Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2006

How do I join?
Is it enough to add my name/interests? --Lou Crazy 00:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * yes! Welcome aboard! :) --Naha|(talk) 15:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Additions

 * added WikiProject Scouting to Sea Badge. Bduke 21:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * added WikiProject Scouting to Three-finger salute (scouts) -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * added WikiProject Scouting to Webelos rank (Cub Scouts of America). Bduke 21:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, but you don't need to list every page you add the project tag too. There'd be hundreds of articles here. Please do list new articles on the Scouting project page. Rlevse 22:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Distinction between Scouting and the BSA
I think we have a systemic problem of conflating Scouting with the BSA. For example, the first half of the scoutmaster article is clearly referring to the BSA, though this isn't stated. Only in the middle of the article is the disclaimer "Some Scout Associations use different terms for these positions." The article then has a section about South Africa and a link to Poland, implying that the information above is generic to all forms of Scouting. I think one of the goals of this project should be making sure articles are clear about whether they are referring to the BSA or other Scouting organizations, or about Scouting in general. -- Scott ei&#960;  21:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had a go at the Scoutmaster page, making a general section and a BSA section and that added a UK section and an Australia section. What do you think? Maybe this page should be retitled ('moved') to Leaders in Scouting and altered to deal with all sections on an equal basis and add something about leaders above the Troop or Group - in UK, District Scout Leaders, etc and District Commissioner, County Commissioner, Field Commissioner etc. Lots of other pages have the same problem. For example, the Rover Scouts page has far too much on BSA Rovers compared with other countries where Rovering has been much more important than in the USA. --Bduke 22:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea, and I support it. Do bear in mind, as the largest English-speaking Scout association, on the English-language 'pedia, you're going to find a _lot_ like that. Chris 23:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll second that idea, though it should be Adult leaders in Scouting, since there are youth leaders too. -- Scott ei&#960;  01:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are, I feel, TOO MANY adult jobs to include in one page, UNLESS, you have subarticles. Yes, we want to include ALL Scouting, not just BSA. Rlevse 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but how many of those jobs are notable? How many can we treat with just a quick blurb? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you limit yourself to the BSA, not that many, but if you encompass the worldwide movement, LOTS. How this is handled should be settled before going much further.  You may want to add this to the "decisions to be made" section of the TODO page. Rlevse 22:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We also need a distinction between Boy Scouts as the organization and Boy Scouts as a division. I recommend that when referring to the organization, we use Boy Scouts of America or BSA. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is the job of wikipedia to give information about every adult position in Scouting. At some point the reader has to go to the appropriate manuals of the appropriate Association in the country concerned. However, I do think that people want to see a comparision of the way adult leadership is handled in different countries and an explanation of the terms used. I think we should go ahead and rename the page Adult leaders in Scouting. There should be a general introduction and then articles on different Associations or countries. If it all gets too large we can hive off new articles such as Adult leaders in Scouting (Europe), Adult leaders in Scouting (Americas), Adult leaders in Scouting (Asia), etc., or even go down to country articles. The problem of size can be handled when we meet it. --Bduke 22:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

GSUSA
I did some editing on the Girl Scouts of America artical, I am a senior Girl Scout and think that I can make some valuable contributions to that and other pages concerning girl scouting. I also would like to make a Girl Scouting userbox and a wikiproject scouting userbox, but I'm not very good at that and not really sure how. Griz 02:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I created one at User:Kintetsubuffalo/workshop/Template:User Wikiproject Scout, it is actually borrowed from one of our other members, but I sheepishly forget whom at the moment


 * Good, we need more people helping on the girl side of the program. We'll move the project box to main Wiki soon, remind me. Rlevse 03:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

GSA is the General Services Administration; the correct abbreviation is GSUSA, so I changed the title line - GCW

Userbox
We need a userbox saying we are in WikiProject Scouting. I looove userboxes. Right now I have 63. I didn't just join for the userbox though. I like Scouts. We still need a userbox though. schyler 03:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what I use:-

Copy it direct and it gives:-

Most of it taken from the work of others and combined together. I prefer to not use usebox templates and if I want to have them I use to put then direct into my page, so I am not interested in making this an official userbox, but feel free to do do yourself modified in what ever way you like. --Bduke 04:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sweeeeet. schyler 04:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see the interest in the userbox! I know where the source is and will move it to the main userbox area later today. Rlevse 11:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to get the hat a bit bigger in the left box, but it is only slightly larger than where I got it from. If you can fix this before putting it in the userbox area, I think that would be good. --Bduke 12:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS MADE. Only, I used our standard project image instead of the hat as that only seemed appropriate to me. Add the userbox User Scouting WikiProject to your page; it automatically adds you to the Category:WikiProject Scouting members  Rlevse 13:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

This user box is slightly higher than the one I added above, at least on my browser, so it puts rows of boxes in a table out of line. I put it here so they can be directly compared. Can the height be reduced to the standard height of other userboxes? --Bduke 22:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Try it now. Rlevse 22:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is still a little bit higher than the Wood Badge userbox, but I can live with it. See the two together on my user page. --Bduke 22:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Members of the Asia-Pacific Scout Region
I have added articles for Scouting in Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuata which means that the template for Members of the Asia-Pacific Scout Region now shows no 'red' links. The links from the template and from Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems are differently worded so I have done redirect pages. For example Solomon Islands branch of The Scout Association and Scouting on the Solomon Islands both work.

However, I want to raise a point. Many of the small Pacific states do not have their own Scout Association. They are looked after by a larger Association. For example the Solomon Islands is looked after by the UK Scout Association. Others are looked after by the USA and New Zealand. This must be a sensitive issue for some in an independant state. We need to be sensitive about how the article describes this link and of course make sure our facts are always correct. --Bduke 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent points. I'm glad you are knowledgeable in this area.  I also moved the Gallery's category to "Scout logos" so these images are all under one parent cat.  There are hundreds of images directly under "Scout logos", but only the Galley is an article.  Cleaning this up (much of it is duplicated and the independent images could be better organized) is on the TODO page.Rlevse 23:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made a new category for such Scouting organizations and added the Solomons one to it. Please see the RulesStandards page or the category itself. Rlevse 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Studio 2B
Studio 2B is no longer an artical stub and no longer needs cleaned, I edited it to include more on the program, the benefits for girls in the program, and added the reasons for the contraversy and why it is so greatly disliked by many girl scouts in our nation as it was seen at the national conference. Griz 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, also, how do you put up images on a page, I have one for studio 2B but don't know how to put it on there. Griz 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Use something like Chris 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

But I still don't know how to get the image on there, I tried it and a link just comes up. Griz 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I'm smellin' what you're cookin' now. You must first upload file to the Wikipedia commons, using the toolbox link at the left side of this and most pages. Chris 21:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. Griz 21:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Instant Messenger Communication
Name it: AIM, Yahoo, ICQ, MSN - I use them all, even IRC. I've noticed that a lot of us in the Scouting Project seem to be online at the same times and often editing the same articles etc, and (at least I find) its annoying to try to have a conversation with someone regarding what should be done about x or y by posting back and forth and back and forth. While this message-board/forum style system does have its advantages (gives you more time to think about your answers/comments before you reply or comment), sometimes I just wish I could talk to you guys about something more quickly.

So, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to either (a) share Instant Messenger information so we could talk to each other one-on-one and/or (2) set up an IRC channel/chatroom (something like #Wiki-Scouting on one of the various IRC networks, undernet, dalnet, webnet whatever) where we can ALL talk together about the Project. If important decisions were made in this manner (off of Wikipedia), we could log the conversations and post the "minutes" on a subpage of the Scouting project for permanent reference/citing/etc. I'm more than willing to try to cooridainte something like this and set up/register a channel if we went that route. Basically, I have cable-Internet, my IMs are always connected and I can always be contacts through them if I'm at home (heh or even if I'm not in some cases - so its a convenience thing) Thoughts? --Naha|(talk) 19:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. I've thought of sharing email addresses too.  However, I have never used IM, so I'd have to be educated.  Plus, I REFUSE to use anything that has ANYTHING to do with AOL (includig AIM). email me anytime (I've turned it on for you guys; I usually have it off). Rlevse 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I hear ya about AIM. I just have an account because its the easiest way to contact several of my friends online. For instant messengers, I prefer ICQ.  But the more I think about it, I think an IRC channel might be the way to go, because everyone can be in the channel and talk together at the same time.  Anyone else have input on this idea? --Naha|(talk) 04:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Still wondering if anyone else wants me to set this up and might find it helpful? --Naha|(talk) 01:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Chief Scout (United Kingdom)
I have just added this page, which lists all UK Chief Scouts including B-P who was Chief Scout of the World, and later Chiefs who were Chief Scout of the Empire, Commonwealth, etc (various titles were used). I draw this to everyone's attention so "Chief Scout" on many pages can now be made into a link, and also so maybe the three Chiefs without their own page can have those written. I note in passing that the 2nd Chief Scout, Lord Somers, does have a page, but until today it did not mention he was Chief Scout! --Bduke 02:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not just make it just Chief Scout and we can update the page with different counties Chiefs instead of Chief Scout (United Kingdom), Chief Scout (Ireland) etc etc... Ablaze 11:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think, this would be quite a mess; I prefer country-oriented pages, since they fit better to categories. --jergen 11:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * agree with Jergen-country articles (especially outside of the dozen or so big ones) are the best place to look up specific information on one's own national Scouting.Chris 18:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

merit badge college
I am currently attending a merit badge college to finish up some incomplete requirements for some merit badges I need for eagle. I thaught it would be a good idea to make an article on this. Is this already an article? Is it as widespread as I think it is? Is It worthy to be an article? Thanks. schyler 00:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, these are fairly common. I do not know if they are held in countries outside the USA.  I do not think it warrants a separate article, but rather should be a subsection of Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America). Rlevse 00:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Can it not be added to another page on Merit Badges? It would only be a brief stub otherwise and we have too many of those. I see I am agreeing with Rlevse who has added a comment as I edited. --Bduke 00:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I added the subsection, but it looks kind of bare to me. Feel free to add to it. schyler 01:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far, going to need a source for the information if possible. --Naha|(talk) 14:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't really a source for the information. I wrote what I have experienced. schyler 13:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nothing about this can be found on Google? Even if your info. is correct, it's best to not make it look like original research. --Myles Long/cDc 20:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal Link
I am wondering whether we are overdoing by putting the Portal link on every article where we have seen fit to add the Wikiproject template to the talk page. The Boys Brigade, for example, might not appreciate this (I have no problem about them included in Scouting Categories). Other cases that concern me are people. For example Charles Maclean of Duart, Baron Maclean was Lord Chamberlain, which is effectively the Speaker of the House of Lords - equivalent to the Vice-President's role in the US Senate. This is rather more important than that he was a Chief Scout. It will be interesting to see whether any of these Portal links are removed, or whether anyone outside the Scouting Project objects. --Bduke 02:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, I have been thinking over this myself the last day or so. I think the portal link should only be on "main" scouting pages, if that makes sense...not every single tiny thing.  I feel that Category links on article pages and Project notices on the talk page are sufficient for small (not insignificant) but ..articles of ...lesser importance?  I also don't think the Portal link  should be on pages where the person's main involvement/main drift of the article is not related to Scouting, per the above mentioned example.  We just don't want to overdo it :) --Naha|(talk) 05:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anyone remove it yet, that I've noticed, but on one article they did move it down into the Scouting section of the article. Works for me.   Also consider, that the Boys Brigade or whomever, might get offended if we did NOT include them.  I think that if they objected to being in the project, they'd have removed the template by now, and no one has that I'm aware of.  On the other hand, I do see where you're coming from.  If anyone removes the template or portal link, we'll leave it that way. I've moved the portal link on the Baron's stub into the stub area (he has two stub notices on his article). The category and project links do not notify people we have a portal, they'd have to dig for it.  This provides a way for them to easily see what we have going on.Rlevse 11:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I am more than happy with that. However, just to clarify. I am sure the Boys Brigade want to be in the project, but that does not necessarily mean they want the Scouts Portal link on their page. The project covers Scouting and related organisations, but the Portal might be seen as being just Scouts and Guides. --Bduke 11:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The only reason I hadn't removed any is because I wanted to discuss it first :P But I'm satisfied with this. I'll leave them be unless there is consensus to remove them or move them to a specific section of an article. --Naha|(talk) 14:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Both the portal and project headers clearly state that we are not just Scouts and Guides, that we include all Scouting. And again, if anyone wants to remove the portal tag, it won't bug me. On a different note, I'm 90% done adding the portal tag, so it's kind of late to turn back; plus, I've found many Scouting articles that weren't in the project, didn't even have the template, had wrong categories, missing region templates, etc.  It's been a time consuming but productive evolution. Rlevse 12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You are doing an outstanding job :) --Naha|(talk) 14:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll second that. --Bduke 20:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the portal link from the YMCA page. The YMCA only has a passing connection to scouting. Please take this in the good humour that is intended, but the portal tag smacks a little of a 'gang' tag on some of the pages. Cometward 05:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project
Hi, I'm a member of the Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? I noticed your list of FAs, are there any others? Please post your suggestions here. Thanks a lot! Gflores Talk 17:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

FA Status
History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)

A-class
George Thomas Coker, Arthur Rose Eldred, Eagle Scout rank (Boy Scouts of America), , Owasippe Scout Reservation

B-Class
Traditional Scouting, Wood Badge

Edit war on Scouting
What started as an edit war by someone outside of Scouting WP has grown into a personal attack on me on Scouting. WOSM has guidelines on how and when countries are acceptable and when not, I am sure they are copied somewhere, meanwhile I am trying to keep the damned thing NPOV. I am already burning out on the Wikipedia due to all the smallmindedness, and recent attacks of late because of my doing what we had already discussed and established are just about to chase me off entirely. Would someone please back me up here and take some of the burden off of me personally on this one? For the love of B-P, I'm calling for assistance pronto. YiS, Chris 02:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dude, chill. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Scout-former
Can we close off the debate on Template talk:User Scout-former about effectively deleting this template, although of course it has not actually been put up for deletion. Some people wanted to use it to express dissagreement with BSA on their stand against gays, but a new userbox for this was created. Since then the debate has calmed down and the consensus is "Keep". Can we just add to the bottom of the debate that the Scouting Project is not going to propose the deletion of this template? --Bduke 21:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not a merge expert, but I think you can and then remove the appropriate merge headers. Rlevse 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Pulp and Paper Merit Badge
I hate to say this, but Pulp and Paper Merit Badge seems like a completely unencyclopedic article. I don't want User:NThurston to in any way feel unwelcome or unappreciated, but this kind of article simply doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. WP:NOT says: The article likely doesn't deserve its own page in the first place. After all, how much is there to say about the merit badge? Information about pulp and paper already exists in various articles. Lists of requirements don't belong on Wikipedia. Merit badge pamphlets don't belong on Wikipedia. This article is going to, sooner or later, get nominated for deletion. YiS &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 07:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This page is a how-to guide to getting to the badge, which is not permitted.
 * Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. The article is, for the most part, just a list of links.
 * I entirely agree. It starts by saying it is a "resource page" for scouts. This is not the job of WP and will be like a red rag to the deletionists. It should be moved to Wikibooks. Resource pages there for merit pages would be a good idea. --Bduke 07:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The page has been nominated for deletion here. &mdash; Scm83x talk [[Image:Hookem_hand.gif|18px]] 07:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Did someone say deletionist? :-) I clicked through with every intention of listing it for afd, to find that Scm83x beat me to it (and edited here while I was typing this).  If someone wants to create resource aides for MBs over at wikibooks, that's fine and dandy, but for now meritbadge.com seems more than up to the task. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the positive concerns. I have addressed them and will consider wikibooks.  I must say, that I am surprised that for all your expertise in Wiki deletion policy, you seem to have forgotten the fundamental purpose of what Wiki is.  What kind of comments are "The article likely doesn't deserve its own page in the first place." and "Merit badge pamphlets don't belong on Wikipedia."  Is Wikipedia running out of space?  Some articles on smaller topics are still valuable in this environment.  I firmly support the idea of making more information available, not less.
 * It seems furthermore surprising that the two deletionists above jumped on a page that had not even been fully developed and their preferred solution was to delete it rather than make it better. This is not the way to encourage dialog and cooperation, nor is it a way to make newcomers feel welcome or appreciated, FWIW.
 * As for meritbadge.com and USSSP, they are both limited by the fact that the webmasters control input and information. As a result meritbadge.com is woefully out of date.  USSSP is much better and is a valuable service, but does not have the advantage of community-based input.  They have to referee every suggestion, and since they are volunteers, there are limitations.  In any case, I would still appreciate more positive comments and suggestions.  NThurston 17:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:NOT really careful. Wikipedia is not the space to store anything, but a project to create an encyclopedia. --jergen 17:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read through it very carefully (again), and still feel that documenting the images, history, nature, and contributions of a particular merit badge does not run afoul of any of the proscriptions there, especially items listed under 1.7 which seems to be the original beef. Perhaps I am missing something, but I would think that documenting the history (past and present) of Scouting's awards, how they are earned, etc. is a worthy encyclopedic entry.  Would you mind taking a look at it in its  current form and suggesting how the article could be improved?  Thanks NThurston 21:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Issues
I'm concerned with the use of Image:--ScoutsChris3.jpg in WikiProject Scouting. The problem is that, since the image is labeled as a logo, and therefore used under considerations of fair use (the criteria, of which all must be met, can be found here: Fair_use) can only be used in articles. It can't be used in templates (the userboxes and the one at the top of Scouting-related talk pages), Wikipedia namespace (such as in this project), portals (such as the one up for featured candidacy), user pages, and the like. Though people aren't hunting down the use of this logo, it's a legal issue for the Wikimedia Foundation and something we should actively try to avoid. Anyone have suggestions for an alternative? &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 07:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought this was used because it not actually the logo used by anyone and that it is open source. Was it introduced by User:Kintetsubuffalo? If so, why not ask him. He was editing yesterday even though his page says he has quit fpr a while. --Bduke 08:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If it's open source, the fair use tag on the image page certaintly does not reflect that. I'm not sure about the status. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 09:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When he made it, he said it was an old unused logo. That's all I remember.Rlevse 11:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. trademark law
The 1916 Act of congress did not create any copyright interests because the Constitution specifies that copyrights may only be granted for "limited times," and the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) do not claim any copyrights, using the registered trademark (R) symbol alone in conjunction with their logo, and not the (C) symbol.

