Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting

Article watch
These articles were summarily redirected:
 * COPE (Boy Scouts of America)
 * National Advanced Youth Leadership Experience
 * Philmont Training Center

There has also been edits to:
 * Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America)
 * Boy Scouts of America

This got deleted:
 * White Stag Leadership Development Program

...and then there's this:
 * Béla H. Bánáthy

You may want to add these to your watchlist. --evrik (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I am going to be AFK until next week. Just an FYI, I just posted this: Administrators%27 noticeboard/Edit warring --evrik (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Graywalls is at it again Scouting in Washington (state), Scouting in Oregon, Philmont Leadership Challenge, Seneca Waterways Council, Mount Diablo Silverado Council, Leadership training (Boy Scouts of America), and Introduction to Leadership Skills (Boy Scouts of America). --evrik (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Attacking the reputation of individual users here: Talk:Scouting_in_Washington_(state). --evrik (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , When there are edits made by users whose user name is Name-CompanyAcronym and they make contents nearly exclusively on the area associated with the company/org in question, that raises reasonable cause for COI. When an article has edits by multiple such editors, or editors whose edit pattern and name otherwise suggest clear professional connection, it's a reasonable suspicion. When articles are tagged with the template, they're listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_articles_with_possible_conflicts_of_interest which allows it to be noticed by uninvolved editorsinterested in addressing articles with COI concerns. Graywalls (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Calling out someone who hasn't edited in eight years is a stretch. --evrik (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , It's not a call out on any individual in specific, but the contents added by them still present in article and possible COI they may have had at the time the edit was made. "Attacking the reputation of individual users" is not the case here and I ask that you retract such accusation. Adding COI tag helps with improving the article, because it would bring the article to the attention of those who monitor articles tagged with them and they come from the broader Wikipedia editor community as opposed to being confined to interest specific WikiProject. Graywalls (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/COPE (Boy Scouts of America)
FYI on article within the project. Articles for deletion/COPE (Boy Scouts of America)  North8000 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This is a bad article in every aspect. It fails to show the programmes notability, uses mainly primary sources and describes only a minor and very BSA-specific aspect of ropes courses in an educational setting. From a world-wide viewpoint I can't even understand why this was written. --jergen (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * My own opinion is that it's common for there to be sub-articles for enclyclopedic information where they would make the top level article too large. And they often contain "boring" enclyclopedic information which secondary sources write little on.  Having done thousands of NPP reviews (while also learning from experienced-others during that process) common practice is to not apply an unusually strict application of GNG to these.   Whether you base that on common practice or application of the WP:IAR policy to develop enclyclopedic coverage / include enclyclopedic material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I have a unique item hand made and engraved with the scouts coat of arms or the fleur-de-lis. I would like to trace its origin and value
Double sided axe/hatchet, solid brass, engraved with lily emblem on each side of both blades. Snitzel111 (talk) 09:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

"Template:WPSCOUTING" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WPSCOUTING&redirect=no Template:WPSCOUTING] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Nickps (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We don’t need the redirect. Please go weigh in. --evrik (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This redirect is helpful and consistent with several dozen other templates. Please weigh in. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The redirect is completely unused. It was created three days ago. --evrik (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is helpful and consistent with several dozen other templates. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not within this wikiproject. Unused and unneeded. --evrik (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is helpful and consistent with several dozen other templates. There is no need for this. Please pump the brakes. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This redirect is unused, and not need by this wikiproject, just cleaning up the cruft. --evrik (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please stop. ―Justin ( koa v f ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Both of you need to stop. The comments made by both of you can be interpreted as an attempt to WP:CANVASS. The RfD is already linked, and ALL discussion should be held there. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Canvasiing? Hardy. More like DROPTHESTICK. --evrik (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:Scoutstat BSA
Scoutstat BSA

Can we get this template updated? --evrik (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Evrik: Here are links to the BSA's 2023 Annual Report and the OA's 2023 Impact Report. They don't have all the stats that are in the template, but you could use these to get started.  Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the relationship between Scoutstat BSA/sandbox and Scoutstat_BSA/doc. Also, I'd like to update as much as possible all at once. --evrik (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Our membership rolls
I had an opportunity this evening to look at every talk page that had the newsletter delivered today (there was a missing colon in the template and I went back to add them all back in). I know that this page, WikiProject_Scouting/Members, is out of date. I hadn't realized how badly that WikiProject Scouting/Members/delivery is out of date as well. There are many pages like this one, User talk:Forestfufighting, where the only postings on the talk page are from our newsletter. There are other pages that it is clear that the wikipedian is not longer active. I think we should trim the delivery list. Thoughts? --evrik (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are they doing any harm? I do not think so. However, if we delete one that someone wants to keep, we will be in deep trouble. Just leave them. It is how Wikipedia works. Bduke (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it. And also an inactive editor might still like to consider themselves to be a member.  If we wanted to have the list to become more informative regarding this, we could add a "reconfirmed date" column which the editor could update whenever they want. North8000 (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)