Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Project editing conventions

message: Rank articles...the rank articles should be separate (and renamed, see Language section). This means List_of_BSA_rank_requirements should be deleted.  Each rank having its own article allows more flexible, specificity, and shorter articles. Rlevse 17:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this.Rlevse 18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, good ideas. --Naha|(talk) 19:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks nice! --Naha|(talk) 19:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I like this, added Eagle Palm, but what about the non-advancement related articles? Rlevse 19:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as the articles dealing with councils, districts, Scout reservations, handbooks, etc. Rlevse 22:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Aww it changed, I liked it better with the light blue at the top hehe :) --Naha|(talk) 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was fiddling with it.  I do like the blue, but the FdL has a white box around it.  May need a SVG version with a transparent background to clean that up.  Play with it as you like.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I know it's attractive to have a series of articles with a spiffy series box, but why do we really need separate articles for every rank?  I think they might do better as sections of a main article. --Smack (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it's laid out well. History of Brazil pattern is possible.  I'll have to mull this over. Rlevse 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the pattern used in the "History of ..." articles works pretty well for history, because the subject of history is broad and deep, and easily allows for a summary article linking out to narrower articles on specific periods.  However, I don't think that any part of Scouting rank advancement has the necessary depth to make this structure work. --Smack (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Another option is to have separate articles for Cubs, Scouts, Venturers for recognition; as I think one article containing all three could be huge. Rlevse 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  That would be good.  Sorry if I implied that I wanted a single article for all branches of the BSA. --Smack (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Apologies for the belated objection.  I consider the rank structure an organic whole, which won't do well if divided into pieces.  For instance, if we had them all together, we wouldn't have to duplicate the paragraph about the Star/Life switcheroo.  Right now, First Class Scout rank (Boy Scouts of America) is the most complete one besides Eagle, and it looks torn out of context - a bit like getting one chapter of a book without the ones before and after it.  That said, I'm willing to sit tight for a while and see how this division works out. --Smack (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see how Gadget's current effort goes, with a parent article and one each for pack/troop/crew. I think this is quite workable and it turns out to kind of be a compromise.Rlevse 11:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How to structure BSA rank articles

message: :I know it's attractive to have a series of articles with a spiffy series box, but why do we really need separate articles for every rank?  I think they might do better as sections of a main article. --Smack (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if it's laid out well. History of Brazil pattern is possible.  I'll have to mull this over. Rlevse 22:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the pattern used in the "History of ..." articles works pretty well for history, because the subject of history is broad and deep, and easily allows for a summary article linking out to narrower articles on specific periods.  However, I don't think that any part of Scouting rank advancement has the necessary depth to make this structure work. --Smack (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Another option is to have separate articles for Cubs, Scouts, Venturers for recognition; as I think one article containing all three could be huge. Rlevse 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  That would be good.  Sorry if I implied that I wanted a single article for all branches of the BSA. --Smack (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Apologies for the belated objection.  I consider the rank structure an organic whole, which won't do well if divided into pieces.  For instance, if we had them all together, we wouldn't have to duplicate the paragraph about the Star/Life switcheroo.  Right now, First Class Scout rank (Boy Scouts of America) is the most complete one besides Eagle, and it looks torn out of context - a bit like getting one chapter of a book without the ones before and after it.  That said, I'm willing to sit tight for a while and see how this division works out. --Smack (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's see how Gadget's current effort goes, with a parent article and one each for pack/troop/crew. I think this is quite workable and it turns out to kind of be a compromise.Rlevse 11:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate articles 

message: :Randy had also addressed that we may need to create a new category or rename the :Category:National High Adventure bases (Boy Scouts of America) category. Mortimer L. Schiff Scout Reservation wasn't a High Adventure base, but it was a national rather than local camp. I propose the rename as either :Category:National camps (Boy Scouts of America) or :Category:National camps and High Adventure bases (Boy Scouts of America) in alignment with the name :Category:Local council camps (Boy Scouts of America). The first is a little less cumbersome. Chris 02:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 17 Chris 01:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BSA Scout camp categories

message: In this section, I would like to clarify the standards by inserting the following text:
After this sentence, Such sub-articles are warranted when length, detail, or some other factor (such as Councils that cover parts of more than one state) warrant. Insert the following text:
:Some general guidelines are as follows: notability – is there something particularly notable about the camp and its impact on people or in its region; length is the regional or council article in which it sits too long, or will the article be at least 1500 characters on its own; is the article complete and well-written; is this article also claimed by another wikiproject.
and rewrite this paragraph to read:
:Camps and reservations are considered to be at the same level as their supporting organization. Some camps may be national in scope and those warrant their own article. To use the United States' BSA as an example, these are Philmont, Florida Sea Base, Mortimer L. Schiff Scout Reservation, etc. A camp or reservation supported by a council is a council level organization and falls under council level rules. A camp or reservation run and supported by a district is a district level camp and falls under sub-council rules. We note however that "individual scout council and camps have the right to be articles if they meet guidelines noted above."
--evrik (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Propsal

message: Issue: How should we handle stub articles on individual Scout camps? 
Proposals:
:A. Blanket policy that we allow a stub for any Scout camp.  Mark as stub and try to expand on it.
:B. Blanket policy that Scout camp stubs are merged into corresponding "by State" article.  A redirect is created.  If enough information becomes available, use the Talk page to propose splitting into it's own article.  (Must be at least B-class to justify splitting).  
Feel free to discuss, modify, or add to these proposals.  --NThurston 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have an infobox that is highly customizable, see :Template:Infobox WorldScouting. If you need it to do something that it doesn't currently do, contact User:Wimvandorst.Rlevse 11:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub Camp Articles 

