Talk:Royal Canadian Sea Cadets

message: Check out the to-do list! Quadra 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

message: Great to have them, and thanks for putting them here.  I had a look at the alignment and size issues.  The 80px thumbnails seem to be a good compromise since you can read the text under the,  Full pictures made the insignia dominate, rather than the text dominate the page, so I took your excellent work and I hope enhanced it.
Some alignment issues remain, but shrinking the thumbs is not going to solve it.  I hope we have a good solution as it stands, but a better layout expert (of which there are many) may disagree.
Fiddle Faddle 09:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alignment issues all solved by the use of a table structure Fiddle Faddle 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rank Insignia Pics 

message: There are a lot of facts here, but little about history.  I've been doing an "editing cleanup" as have others (I am not a content expert), but what is needed is a content expert to provide thinsg like a timeline of the history, notable cadets and officers, something to get one's teeth into.  It's encyclopaedic, and editors have worked hard, but ut's rather empty still, though valuable so far as it goes Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more content 

message: Wow! you did a great job. I will find the historical information needed for this site. user:ctjj.stevenson
:Thanks.  All I've been able to do is a general tidy, so subject experts like you are great to do the real legwork.  BTW any idea why the "notable" units are notable?  That section perplexes me.  If they are notable for something real, let's say so.  Otherwise I think that section is not encyclopaedic.  If it is really worthwhile I think we should look at formatting etc
:I'm also wondering about the long list.  It might be better as a reference and a real List article created  
:Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks to [[User:Timtrent|Fiddle Faddle]] work 

message: The more I look at this the more I think it is great background information, but requires a separate page.  In general lists of this major length do not belong inside an article since they dominate the page.  I am going to flag the top and bottom of the list with HTML comments so that it will be easy for whoever decides to split the list into a new article to split it.
Also, is the list complete?
Fiddle Faddle 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the list of units is to have its own page, will each individual unit have its own page as well?  If it is likely then may I suggest a template be created to go at the foot of each unit containing all the units, pre-linked, even though they will be overwhelmingly redlinks at first, together with a category Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Unit created as a subcategory of :Category:Naval Cadet Organisations?  Categories are simple to create, though it is essential that there is a page or two there to fill them within a very short time, or they tend to get deleted.  Templates are not hard either, or not at this simple level.  Look at :Template:Naval cadets for inspiration.  You can always ping my talk page if you need basic advice (coz my template skills are basic!)   Suggested layout is a centred box in smaller font, with "unit | unit | Unit |" as a basic format, allowing the article to take care of word wrapping Fiddle Faddle 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The List of Units 

message: Why are they notable?  If they are not notable, please wikify them in the ordinary list.  They are only notable if there is something notable about them.
Notable means something special, not just that they exist, because we know they exist.  Unless they are themselves notable there is a real danger of having the list of corps twice.  I have wikified them in the list of corps instead.  If they are truly notable, bring them out and highlight them as well, but better to do that in their own articles.  However, just creating an article because a particular corps exists does not really meet the cirteria for inclusion in wikipedia.
Fiddle Faddle 06:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps 

message: I would like to move this to its own page - along with, eventually, details on training, history, etc.
Quadra 17:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Corps

message: I have moved this unsigned comment from the head of the talk page and given it a headingFiddle Faddle 07:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranks

message: As a courtesy, would all users kindly mention their proposed changes on the talk page before fiddling with the article? Thanks! As a note, I'm cleaning up the flags section, and removing unnecessary repetitions of information (as an example, SCSTC in front of every Sea Cadet Summer Training Centre's name. This last is no more necessary than placing similar information in front of a regular naval vessel's name - one does not write "CPF (Canadian Patrol Frigate) HMCS Regina," therefore, one does not do so with shore establishments commissioned as ships - so-called stone frigates. Quadra 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the article 

message: I have moved this unsigned comment from the head of the talk pageQuadra 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words Matter 

message: Kindly follow Wikipedia etiquette and sign your name! I'm a former cadet and currently an adult staff member of the program, so don't presume to lecture, especially anonymously, on the program. If you wish to make a major change, kindly bring it up on the discussion page - there is a reason for how I've presented the information. As far as can be determined, Philip is still Admiral. If anyone has official-source material re: Marc Garneau, please link. Until then, the appointment will remain on the page.Quadra 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the article Take II!