U.S. law protects the use of trademarks by nonowners for purposes of criticism and commentary. First Amendment considerations override any expressive, noncommercial use of trademarks. "The Constitution is not offended when the [Maine] antidilution statute is applied to prevent a defendant from using a trademark without permission in order to merchandise dissimilar products or services. ... The Constitution does not, however, permit the range of the antidilution statute to encompass the unauthorized use of a trademark in a noncommercial setting such as an editorial or artistic context." (emphasis added) L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Pubs., Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 31, 33 (1st Cir. 1987).

Similarly, the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 does not apply to the "noncommercial use" of a famous mark. 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(4)(B). The U.S. Supreme Court has defined "commercial speech" as "speech which ... propose[s] a commercial transaction." ''Virginia Pharmacy Ed. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.,'' 425 U.S. 748, 762 (1976).

The only limit on that right is whether someone might think that the commentary was produced by the trademark owner, and this limit is explicity defined in reference to Boy Scouts. "[A]n author certainly would have a First Amendment right to write about the subject of the Boy Scouts and/or Girl Scouts. However, this right is diluted by trademark law insofar as that author cannot present her subject in a manner that confuses or misleads the public into believing, through the use of one or more trademarks, that those organizations have produced or sponsored the work in question." (emphasis added) Girl Scouts of the United States v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1112 at 1121, n. 12 (S.D.N.Y. 1992.) --James S. 15:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever the case, that means that isn't accurate all the time. This photo may deserve a different tag, but it can't be labeled "fair use" if it's to stay in templates and user pages. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk  16:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Alternative image
I contacted Chris, who created an alternative image located at Image:GreenGold.png, which he licensed under GFDL. It not only contains a fleur-de-lis, but it is superimposed over a trefoil for the Girl Guides and does not contain an English-speaker-only rocker reading "Be Prepared." What does everyone think of the new image? If it works, we should replace the improperly used fair use image. Thanks, Chris! &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 07:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * He's also created two more alternatives: Image:Scoutsgreengold1.jpg and Image:Scoutsgreengoldnoscroll.jpg. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 08:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Shall we have a vote on them? --Bduke 10:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I prefer the 3rd one mentioned. --Bduke 10:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the 3rd one, Image:Scoutsgreengoldnoscroll.jpg, is the one I prefer. Rlevse 11:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * agree. Where's the barnstar version? :-) --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, that one (#3) is swell. --Myles Long/cDc 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * #3, looks much more asthetic to me. - Pureblade  | Θ 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Number 1 is my vote. I like the plainer image.evrik 02:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree, with the third one being my favorite -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 22:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's an preference for #3, so I'll test that out. Rlevse 11:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Transparent


This is a .PNG version with transparency. I took the liberty of changing the ScoutingWikiProject template to use this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Ed: But it's not showing up as transparent, the background is still white. Also, for pages that have white background, the part inside the green trefoil outline needs to stay white. Rlevse 12:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused: it's transparent on the template at the top of this page, and on the drafts of the User Scouting WikiProject template. It does need to be used on the proper background: the original  User Scouting WikiProject template uses a green background that absorbs the trefoil. --Gadget850 ( Ed)

Ed: I think we're defining "transparent" differently. To me that means the white box around the design goes away and the color of whatever box it is in closes into the border of the design (here, the green Girl Scout outline)....As for the box choices (nice job!), I like the green one at the center of the top row because I think the color should match the color scheme of the portal, which is green. Rlevse 14:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)randy

Ah: Do you mean the interior of the trefoil should remain white? When you apply transparency, in this case to the white background, then everything that is white becomes transparent. I'd have to shift the white a bit between the inside and outside to make the technically different and reapply the transparency. Perhaps this weekend. --Gadget850 ( Ed)


 * That's what I meant, the interior would stay white. Then if we go that route, the green border trefoil would need to have enough contrast with the background color of what we use it on, which is mainly the portal and project template. This may not turn out well, but I'd like you to try it for a look see when you get a chance and show us the results. Rlevse 14:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also remember that transparent PNGs don't work in IE-- your background is always white there. --CannotResolveSymbol talk 21:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah! No wonder: I normally use FireFox, but I see the problem when I use IE.  Guess I'll switch to a .GIF. Thanks! --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Scout Images and Copyright
From what I can tell from reading the Wiki guidelines, when someone scans in a patch or other Scout-related design, the scan is subject to the same copyright situation as the item being scanned. Hence, a front-on photo of the Mona Lisa has no copyright, because the Mona Lisa has no copyright. So, what do we know about the copyright status of Scout-related images, especially BSA images? For example, if I scan in the Arrow of Light knot, is that protected by copyright? If so, what fair use guidelines would apply? NThurston 23:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Put a msg on Rebelguys2's talk page, he understands this better than most of us.140.32.75.24 20:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, most badges we have lying around at the moment are subject to copyright as they're fairly recent; any work is always automatically protected under copyright guideline. There's really no one guideline I can set out, but here's a quick (hah!) summary regarding all BSA-related images, from what I can tell thus far. If the image isn't from the United States, of course, it's a completely new mess.
 * For old, copyright-expired BSA images (pre-1923):
 * The BSA's logos are explicitly protected by a 1916 clause in the United States Code. However, they aren't protected from all use by others. L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Pubs., Inc., the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995, Virginia Pharmacy Ed. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., and Girl Scouts of the United States v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group effectively say, to put it briefly, that anyone is allowed to use or modify a trademark for non-commercial use provided the audience isn't being mislead.
 * The grey area is the fact that those rulings still say that images cannot be used for non-commerical use. Wikipedia does not allow images with any trace of a "non-commercial" clause, per Jimbo's ruling. As a result, they probably need some kind of fair use tag, but, therefore can't be used anywhere other than in articles. Some of you may have seen my discussion regarding a modified image up for deletion a while back; I went ahead and conceded, though I'm really unsure about this "non-commercial" problem.
 * For current BSA images (post-1923):
 * Everything published after 1923 is still, automatically, under copyright. Therefore, every one of these images technically require a fair use rationale (i.e., either it illustrates the subject or provides critical commentary &mdash; and no alternative is easily available) for each page they're located on, and cannot be placed anywhere other than within an article. Someone designed a fair use tag for Scouting images at ; that's a good and convenient way for us to justify use of others' images.
 * The current arrow for the OA, for example, is still under copyright. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm too young to remember, but the current arrow design is, in relative terms, fairly recent. Therefore, it requires a fair use rationale.
 * As far as generating a new copyright when you take a photo or scan something, it depends on whether the subject is 2-D or 3-D. I'm inclined to say that patches are 2-D, and, therefore, these images are therefore protected, as we display patches like they are 2-D images. You would need a fair use rationale. However, nearly every technical aspect of copyright is debatable &mdash; otherwise, it'd be cut and dry and we'd have no use for patent lawyers.
 * Additional Notes:
 * I've seen argued, over and over again and all throughout Wikipedia, that a derivative work was not taken from the original &mdash; it's not the same size, it's not the same color, I drew it myself, etc. Copyright is generated only by instances of "creativity" (how vague is that?), and, therefore, redrawing a copyrighted image yourself isn't going to count for anything. Of course, some subjects are a little more open; I wouldn't expect to draw a dart board and infringe on Target stores, or to draw a generic fleur-de-lis and infringe on a Scouting copyright.
 * Frankly, most of the stuff you scan in will likely be copyrighted and in need of a fair use tag, unless it was from before January 1, 1923. It's quite a pain in the ass, yes. Don't worry too much about it, as that's not and shouldn't be the focus of most Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia copyright guidelines are still being discussed and debated, regardless. I've only myself brought up the issue twice regarding Scouting images, as I didn't want to see a violation when the Scouting Portal went up for featured candidacy, and because userboxes are an extremely touchy and hard-hit subject on Wikipedia at the moment. There's plenty more to be done &mdash; at the end of December, nearly 40,000 images were completely untagged, and I can't even imagine how many were done so wrongly &mdash; so let's not dwell too much, except for those images that we use extremely prominently throughout Wikipedia. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 22:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Infobox Scouting - what needs to be placed in the info box?evrik 20:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We haven't decided yet. I'm moving this to the bottom of the talk page, which we keep in date order. Rlevse 22:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Why did it get deleted?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Scouting&curid=3772830&diff=53172201&oldid=53169432