message: *I recently noted the  image tag.  I recommend use of this tag for any images that are "official" logos, patches, medals, etc.  Another advantage is that these images will show up in :Category:Scout logos.
*BSA seems to use the term emblem for any patch indicating leadership or other position of responsibility.
*For BSA articles, I suggest useage of logos from the official BSA site whenever possible.
*Girl Scouts USA seems to be very restrictive on image and logo use: see http://www.girlscouts.org/faqs/copyrights_trademarks.asp
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started doing that (got up to H).  See Talk:List of 2005 National Scout Jamboree Council Patches for comments.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think using the  tag is a great idea.Rlevse 19:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Randy, why should they not all be labeled  as opposed to logo, since it is available? Chris 01:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just said using it is a good idea, the scoutlogo tag that puts them in the Scouting category, that is.Rlevse 03:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bag, there was a page it appears you say use logo for some and Scoutlogo for others, and I didn't get the differentiation. SorryChris 03:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: No: I had recommended logo some time back before I found scoutlogo. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add this to RulesStandards. Rlevse 11:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Images and terms

message: The proper name for the US Girl Guiding movement is Girl Scouts of the United States of America, and its abbreviation is GSUSA.  As far as I know, though, this was not the original name of the organization.  I assume that, like BSA, the name was originally Girl Scouts of America, but am not sure.  Does anyone know/can anyone find out what the original name was, and when the switch was made.  Also, would it be more proper to use the older term for articles referring to the organization before the switch, and just have the wikilink refer back to the GSUSA article? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be covered in any article discussing this. I believe it was indeed originally GSA.  I think the standard practice is to talk about in using its present name, using clauses where needed to refer to the prior name.  Rlevse 21:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was first named Girl Guides of America in 1912 and changed to Girl Scouts of America in 1913.  It became Girl Scouts of the United States of America in 1947.   --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Updated the GSUSA article to show the history of the name changes. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GSUSA vs. GSA 

message: IS this project mainly focussed around BSA? --Paul 13:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This started as an informal collaboration of Americans, so the initial focus was on BSA, BUT we VERY MUCH want to include ALL SCOUTING, world wide, boys and girls.  We have already recruited other users with non-BSA backgrounds and we're glad to have ANY Scouting topic included. Rlevse 14:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Project focus

message: Do we have somewhere we can submit articles for peer review? Gadget850 ( Ed)
:The collaboration of the month is sort of a peer review.  You also have the standard wiki peer review process.  If you mean a Scouting Project place, go to the Scouting Portal and select the "candidates option" on the collaboration article box.Rlevse 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews

message: We all know that the articles about the Order of the Arrow are constantly being altered between two groups: one who want to list as much information as possible in them, and the other who don't think that details about the OA are appropriate on a public encyclopedia. Now that said articles are part of this project (or are they?), how is this going to be dealt with? It seems to me that a policy on this should be added to WikiProject_Scouting/RulesStandards Bcaff 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed this and would like input. Bcaff: Tell us what you think, thanks for bringing this up, feel free to join the Project, and let's move this to the OA talk page at Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow. Rlevse 22:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I do have one question, though. How do I join the project? Do I just add my name to the list above? Bcaff 12:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To join, add your name and interests here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting#Participants_and_primary_areas_of_interest Rlevse 13:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stance on OA Article Specificity

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
I'd like to split the following paragraph into three parts:
*organizations that had early influences on Scouting's beginning, including but not limited to: American Heritage Girls, Boys' Brigade, Campfire USA, Kibbo Kift, Royal Rangers, Sons of Daniel Boone, Woodcraft Indians, The Woodcraft Folk(?), and YMCA.
because it covers in the actual state three differing groups of organizations:
* those who had an major impact on the formation of Scouting (eg Boys' Brigade Sons of Daniel Boone, Woodcraft Indians and YMCA),
* those who developed out of the movement using major parts of its method (like Kibbo Kift and The Woodcraft Folk),
* and those who started as parallel organizations using major parts of its method (like Royal Rangers, Campfire USA, American Heritage Girls or SpiralScouts International)
I feel it necessary to widen the criterias to 'political' Scouting organizations like The Woodcraft Folk (which states despite its connections to the cooperative movement and to the International Falcon Movement: The Folk do not have political affiliations but does endorse and support the work of the peace movement.). 
We should also remember that there are (or were) quite a large number of real 'political' Scouting organizations, some examples from :Category:Non-aligned Scouting organizations are Hanoar Hatzioni, Hashomer Hatzair or Fianna Éireann, but there are a lot more (I know at least five defunct German organizations). All these organizations were started as Scouting organizations but with a clear political orientation - thus they could not reach membership of WOSM or WAGGGS. --jergen 08:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jergen, I knew you would know a lot about this, thanks. I'll get to work on it today. WE defeinitely should not cover groups that meet this: "compulsary youth organisations introduced by extreme political groups who were governing a country as a dictatorship.", ie HJ and YP. So where should we draw the line? Rlevse 10:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria for inclusion 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Would it be possible to have clear policy on the inclusion of individual scout troops?  I have come here from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4th New Forest North (Eling) Sea Scouts, and there is a policy implied but no crystal clear statement either way. Jll 10:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean more specific than..."Generally, an entity smaller than a Council (such as a troop or district) should not have its own article, unless it has done something truly exceptional or unique."? Also note our project didn't know of that article until 3 days ago, which is why our template isn't at the top of the talk page. Rlevse 10:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - that is the sort of thing I had in mind.  Sorry - I didn't spot it. Jll 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Troops?

message: We have updated the image standards on the project page.  Please let us know of any concerns or issues.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image standards 

message: I thought this WikiProject might be interested. Ping me with any specific queries or leave them on the page linked to above. Thanks!  - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Milestone Announcements