message: I'll be moving almost all of the training information, including the current ranks chart, to Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Training. I think that a small rank chart will suffice for the main page, along with one-para descriptions of the summer and winter training regimes. The info on the camps will remain unchanged, until such time as I or someone else can get their individual pages going. Much of the Corps info will also move to the "Training" page, especially "Other Groups." Quadra 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving content

message: As regards the earlier conversation, adding SCSTC to every name is superfluous, as they are all part of a list named "Sea Cadet Summer Training Centres." Point taken as far as Forces usage of CPF & MCDV vs. class names; however, one wouldn't start a list called, say, "Halifax-class Frigates" and then include that designation in every para, would one? If it's not necessary there, it's not necessary with the centres. Enough and finished - convince me, with a really good reason, why this particular species of naval establishment should be handled differently - and "proper representation of the organization" does not cut it.
Quadra 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SCSTC 

message: "So long as an article meets NPOV, and doesn't leave Wikipedia open to legal action,"
There's more to it than that!
"It is also not about representing an organisation "as it wishes to be represented", nor "as it needs to be represented",
Why then does WIKI have concerns about representing people and organizations? 
It is as you say about representing in a "correct manner".
131.137.245.200 22:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you ask this question where you are likely to get a wider answer.  I suggest the Village Pump.  Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not really 

message: * With the exception of a preference for adding one more SCSTC in the text, the entire article is good as it is and might remained locked. 131.137.245.199 18:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay as is 

message: I have asked on the Village Pump that expereinced editors come and cast an eye over this issue in order that the page may be unprotected after a consensus is reached.
If I have it correct, the dispute is about the prefix SCSTC for "Stone Frigates" and its use or non use in the article.
Quadra cites WP:NC-SHIP and the anonymous editor cites an external text.  Put plain the consensus required is about the repeated use of the prefix SCTSC or the use of it once, when the establishment that is one first appears in the article.
May I suggest that interested editors show their opinions below by indicating use once or use always, giving brief rationale for either view.  Fiddle Faddle 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted my example above... in keeping with WP:NC-SHIP, the "class name" isn't used more often than absolutely necessary (only in introduction, not as part of article unless needed for disambiguation), ditto for HMCS - not used after the introduction of the "vessel," unless for some reason necessary for clarity. And italicize the ship's name.
Sound good?
Quadra 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Will be asking for unprotection soonest. Quadra 18:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attempt at dispute resolution 

message: *use once because I interpret WP:NC-SHIP to apply to stone frigates in this manner per Quadra's comments a long way above this.  Fiddle Faddle 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Area to indicate opinion

message: Looking at Quadra's statement "Just About", above, I remain confused.  I have set aside the small area below here for Quadra to show by example precisely what he means, and a different area for an alternate solution or solutions below that.
In this way we may see the differences with precision and simply discuss those and agree a solution:  Fiddle Faddle 07:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Area to resolve differences

message: SCSTC HMCS Quadra, located in Comox, British Columbia, operating as a Sea Cadet training facility since 1953, and a commissioned one since 1956, is the second largest cadet summer training facility. It employs close to 150 staff cadets every year, whose tasks vary from general maintenance to physical fitness to boat instruction. HMCS Quadra is the only Sea Cadet Training Centre in Canada to include all four trades plus three of the four speciality trades (Marine Engineering, Shipwright, and Silver Sail). Quadra occupies Goose Spit opposite Comox, and makes use of Highland Secondary School as an auxiliary training facility for classroom work, first aid, and music training. Cadets undergoing training as Boatswains and Marine Engineers also undergo training in damage control at CFB Esquimalt. HMCS Quadra plays host to a number of international exchange cadets. In recent years, these have included contingents.
The committee agrees that works.
131.137.245.200
:Posted my example above... in keeping with WP:NC-SHIP, the "class name" isn't used more often than absolutely necessary (only in introduction, not as part of article unless needed for disambiguation), ditto for HMCS - not used after the introduction of the "vessel," unless for some reason necessary for clarity. And italicize the ship's name.
Sound good?
Quadra 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! Will be asking for unprotection soonest. Quadra 18:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this the idea? 

