But citations are essential for this type of material, and inferences may not be drawn. With a valid citation the facts and only the facts may go in.  Fiddle Faddle 12:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncited addition of an alleged FoIA refusal