Talk:Scouting and Guiding in New South Wales

Merge of Queanbeyan rovers
WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards includes this statement, "Generally, an entity smaller than a Council (such as a troop, pack, or district) should not have its own article, unless it has done something truly exceptional or unique, or is historically exceptionally significant". I do not think this crew is truly exceptional or unique. It should therefore be merged somewhere else after cutting it down to a smaller size. The State article seems the best place. If that is not done, it is likely to be proposed for deletion. Please give your views below. --Bduke 23:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * As above. --Bduke 23:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The 1932 sounds interesting but the rest is entirely non notable. :: maelgwntalk 00:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * support merge possibly historic but not really notable. Chris 07:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * well QBNR is a district formation and is quite significant —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjdjones (talk • contribs)
 * Do you have references to support the claim of significance? :: maelgwntalk 12:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose merge. 1. How big is a council? Its seems to be a BSA thing that is nor all that relevant. If you look at the “Toronto_Police_Service_Rover_Crew” page it contradicts this point. 2. How do you decide that is notable? Is it just based on someone’s opinion?  3. Also what is a claim of significance? What do u need to do to support a claim and how significant do you have to be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizyjefferson (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. Because some other article has not been merged or deleted is not considered a good argument on Wikipedia why another article should not be merged or deleted. In the case of Toronto Police Service Rover Crew, I recall it was suggested for merging or deletion (I do not recall which) and its links with the Police was considered notable as being unique or at least unusual. As to Councils, yes, they are a BSA thing. In Australia, the equivalent is a District, or perhaps better a Region in some States (neither is exactly comparable), and these are not considered by the standards of the Scouting WikiProject to be notable enough for a separate article. The same applies to Troops, Groups and Crews. We have merged many other articles on Australian Rover Crews. The only one that I think has not been so merged is Surrey-Thomas Rover Crew which was kept because of its significance outside Scouting in the development of the sport of rogaining. The oldest Rover Crew in Australia, if an article was written, might be kept. Maybe even the oldest Rover Crew in NSW. An claim to notability would have to be supported by sources outside scouting that recognized it as notable. It is not based on the opinions of WP editors. As it stands, there is nothing in this article that makes it any different from any other Rover Crew in Australia. --Bduke 04:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Closed
I have closed this as Merge because the only oppose has failed to respond or provided a reason with evidence. In saying that I haven't kept any content. :: maelgwntalk 11:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Scouting on the NSW Central Coast
The central coast article is copied in parts from other articles on Wikipedia, which is not a problem in itself but shows that it is no different from any other scouting areas in Australia. So propose merge because the scope of the two articles is nearly identical, there is no information to say there is anything specific about the Central Coast to make it needy of its own article. Fails criteria on notability and is unreferenced. :: maelgwn - talk 06:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * I support the merge and the removal of Group material which maelgwn has just done. However, I point out that lists of groups are found on most of the County articles in the UK. Counties in the UK are perhaps equivalent to regions in Australia, such as the Central Coast. I think they should be removed there too, but there does not seem to be a consensus to do so. Let us see how it goes. --Bduke 06:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * absolutely support merge, most of this looks like a direct copy-and paste from anything available on any SA article, so not much to merge. Chris 07:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * support Rlevse 02:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Merge completed. Note that as maelgwn points out most of the article was statements that could be made about any part of Scouts Australia. There is no need for them in the State article. The result is that only one sentence formed from two here was actually added to the State article. --Bduke 23:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Scouts Australia.svg
The image Image:Scouts Australia.svg 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 Media copyright questions. --04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)