message: Better way to phrase "within the cadet organizations?" Don't want to give the impression that a cadet unit stands first overall in precedence - that's the Navy's spot!
Quadra 00:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Organisation & order of precedence

message: Anyone know of any cadet unit or facility still conducts .303 range training? I'm aware of the various permutations of C7 training... Quadra 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large-bore firing

message: Some discussion has come up recently re: Adm, RCSC on Cadet World, of all places - various persons who should know suggest that the appointment that lapsed was HM Prince Philip's as Adm, SCC, the British sea cadet organization, and that his appointment with the RCSC has continued. Awaiting further information. Quadra 15:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Permutations of permutations - Adm, RCSC

message: GA failed. Please address the following and resubmit:
*The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article. The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Entire sections have no wikilinks.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article and should not have special characters. 
*Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
*Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armour (B) (American: armor), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), program  (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
*Footnotes comes right after punctuation and you need more of them. Sumoeagle179 04:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Will be tossing up reformatted (no real content changes, just organization, appearance) pages for all three cadet elements, as well as the CIC and any sub-pages (i.e. Cadets Canada) off of my user page, for consideration. If anyone has any suggestions, feel free to pass 'em along! I'll post the links once I'm done. Quadra 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Standard formatting for cadet pages, CIC, etc...

message: I've heard of this as a rumour-mill item only, related to the immense Cadet Program Update; does anyone have a reputable source (ie, an official document) to back this up? Would be great, if true - but is it? Quadra 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change to ''Seaman''for Ordinary through Leading

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: I have changed the badge to the Ensign for two reasons:
* Standardisation with other cadet articles, admittedly most Army Cadet Corps in the Commonwealth do not have their own ensigns as individual units are normally parented/affiliated with regular Army units
* The RCSC badge which was in the infobox was repeated within a few paragraphs, duplication isn't neccessary.
The Mil Info box needs further work as in missing info where applicable, unfortunately the cadet Forces website isn't a great help.--Pandaplodder (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mil Info Box 

message: I had to change this, there are Cadet Units in the UK outside of Great Britain as in Northern Ireland, the formal correct title would be United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, but this is shortened to United Kingdom or UK (British Army units based within the UK are known as UK Land Forces for example). Still at least you didn't commit the greater sin of saying England when you meant the UK :)--Pandaplodder (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Great Britain as opposed to United Kingdom (UK) 

message: The image :File:Cadetscanada72.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.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Cadetscanada72.png

message: Talk:Canadian_Cadet_Movement#How much difference is there between the elements?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.210.111 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much difference is there between the elements? 

message: Hey Guys...I'm a current Sea Cadet and Prince Andrew is not the Admiral, that position belongs to the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Andrew is Admiral of the Sea Cadets in the UK, that's why they don't have the designation of "royal". Last I heard the Duke was our Admiral
LordLewery (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Andrew is Admiral Of the Canadian Sea Cadets? 

message: On this page there is no mention of Positive Social Relations For Youth (PSRY), which is the succesor to the CHAP (Cadet Harrasment Abuse Prevention)program. If you guys want to put up stuff about scandals, you should have a section on PSRY. Also, this page needs more content.LordLewery (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If this page needs content, be bold and add it! Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention Of PSRY 

message: The discussion is taking place on the Army Cadets talk page please contribute there. That page was selected as representative of all the articles affected. Fiddle Faddle 18:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections on Budget and Sexual Abuse - include or remove