--evrik 13:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone created it. It also is dupe listed on the Todo page.  To look at the person's proposed box, go to the Todo page and click on the link. (It's the first one under "Project-related". Rlevse 14:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

List of Famous Scouts
Is there a list of famous Scouts? This was just added to the Cradle of Liberty page.evrik 17:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The List of Eagle Scouts is the closest. There is no article on non-Eagles who were famous but Scouts. Rlevse 18:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Famous Scouts and Scouters These men were Scouts or Scouters, but did not complete the Eagle Rank.
 * 1) Henry "Hank" Aaron, athlete (baseball), Silver Buffalo Award; Is often thought to be an Eagle because of an advertisement he did for the BSA.
 * 2) Walter Cronkite beloved Journalist, T.V. commentator
 * 3) Henry Fonda, actor, Academy Award winner, was a Scout and Scoutmaster
 * 4) Harrison Ford: a Life Scout; Ford also played Indiana Jones, a fictional Life Scout in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
 * 5) Bill Gates, Life Scout and richest man in the world, see entry on his father William H. Gates, Sr. in Eagle Scout list
 * 6) George Hooks, politician (Georgia State Senate)
 * 7) Jimmy Stewart, Second Class Scout, actor, Brigadier General, Silver Buffalo Award, Presidential Medal of Freedom
 * 8) Tommy Lasorda

As probably many non-Americans, I don't recognize myself in the US scout logo. Therefore I propose to use the global logo of the World Organization of the Scout Movement instead. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 14:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Notes
 * No go. This is WOSM specific emblem and that would leave out WAGGGS (Girls) and the non-affiliated Scouting movements. Including all Scouting, not just WOSM, is a project/portal goal.  Also the logo on the portal is not American.  It was made using the Scouting colors selected by BP and made as a generic trefoil, so it is not specific to any country.  The trefoil, in some form, is part of virtually every Scout assoication and the two stars are on many of them.  Again, this is not an American logo; in fact it is loosely based on an old Canadian design. I don't see the problem, it seems a pretty basic and generic design to me. Rlevse 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're right. It is indeed the generic wikiproject logo. It was so minimized that I failed to notice the similarity and therefore that it it generally applies. As it totally not looks like any scout logo I know (other than the US logo), I mistakenly assumed it being equal. My apologies, and of course motion retracted. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 16:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

Just one note: please use the PNG variant and not the GIF variant. PNG scales much better than GIF, so that you retain the Girl Guides' clover leave! A big difference on my FF browser. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 16:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC).


 * It makes a difference in IE too, so yes, let's use the png version. Rlevse 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Prehaps a recommendations for the WikiProject Scouting template as well: PNGs also scale better to 75 pix than GIFs. I didn't want to be so bold, but highly recommend it. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC).
 * I must have done that about when you wrote that. I had at 50 for awhile today. Rlevse 22:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Camp Wolfeboro
Do you really think that the Camp Wolfeboro article is better off as a note inserted into the Scouting in California article, rather than standing by itself? (I suppose the same question applies to a lot of the other substantial entries on various camps run by the different CA councils.) The Scouting in California article is already quite lengthy, and could probably benefit from a bit of trimming-up. Anyhow, I am curious why you have made this move. Thanks,  D a v e R u n g e r (t)⁄(c) 19:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, for several reasons
 * 1) There are only three or four camp articles large enough (whole pages, I mean) to be considered substantial articles, the rest are stubs. While it is good information, it is not yet enough to make a standalone article. If you will let it incubate within the Scouting in California article, and build upon it while it is there, it has the potential to be its own article of substance, but it is not there yet.
 * 2) The Scouting Wikiproject is trying to avoid where possible hundreds of small articles that do not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. There would be 300+ current council articles, the same number for OA lodges, and at least 1700 camp articles, and that's just Boy Scouting, do 2/3 again for Girl Scouts. In early February, 50+ small articles were deleted, at which point we decided that state-based articles inclusive of councils, lodges and other history would be the way to go. We're trying to build a comprehensive and not a fractured resource for Scouting.

