Talk:Sea Scouts New Zealand

Merge of Hawke Sea Scouts to here
This artcile is on a single group which does not assert any particular notability. It fails the criteria regarding local chapters of organisations on Notability (organizations and companies) as well as the guidelines for individual troops of the WikiProject Scouting. When this kind of article has appeared for other countries, they have generally been merged into an article on Scouting in the appropriate State/Province/County/Area, but there are no such articles for New Zealand. It is therefore best merged into Sea Scouts New Zealand, although it has to be said that this article needs great improvement as just a list of Groups is not appropriate. Please give your views below. --Bduke 02:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * Support merge for the reasons I give above. --Bduke 02:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * support merge per Bduke. Chris 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
 * This article has been recently created to give an overview of Sea Scouts in New Zealand and all those involved with Sea Scouting are being encouraged to contribute. Each Sea Scout group is also being encouraged to establish an article about their group which will link back to this article.  You are correct that a list of groups is not sufficient but it is a starting point.  By merging Hawke into this article it would reduce the likelyhood of contributions from other groups.  This article needs chance to evolve before any merging occurs.  HawkeSeaScouts (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is part of a separate reply to HawkeSeaScouts on his talk page. The problem is not really with the Scouting WikiProject guideline on Local Scouting Articles. The problem is with this dot point:-


 * Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included.


 * in Notability (organizations and companies) which the project guidelines reflects and explains in the Scouting context. Maybe the oldest Sea Scout Group in New Zealand might meet that, but a whole lot of articles, as you suggest, will certainly not. Indeed I am surprised that the Hawke Bay article has not been proposed for deletion already. It is pretty clear that it will not survive long. While WikiProject Scouting/Local Scouting articles (BSA) is about USA, there is a clear consensus to do something similar to articles from other countries. Indeed I thought we had something more general and international than that and I will look further. Many articles on Groups in the UK, Australia, Singapore and other places have been merged. If you look at the list of proposed merges at WikiProject Scouting/Article watchlist, you will see just below the Hawke Bay entry, two UK Groups articles that have been merged recently. The other problem is getting reliable independent sources. Your link to this site simply does not meet Wikipedia policy. Certainly, the general Sea Scout article is OK, or at least it will be if you add content other than the list of Groups. How is scouting organised below national level in NZ. In Australia it is the States and Territories and we have articles on Scouting in all of them. In UK it is Counties (England) and Scout Areas (Scotland, Wales and NI). Are there Scout structures for places like Otago? These articles for Scouting in NZ need writing. --Bduke (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I have done the merge. This Group is really not notable enough for an article. --Bduke (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, much later, AfD determined that it should be merged. I have made a first attempt at the merge, but more work needs to be done by others. At present there is too much material on this one topic compared with that on other topics. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sea Scout.svg
The image Image:Sea Scout.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. --05:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Referencing and Group information
This article is very unsatisfactory. There are no real sources for any of the material except for a very small proportion of the Groups listed. The two sections on individual troops are quite unreferenced and go against the principles that have increasingly been applied to Scouting articles internationally. That principle is that information on individual Groups should not be given unless they are specially notable, such as the oldest or largest. Lists of Groups are also generally discouraged and have been removed from articles, for example, in the UK articles. I am inclined to clean this right back to a stub, but am prepared to see whether NZ editors can improve it. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  04:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Since nobody has cleaned this in six months, I have removed the list of Groups. I believe this was the very last place on wikipedia that listed Scout Groups/Troops in a particular area. Such lists are not notable and we are not a directory. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

How to discourage contributions
By merging groups into here and removing list of groups the incentive for groups to contribute has diminished.

I instigated these pages and have done nothing since the mindless interference of dissemination of information, the venturer unit were beginning a project on the history of our group to be placed on the wiki page. They have given up with that idea and will go to print rather than Wikipedia. This is a place for innovation not bureaucratic interference.

Thanks & Goodbye

125.239.232.153 (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think that you do not understand wikipedia. A history of you Group could be an article on wikipedia only if your Group and its history was notable, i.e. it has been noticed by reliable independent sources. I do not think that applies to any Group. The wiki you are looking for is the ScoutWiki at http://en.scoutwiki.org/Main_Page as they welcome material on Groups. Wikipedia does not because of our general policies and guidelines that Scout Groups generally do not meet. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  06:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bduke is right. While I can understand an attachment to a local unit, local units almost never meet Wiki's notability criteria. Such articles are invariably deleted. It's better to bring them into an umbrella article that can survive with proper refs. Bduke is correct in that this current article needs vast improvement and the unit articles should be merged into it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 15:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Units and groups need to meet the standards per Notability (organizations and companies). See WP:SCOUTMOS. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, here we are over 8 years later and this article is still a mess. The section on a Group that has no references should be deleted since it does not meet our notability guidelines. The other Group sections are no better. Only the Hawke Scout hall section is notable and that is because the hall is notable, while the Group is not. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  11:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)