Talk:Western Los Angeles County Council

merge
Mostly a list containing data that's already in other places. Recommend a merge to Scouting in California. KC9CQJ 16:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Man, if we merge this and other councils, that'll be one monster of a page. I think that it would be much better to have council pages. Scoutersig 16:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By and large it's not a great idea to have council pages, we had to clean up several dozen one-paragraph wonders to get them at all readable and combined as a state format, as agreed upon by the Scouting WikiProject. Larger existing articles with good content, however, have not been merged, just hyperlinked. Based on the particular content that is not (yet) in this article, I support the merge. Chris 21:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, putting the fact that I authored beginnings (and most of the current content) article, I'd have to agree very much with scoutersig that merging this with the larger categories would create something that is too large and cumbersome. I know the scouting wikiproject is trying to merge everything, but really all that will do is make articles too large to be useful and two concise to be meaningful. I intend to comment on that there as well. In addition, this article's current content was intended as a beginning to be added on by other users. Councils like WLACC have a rich history that would be lost to other encyclopedias who don't have the manpower or the space to find it, Wikipedia offers the opportunity that none of the others can in potentially having both. If you look at my contribution's you'll see I'm big on keeping things relevant, sourced, and notable, so perhaps every council does not warrant it's own page- that's something I'd be willing to even debate for this article- but that doesn't mean each individual article should be pigeonholed into non-existance. ~ Falls End (T, C) 22:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Brother, that's not at all what we're trying to do, the point is that the content is not there at the moment. I would be most supportive of leaving the article as it is now, if and only if it is filled with new information. As it stands, it's not really there yet. I agree it is worthy if you will put in more content. Chris 00:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If for no other reason than consistency throughout the project, we should follow our agreed upon policy. If an article gets too large following that, we'll worry about that at the time it happens, so far there hasn't been enough info in the smaller articles to keep them separate. Rlevse 21:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Current debate on images
Please see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content_review. An archive can be found here. --evrik (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)