I am also placing this discussion on the project's talk page, to get input from the other members. Chris 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to go with Chris on this. The Wolfboro article is nothing but a bunch of lists and links. To stand alone it'd need real work. Rlevse 00:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See also the discussion at Talk:Western Los Angeles County Council--Chris 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article for A-Class
I don't know if this is a standard wiki rule on or, so I'm asking for facts and opinions here...Should an article have passed through the Good Article, WP:GAC, process before we assign it an A-Class rating? If this isn't a standard wiki project rule, I'd like to make it so for the Scouting project. I've already rated several articles and for two of them, this is the only reason I gave them B vice A class. Note, you can not give GA unless the article went through the formal GA process. Rlevse 00:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As one of the original designers of the current article classification system (in WP:Chem), perhaps I can help. The classification goes from Stub to Start to B-Class to A-Class. That's it. The GA qualification is an extra that a B-Class article may receive after a simple procedure, and the FA qualification is an extra that a A-Class article may receive with a more complete voting procecure. For B-Class the same requirements apply as for GA and for A-Class the same as FA. The four-tier classification system (Stub, Start, B-Class, A-Class) is what a wikiproject itself applies for its own articles. How you promote articles is up to your own design: could be an elaborate procedure with voting and a quorum, or it could be simply an active administrator (or several) who does the lot, as we do it in WP:Chem. So: GA is not required for anything. And the requirements for A-Class ought are those of FA, without the voting procedure. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
 * ps, about using the four-tier system: I even made a calculation method based on article classification, to determine the progress of a wikiproject. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Very interesting. OK, I'd like to keep it similar to other project schemes, so we'll use GA for extra special rating for B articles. I do like the GA process, I'd like to point out. Rlevse 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Scout photo spamming
$$Insert formula here$$
 * I moved this discussion to the Category_talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America_Local_Councilspage to keep it all on one page. --evrik 17:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Please adopt your province
Now that we have all the U.S. states, a great bulk of U.K. counties, all Australian states, we should try to create provincial Scout articles for Canada. Please, Canadians, help fill in some blanks for Scouting in your province! Thanks, YiS, Chris 23:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The YMCA article carries the Scouting Wikiproject banner
Why? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Because YMCA was one of the influences that led to the forming of BSA. In fact, the first BSA director, I think his name was Robinson, came from the YMCA to head up BSA. But because of the nature of this, it has the project banner but not the portal tag. Also notice it's in the cats and articles in See also. Rlevse 17:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So there are links from the YMCA to Scouting. Soit. But that would not make a reason to put it in the Scouting WikiProject, would it? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC).
 * I think yes. Rlevse 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You BSA guys have an interesting POV on Scouting. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC).
 * I didn't know of the connection. Given the talk page banner states: "This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting." - I have no difficulty with inclusion--A Y Arktos\talk 22:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC) (from Australia)
 * And Arktos isn't a BSA guy:-;) Rlevse 00:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not an BSA thing. The Verband Christlicher Pfadfinderinnen und Pfadfinder, one of Germany's larger associations, has its roots in the German YMCA (CVJM). Its precedessor became independent in 1933, but still today some groups are members of both CVJM and VCP. --jergen
 * Very interesting, I'll add that to the article. Rlevse 10:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are links with the YMCA and Scouting in the UK, too - the oldest Group in my District is attached to the local YMCA. However, I do question whether a main article like the YMCA page, where our the Scouting connection is incidental at best, should be part of the Scouting project... still, I'll defer to the judgment of the majority of projecteers Horus Kol 10:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The influence of YMCA may even be bigger than I thought. If we get even info, it could grow into a paragraph of section of the YMCA article.  Also, note the project tag has been on that page for 6 months and not one YMCA person has objected to it, so I feel this isn't a big deal and may actually lead to us learning more about Scouting's history. Rlevse 10:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you will read the Boy Scouts of America history section that I am now revising, you will see that the first leaders came from the YMCA. The ties continued to be so close that the Catholics initially considered the BSA a Protestant organization and would not allow their boys to join (that will be added soon).  Having said that, I don't see the YMCA as a whole to be a Scouting organization, but they do have the Adventure Guides program that started as Indian Guides in 1926 .  It might be better to side-step this issue by removing the YMCA as a Scouting group and starting an article on the Adventure Guide program which does seem to meet the criteria for a non-aligned Scouting group.  This would be similar to the relationship between Assemblies of God and Royal Rangers.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I want to leave YMCA with the tag, at least for now. If you make the Adventure Guide article, then I could probably see moving the tag over. Rlevse 16:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll put that on my todo list. BTW:  James E. West worked for the YMCA for a period before joining the BSA. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Spiral Scouts
Spiral Scouts International aren't really Scouts. --evrik 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Rlevse 16:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not? They have uniforms and badges and are outdoor based. They seem to me to be in broad terms as much a scout organisation as the Boys Brigade and some others that have been included. It is of course possible that people in this organisation or indeed the others such a BB might object to being included in with Scouts by the Scout Portal tag, etc., but they do not seem to have done so yet. --Bduke 00:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm open to discussion. Per our own inclusion clause on the RulesStandards page: "As stated on the project [|main page], our scope is all Scouting articles; but we need to define what constitutes Scouting. We have reached this consensus: If an organization veers too far from the Scout method, and/or becomes overly politicized and/or militarized, it shall not be included in this Project.  The  organizations identified that fail to meet our criteria are: Hitler Youth and Young Pioneers."  Evrik and Bduke please bring up anything else on this.  Rlevse 01:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not see the Spiral Scouts as politicised in any sense. I await Evrik giving some reasons. As a comment on the politicised issue, we include the Woodcraft Folk so the line is more political than they are and they are certainly political with their links to the Cooperative Movement, which is, as the Co-operative Party, a political party affiliated to the British Labour Party. I am happy about that, so if anyone is arguing that the spiral scouts are political. they have to be more political than the Woodcraft Folk. Elvik, can we have your reasons? --Bduke 02:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Admiting I know nothing about this group, what is there stance on the Scout method, the other part of our requirement? Rlevse 09:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Spiral Scouts were created by a pagan church so that their youth could have some sort of cooperative experience. They were created in response to the issue of gays in Scouting. If you look at their program, they don't resemble traditional Scouting. In fact, I think they're usuiong the controversy over Scouting to promote their brand. It is my understanding that WOSM and WAGGGS only authorizes one Scouting organization per country. I think that's who we should stick with. --evrik 13:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Our project already covers multiple organizations per country, just for the USA, we have WOSM, WAGGGS, WFIS, AHG, BPS, RR, etc. The Spiral's aren't the first church to form their own outfit that we cover, ie, Royal Rangers, American Heritage Girls, etc. We also cover outfits like Scouting for all. Our projects specific goal is to cover all facets of Scouting.  The question here is whether Spiral Scouts uses the Scout method and if it's overly politicized/militarized. Evrik, what is is that your feel is "not traditional Scouting"? Bduke and Evrik: Do they follow the Scout method--why or why not? Rlevse 14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don ot believe that they formally follow the Scout method. --evrik 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a complex matter and I am not sure I can give it full attention so early in the morning as it is here in Oz. First, I am not sure that the Spiral Scouts were a response to the gay issue in the BSA. I think it more than likely that it was a response to the BSA attitude to Wiccans. Wiccan boys are allowed but there was difficulty with their religious award. I think they were told that they could not have a religious award unless they chartered at least 25 troops. Wiccan groups tried to do this and the charters were refused. (Do we cover this anywhere? There is a reference at Religious Emblems Programs that mentions this and the fact that they have an unofficial religious award, but not that chartering a troop was refused.) So, I could be wrong about the refusal of a charter but I do not think so. It was discussed at length on the usenet group, rec.scouting.issues, some years ago. Given this, it is not surprising that Wiccan and other Pagan groups decided to start their own organisation. Second, do they follow the Scout Method. This is complex. The WP article Scout method is very WOSM based. It does not mention WAGGGS. The non-political criteria would rule out the Woodcraft Folk but their link to Scouting in the early days is clear. I am not convinced that other organisations meet that criteria, including the YMCA and the Boy's Brigade. The Spiral Scouts seem to meet it more than most. Their use of the term "Scout" may be against the Charter of the BSA, but that is not our business. BSA may sue them and then we add it to the article. They have a spiritual dimension, an advancement program, outdoor activities and so on. I think they are included. Rlevse is quite right in his comments to Evrik. We are not restricted to WOSM and WAGGGS. What to do? (a) someone rewrite Scout method to cover the WAGGGS and other organisations such as traditional Scouting at least; (b) have the spiral scouts in the propect; and (c) polish the criteria for inclusion. Do we have a list of those organisations that are included? Is it in one category or split between several. Perhaps we should have a list on the project page. It need not be a list of all organisations as many would be covered by phrases like "all organisations affilated to WOSM", "all organisations affilated to WFIS", etc. --Bduke 23:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Scout method variations to alter it to cover WAGGGS and other orgs. However, I do feel the basics of the Scout method should remain the same; there should not be major deviation.  Once someone does that, polishing our criteria should be easy.  On a note of interst, the US military recognized Wicca/Pagan as a bona fide religion about 10 years ago. There is no list of included organizations other than our criteria for inclusion, but there is one in my head, so I'll make a section on the project page. Rlevse 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The militray may recognize Wicca, but if you've heard of Sgt. Patrick Stewart, you'd know that they haven't accpeted the symbols of wicca. evrik 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rlevse asked me to give my two cents. First I'm not associated with the SpiralScouts beyond contributing a few bits in the article. I don't know  much about their organization and history except that they were formed as a result of rejection of their attempts to charter BSA units.  Now for some comments (1) there is not going to be a hard and fast line between Scouting youth groups and non-Scouting youth groups.  Certainly members of WAGGGS or WOSM are scout groups (but what about Learning for Life which is started by the BSA and whose numbers are included in the numbers reported to the WOSM but is not included in the annual BSA report).  Then there are the groups influenced by scouting to a greater or lesser extent.  (2) I would not call them political except in the sense that as many of their members  belong to religious minorities (members need not be pagans or wiccans) that face discrimination many adult members are going to have similar political views when it comes to fighting that discrimination.  (3) I  suspect that SpiralScouts as a young organization is undergoing a lot of change.  How closely it does and will follow the Scouting Method is unknown to me. A search of their web site includes bits such as "this is a program designed to be lead by the children"; it has a promise and a law; it has outdoor activities and service projects. (4) I would give them the same classification as Campfire.--Erp 01:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Concerning the inclusion in the project pls see my Statment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards
 * Concerning the Scout method: The article may be a bit on WOSM's side but most of its contents are valid for nearly all Scouting organizations. For the differences between WAGGGS and WOSM see Discussion on the Fundamental Principles of WAGGGS and WOSM (pdf). It is really hard to get comparable informations for traditional Scouting, since this is a widespred movement without real combined efforts:
 * WFIS North America: Member associations must follow B-P’s original program as laid out in ‘Scouting for Boys’, B-P’s original program may be modernized for health, safety, first-aid, and environmental reasons only.
 * UIGSE-FSE: The Union aims at gathering, in one same community of faith, prayer and action, the various national associations of the European Guides and Scouts, the fundamental objective of which is to educate young people by using Baden Powell’s traditional scouting methods, based on the Christian values at the roots of our common European civilisation.
 * The common point of both is 'as defined by Baden-Powell' - but there are no informations about the meanings of this - and this also applies to the principles of WAGGGS and WOSM.
 * Concerning Spiral Scouts International: I'd list them as a Scouting organization because they use a major part of the Scout method. --jergen 09:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There is significant evidence that Spiral Scouts uses a large portion of the Scout method. The history of their formation is rather similar to the Royal Rangers, which was created so those youths have an experience in their own religious realm. Therefore, I now see no reason not to include them. Rlevse 11:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've observed one of their 'circles' in my neighborhood. I still don't believe they subscribe to the Scout Method. I have no problem with them being on wikipedia, or being listed a youth organization - I just don't think it's Scouting. evrik 17:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on what's been presented, I have to go with my last statement. If you could present more specific details, that would help. Rlevse 18:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * My last word whatever. It's not worth the time. --evrik 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Article tagging

 * Daniel Carter Beard Bridge - Do we want to tag it? --evrik 18:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No. It's not really associated directly with Scouting, and it is noted in his bio. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Eagle Scouts
Please check out the discussion on Talk:List of Eagle Scouts for a new format. I really need feedback on this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 23:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I love it! Rlevse 00:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you do :-). I'd like some more input on the talk page before I start making shotgun changes. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment
If we have High and Mid, shouldn't we have a low priority? --evrik 21:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (minor thing: it's importance, not priority) I fully agree with you. There is no concensus yet as to what the various importance levels really mean, but generally I see it as:
 * Top: a key article, defining and determining the subject of the wikiproject
 * High: Seriously important article to the subject of the wikiproject
 * Mid: Article contributing to the total of the subject of the wikiproject
 * Low: Article about a minor detail of the subject of the wikiproject.
 * We're not using the importance indicators yet in the WP:Chem (where the now generally applied Stub/Start/B-Class/A-Class classification first started), so I can't speak for that wikiproject, but my feeling is towards as pointed out here. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC).


 * I thought of that too but the place I copied the code from didn't have a low, so I went ahead anyway without it. Rlevse 21:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should edit the template and make it our own ... we could even have a sence of humor (Tenderfoot, Second Class, First Class, etc) ... --evrik 21:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is it's a shared template, so I'd prefer not to edit it and certainly not come up with custom labels others won't understand (Joe User has no idea what Star means). For one the thing, the stats table is done nightly by a bot that Oleg would have to reprogram to read just our stuff and I don't think he should have to do that.  This system is part of the V1.0 project. Rlevse 21:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, only the quality scale uses a shared template. The importance scale is just a hand-drawn table, and can be adjusted as an individual project sees fit (provided you don't rename the levels, which would cause the bot to no longer recognize them). Kirill Lokshin 22:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah so. Let me work on this after dinner. I copied your MILHIST code and didn't see the Low in there.Rlevse 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a lot of projects have copied their assessment pages from WP:MHA, carrying over the three-level scheme; but WP:MILHIST only uses three levels for reasons related to the scope of the project (I can give a detailed explanation if anyone cares, but won't take up the space otherwise). Very few people seem to be aware that there's a fourth level ;-) Kirill Lokshin 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed too that there are others wikiprojects with only the top-three. Wrongly, in my opinion. As Kirill points out: we can define our own meaning for the standard four names (that the bot uses). And I second the proposal that we should. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC).


 * OK, I've created the low-importance category, added the code, and rated two articles as low-importance. Let's see if they show in the stats tomorrow (Fri, 14 July). I'm going to work on our instructions on our Assessment page now. Rlevse 23:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to have worked. --evrik 21:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

stub merger proposals
Folks, we're getting a preponderance of stubs again, like we had in late January, and that's a good way to lose articles and information to deletion for non-notability. I do what I can regarding sub-council articles for the BSA, but I have noticed several other areas crying for cleanup. These are the ones I see, please vote and speak your mind, and mention others I have overlooked. The categories are the general combined articles (not necessarily the names) I would propose. Chris 01:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * At least 1/3 of our articles are stubs. See our [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Scouting_articles_by_quality_statistics|

statistics]] table and full listing. We've built up the count, let's work on quality now. Rlevse 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hong Kong Scout locations
i.e. Baden-Powell International House...
 * Wim is working on making this a full scale article. He says a couple of weeks.Rlevse 01:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just picking one of each category, not each example. Another, better example would be Morse House. Chris 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Morse House and Morse Hut are the same thing and need merged.Rlevse 02:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that too, they are separate locations, but they _all_ need to be merged, IMO. For such a geographically small organization, they get more press than is commensurate. And there are spaces for them at The Scout Association of Hong Kong. Perhaps I should fire up the merge tags on all but Baden-Powell International House?

I have been doing research in all Baden-Powell houses, and so I stumbled on the BPIH and the HK Scout Centre. They are two different things, that is true. So I pointed out to Randy that I'd give it a go to see how it works out. Give me a short while, and then I'll respond here. Could well be a merge proposal, could be Start-Class articles. No promises either way. First Baden-Powell House to FA. Did you support it yet? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC).

Hong Kong Scouting notables
i.e. Alexander Anderson McHardy...

Indonesian Scout ranks
i.e. Penegak Bantara...

Polish Scouting notables
i.e. Andrzej Małkowski...
 * There are gobs of Polish Scouting stubs, many of them dealing with the resistance in WWII. I don't want to lose this info.Rlevse 01:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting losing it, I'm suggesting combining it into a more comprehensive, useful article, like the new Scouting memorials. What if that were instead 20 different stubs on each memorial? They're better under a single roof (or few). Chris 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree.Rlevse 01:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

individual lawsuits against the BSA
i.e. Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America...
 * there are at least four of these. Rlevse 01:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * my vote is to merge them into the existing controversies page. Chris 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * agree. Eight lawsuits and two bills in Category:Contentious issues about the Boy Scouts of America, all short articles.  Plus one South Park episode. I also recommend merging United States National Scout Jamboree, as there is a lot of duplication.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 01:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pathfinder Scouts Association
This article is up for deletion. I am not sure about this. It clearly has existed as one of rather a large number of traditional Scout Groups in the UK. One web source talks of it closing in 1998 on the death of its founder. It seems to have revived. The web link from the article has lots of stuff but details of troops, leaders, numbers etc seem to be totally absent. For now I have just cleaned it up (or will in a minute). --Bduke 08:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All I can find is a few paragraphs on the internet - for example, http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/sha/isa.htm - it seems that PSA is no more, and has been superceded by another non-aligned organisation. I didn't realise there were so many "traditional" groups an organisations just in the UK. Maybe we should merge it into a single article on non-aligned UK organisation? Horus Kol 09:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems likely it will not expand much. What would be the best article to merge it into? Rlevse 09:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of odd-ball traditional groups in the UK. The idea of an article on UK Traditional Groups is one possibility, but for now maybe the best thing is to merge into Traditional Scouting. I'm thinking about adding the one sentence of this article into that article, but I will hang on to see how the deletion debate goes for a while. Also, I have put something on the creator's talk page and he may respond. --Bduke 11:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.Rlevse 11:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to it's part of the Rover Explorer Scouts Association (multiple websites:, , , ). To me, it's no quite clear if this is a real working association - an if, where are its roots? For the Pathfinder Scouts at least one group is mentioned (on all sites), the RESA has at least 5 crews (and a "Philippines Council"). Some of the crews link to the CES, while one of RESA's mainpages links to the WFIS-Eurocamp 2006. --jergen 11:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Found finally some more history and an outdated list of troops: . --jergen 11:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The very last para of that does seem to bring it up to date. The PSA and the Rover Explorer Scout Association are linked if not the same, but the real questions is how many members do they have. Is it a going concern or are they trying to use WP to advertise it. --Bduke 12:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that for the sake of integrity, we do need to mention these "traditional" organisations - there are as much a part of Scouting as any other Group/Troop. So long as we maintain NPOV in the articles mentioning them, I don't see a problem. Horus Kol 13:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Scouting in Ontario
Please weigh in at the merge discussion on this page. If I am wrong, I am wrong, but I would rather hear it from fellow Scouters than from someone with an agenda and a clear history of deleting Scout images. --Chris 04:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So you can't fight your own battles, huh? Ardenn  04:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Scouting in Singapore
I am trying to clean up articles on Scouting in Singapore. I think I have got everything into Category:Scouting in Singapore. There is the main article - The Singapore Scout Association, only one section article - Cadet Scout, only one rank article - President's Scout rank (Singapore Scout Association) and four articles on individual Groups. The last are all now tagged for merge into the main article. Please give your opinion on these merges. As usual with Group/Troop articles they are full of vanity stuff, copyright violations and non-notable information. I have cut them back to stubs but moved the deleted material to the talk pages. The main article has a long list of Groups, listed under Districts, which themselves are in two Areas. Should there be articles on the two areas or on the 14 Districts? It would be nice if some Singapore Scout Wikipedeans joined in but my comments on the talk pages of those who created the Group articles and on the talk page of the main article have brought no responses. What do folks think? --Bduke 03:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Rating/Assessment reminder
When you merge articles, remember to change the rating to NA (class=NA) and remove importance, or ask me to do it. The merged article is now a redirect and doesn't get a rating. Rlevse 11:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Stamps
Do we want to import some of the images from:

http://www.sossi.org/scouters


 * I would say yes, if we are likely to have a need for them. I wouldn't do it just for the sake of doing it.Rlevse 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Background on Peace Scouts

 * http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/sha/military.htm
 * http://www.netpages.free-online.co.uk/sha/law.htm
 * http://www.dioceseofspokane.org/Communications/IR_2001/ir011801/scouts011801.htm
 * http://www.pinetreeweb.com/bp-sfb1.htm


 * Great, thank you! These are all UK, any luck with finding the California branch?  There should be an article on the UK Peace Scouts and Sir Francis Vane. Chris 02:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also it would be nice to get the pine tree guy included in the wikiproject, somehow.

More PD Images
--evrik 21:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?pp/fsaall,app,brum,detr,swann,look,gottscho,pan,horyd,genthe,var,cai,cd,hh,yan,bbcards,lomax,ils,prok,brhc,nclc,matpc,iucpub,tgmi,:@FIELD(SUBJ+@band(++Boy+Scouts+of+America++People++Washington++D+C++++1920+1930++))

organization of state pages
I am moving this text by user:Eric1985


 * I think the scouting pages are arranged in a not so efficient way. Having grown up in boy scouts (and working for them for 7 years) I think that there should be a root BSA directory page with a page for each council. The council camp and OA should be on the same page as the council. Arranging by state does not work well becuase there are multiple states in many councils around the country.

from my userpage page as this has been discussed long before. Chris 00:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This came up and was settled about 6 months ago. It was decided by consensus to do it this way for multiple reasons and it is not worthwhile to undo all that's been done.Rlevse 00:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

template issues
Something has been happening funny with the templates. I have been trying to apply Template:Infobox WorldScouting to Afghan Scout Association as a test to see if it looks nice and if people think we should have a standardized template for national organizations. But when I apply what is otherwise a slender, tall template, it takes up the whole width of the page. Help? Chris 00:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, what _do_ you folks think of Template:Infobox WorldScouting?


 * I like the template but I think it's too big. Try shriking it. For the layout issue, try putting this code from my toolbox above/below the image: User:Rlevse/Tools (click on the edit button and paste the clear code from there). Rlevse 00:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've done that, what will that do, now? Shrinking it how? Help? (I used the basic layout and coloration from ZHP). Chris 00:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried the clear code and it helped (didn't save changes), but becaue the box is so wide, it forces the text below (I think that's what's going on). I don't know how to shrink a box though, but try using BR code to force two lines in the caption at the top and inside the box, perhaps a smaller font too.Rlevse 01:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The creation of the infobox is an excellent idea. I was just wondering which one to use for The Scout Association of Hong Kong that I am currently editing, and this fits the requirements nicely. I just made a transcluded version, and used it in the said article. See what you think of this. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC).


 * That is a _beautiful_ cleanup of that article! And that's how I envisioned the use of the template! Thank you, brother! What does everyone else think? Shall we apply the template to the other national articles? Chris 18:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a nice cleanup of the Hong Kong article and it is B-class now. I think the template therein is nice, but something in the one on Wim's talk page is making that one too wide. Rlevse 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. The width issue has already been taken care of: I was actually still editing it when you saw what I saw. PS. Another example of the template is in Chris's Afghan article too. Tonight is (probably) the last night I shall be on wikipedia for some weeks, so any further requests for additional fields or so: be my guest. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Also did The Scout Association and Scouting Nederland. Who dares to do the BSA? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 23:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
 * As a last bold statement I did WAGGGS. Notice the two red links in the table? (recommendation for improvement, Randy. Put them on the wanted articles list for me. Have a nice vacation time all. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 23:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
 * Sure, there is a Pax Hill article. Is it the same as Pax Lodge? Anyone know?Rlevse 23:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The question shows that the female side of Scouting needs quite some support here on Wikipedia. No, Pax Hill and Pax Lodge are two (actually three) different buildings: Pax Hill in Bentley, UK was home for B-P and his wife in the 1930s, as was Pax Hill later in Kenya. Pax Lodge in North London named so for symbolic value in 1990. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 23:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC).
 * I've love more female involvement in the project, but there simply haven't been that many and most of those aren't very active.Rlevse 00:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WorldScouting template has been added to BSA. Who is considered to be the BSA's Chief Scout? (I left it blank). --NThurston 14:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

renaming suggestion
Folks, for consistency, what would you say about renaming the WOSM regions' articles to conform to the way the WAGGGS regions' articles are named, hence WOSM-European Region instead of European Region and so on? Just a thought. Chris 00:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. If it's "European Region", we're left wondering, "European Region" of what? Rlevse 00:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree. I have often had Rleses's thought about this. --Bduke 00:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Chris 00:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, Chris. There are a lot of articles to change so they go direct not via the redirect. I have fixed the main template - Template:WOSM Regions, and also Template:Asia-PacificScout, but there are lots of other links. Can we get a bot to fix them? --Bduke 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Uk-scouts-ex-cs-csda.gif is to be removed
The image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uk-scouts-ex-cs-csda.gif has been marked for deletion as it is not used anywhere - how do I petition this? I intend to write an article on the progressive award scheme (past and present) in the UK, and will need this image. Horus Kol 16:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Say exactly what you just said, maybe in more detail, on the image's page. They do this to save server space (get rid of unused images). In the future, don't upload images until you are ready to use them and that'll avoid this problem.Rlevse 18:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah - I uploaded it with a bunch of others, but ended up only using one of the awards in the Explorer Scout article... Well, if I get the article up by the end of the week, it should be okay (ah... motivation :) ) Horus Kol 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Gilwell Park photos needed
I'm doing a lot of work on this article, but I'm having trouble finding good photos that are not copyrighted, etc for it. If you know of some that are good photos and OK for wiki use, please let me know. Thanks. Rlevse 20:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a small collection of photos from a visit there a couple of years ago... I'll root around and see what I can find Horus Kol 08:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just had a quick look, and nothing I took actually shows the site itself - they are all of my Explorers and could have been taken anywhere... sorry... 08:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

changing copyright status tags
Folks, what would you think of my changing the postage stamp tag to scoutlogo, as a bot has been removing stamp graphics from several articles as per Administrators' noticeboard. On these national articles-five in Africa Randy and I had to save from afd earlier this year, Lithuania and Turkmenistan, the stamps don't illustrate the subject, they prove the existence of the subject, and so are an integral and structural part of the article. They provide a visual record where no other exists at present. Please let me know what you think. Chris 22:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That begs the question if the stamps themselves are a logo of a scout organization.Rlevse 23:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally, no. However, if you read the discussion at Administrators' noticeboard, they can only be used if they are an article about the postage stamp, elsewise they will be deleted. The stamps in these cases are crucial to the articles, I have to find a workaround, and quickly before they are deleted. I need all heads on this. Chris 23:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Afraid I'm drawing a blank here, perhaps argue just as you have here.Rlevse 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Scogui
Folks, please weigh in on the discussion for this article. It is noble that he will expand it, but his reasons for doing so ("Publicity", in his words) go against Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Also, this kind of is parallel to articles for individual troops rather than for the larger entity. I would like your thoughts. Chris 00:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've put my ore in - should be merged with the Student Scout and Guide Organisation article... Horus Kol 08:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

GSUSA GA?
By the end of this months colaboration, I would like to nominate GSUSA for GA. Or at least be able to. Any thoughts on this? I know it still needs work, so what needs to be done so it can be? Disscussion is here.  Darthgriz 9  8  01:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

GSUSA pics
I have a few pictures from completeing my gold award project I don't know if you would want to use them or not. And I can get some pictures from my uniform of badges and awards and council things and so on. Any thoughts?  Darthgriz 9  8  02:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Scouting in Rathfarnham
We've got more troop articles to deal with. The editors of 13th Dublin and 14th Dublin have removed merge tags without discussion, against Wikipedia etiquette. I will put these articles up for afd for non-notability if they cannot be talked into merge, at least into the local Scouting in Rathfarnham. Chris 00:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There was talk on this on some page, I forget which. 13th has had lots of history added, but 14th is in weak shape.Rlevse 01:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There was talk on each page, and that's great, thing is, they're still _troops_, and not notable by themselves, no matter how well written. They need a home article to be in. Chris 01:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is discussion also on the Scouting Ireland page. I thought I contributed some ideas somewhere but can not find them. There are several points or problems here: 13th Dublin may be notable because of its history; 14th Dublin is not notable; Scouting in Rathfarnham is an odd-ball, because Rathfarnham is a place, it is not a Scout County and is in fact part of two Scout Counties. I think Scouting in Rathfarnham should be deleted along with 14th Dublin and new articles on the Scout Counties written to take much of this information. --Bduke 01:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I like Bduke's idea.Rlevse 02:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

There is also Rathfarnham Girl Guides, crimony already! Chris 19:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Using English
I'm not releated to this wikiproject, but I'm wondering why a lot of the pages are titled using the native name instead of the English name per WP:UE (ie. Asociación de Scouts de Venezuela and Latvijas Skautu un Gaidu Centrālā Organizācija)? FYI... It makes it hard for us who don't speak Latvian to find the right scouting article. --Spaceriqui 04:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Very easy: In most cases there is no (official or commonly used) English translation of the associations' names. In these cases, WP:UE proposes to use the original (non-English) name and to give an English translation in the article's first line. Please note that most translations are only rough. --jergen 11:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite true. Note that our RulesStandards page to state to use [{WP:UE]] (English) when it is possible. However, in such cases, I think we should have a redirect from the English version of the title so that it will be easier for people to find (and vice versa for that matter). This redirect should match the English translation given in the article lead. If there is more than one possible way to translate it, each should have a redirect. If there is no objection, I'll alter the RulesStandards to mention this redirect matter two days from now.Rlevse 12:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS-note that the Latvian article Spaceriqui mentions does not have an English title translation, which the obvious one would be "Latvian Scout and Guide Central Organization". I'll go do that and make a redirect now.Rlevse 12:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree that there is no official or commonly used English translation.... scout.org lists the common English translation for these organizations. Also naming conventions states Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. I don't know how one can argue that the Latvian name is more common in English than the English name. Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. The whole idea is for the Names of Wikipedia articles to be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.  As someone completely ignorant of scouting in my own town, I have no clue what Latvijas Skautu un Gaidu Centrālā Organizācija is. Maybe it should be called Scouting in Latvia. Something to consider. Thanks. --Spaceriqui 15:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * May also want to consider this --Spaceriqui 16:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Concerning your link to http://www.scout.org/satw/links.shtml: Unfortunately this website is seldom updated and gives in many cases outdated or even wrong informations - even if WOSM is on of the World Scouting bodies. In my experience this website is not reliable, all infomations there have to be checked twice. (Example: http://www.scout.org/satw/links.shtml gives for Lebanon Fédération du Scoutisme Libanais and translates to Lebanese Scout Federation; a correct translations is Federation of Lebanese Scouting or even better Federation of the Lebanese Scout Mouvement.)
 * Checking what's more commonly used (Google hits on English sites only, Wikipedia excluded):
 * Proposed English translation: 11 hits
 * Latvian original: 37 hits
 * Nearly 80% of English websites use the Latvian name - IMO this points to more commonly used. --jergen 17:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Scouting in Latvia would apply to all Scouting there, not just this one organization. Many countries have or have had more than one Scouting organization. I suggest leaving it the way it is.Rlevse 17:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need Category:International Scouting ?
Do we really need such a category?

It should include most of the "interesting" articles such as those on B.-P. and his wife, for example... but these are high profile articles which should stay in Category:Scouting instead. But if we keep all the interesting articles out of Category:International Scouting, what do we need it for? Scouting is international in nature anyway... it is the country-specific articles which should go inside country-specific categories, and international-minded articles should be in the main category.

--Lou Crazy 04:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Lou Crazy. Also, the cat is not "Scouting by country", which it is currently as subcat of; if we do have this cat, it should be a subcat of Scouting and be called "International Scouting associations". Rlevse 11:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Scouting as a category encompasses anything that does not fall under a specific national nature, from Be Prepared to square knots. I had created the new cat because I believe it warrants its own separate distinct grouping. Chris 21:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * but international is certainly not a country, so if anything, it should be under Scouting cat.Rlevse 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

request for help against deletionist
this guy really wants to delete my recent additions for illustration-Image:LaszlonagyU.jpg‎, Image:Laszlonagycarlgusta.jpg‎; and Image:BoyScoutsofNippon.jpg, please help me save them from him. Chris 22:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of article classes
I put them in reverse order because I figured we'd want people to look through the stubs first to try and reduce them... but if you think its better the other way, fair does... Horus Kol 12:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see either way, but I thought I'd change it. Not a big deal if you want to reverse. Rlevse 13:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're both kind of "eh, whatever" :) Horus Kol 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

New structure proposal for the Scouting articles
The above is a proposal for a new, more logical structure in the Scouting articles, aiming at more focus per article and less overlap. Please feel free to adjust the table above as you see fit, adding your comment here for explanation of your change. Questions are ok too. Obvious is that the Scouting article is getting very central to it all, so that does need high attention. Effectively, many articles (all?) need moving as well change of content. Comments? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 19:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Support I like this. The Cub, Brownie and Girl Guide(s) article need the most immediate attention. Boy Scout is GA and in pretty good shape, Scouting is A-class and should be worked to get to FA as it is our flagship article. I am in full support of Wim's proposal. Rlevse 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The main problem I have is it seems to make a sharp division between female Girl Guide and male Boy Scout while there are many Scouting organizations that are now completely mixed and would not make sense to make that division. In addition there would be a fair deal of overlap between an article on a Girl Guide and an article on a Boy Scout even when just considering the single sex organizations.  --Erp 02:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The two groups did start separately and remain so for a long time and that needs to be preserved for historical purposes as well as those organizations that remain separated by gender. The coed nature of many of today's Scouting orgnizations, which seems to be concentrated in Europe as far as I know, can be dealt with in each of the two articles (boy/girl). To put it all into one article would ignore that history not to mention that many, perhaps most, of the organizations still have boy/girl in their names. This problem will be with us for a long time as some are coed and some not. If there are enough editors knowledgeable about coed Scouting, there could be a separate article on it, with a summary and main article link from the boy and girl articles. Rlevse 02:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if there is enough to say on the matter of co-ed Scouting to warrant another article - it would most likely end up as a list of national organisations that allow mixed sex groups, and the date on which they started (for example, the UK started allowing girls into the Venture Scouts in the 1970's, and the organisation is fully co-ed as of 2006). One sentence per co-ed organisation is not going to make for much of an article... Horus Kol 07:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not exactly started separately. The first girl scouts organized themselves based on Baden-Powell's work and called themselves scouts just like their brothers did; Baden-Powell then set up a separate organization for the girls (the Guides).  Also we've got articles such as that on Gerakan Pramuka which are co-ed (in the sense of the organization includes both boys and girls but the units are single sex) where the age level Scout presumably including boys and girls points to the Boy Scout article.  How are we to handle that when the article appears to be male oriented?  My own view is that a Scout/Guide article should include both sexes but indicate within the article where differences organizationally and historically lie. --Erp 15:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as there are coed organizations (including without boy or girl in the name) and hence articles; there are those that are the oppposite. As there are several Scout orgs coed, so are many that are still separate. Rlevse 17:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Reading the various feedbacks, do I read it correctly as proposed now in the table? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC).


 * Not exactly, it's a conundrum. You can't say a Girl Scout/Guide is a Boy Scout for an organization that has never made their program coed (like BSA) at the troop level. On the other hand you can't say a program like The Scout Association that has been coed for 40-odd years has separate programs. I honestly don't see a way to do justice to all of them in one article. The two programs have similar but distinct histories and I never proposed making one article. If it is doable, it's likely to have serious structure and length problems. Rlevse 21:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In my perception you can very correctly say that there are girls who follow the Boy Scout program (do the tough thing, wear those uniforms, and work on the same badges). Those girls are typically called Girl Scouts, and are listed in the Boy Scout article (which isn't about any movement, remember!). There there are organization such as the BSA who didn't allow Girl Scouts may be mentioned in the same section of the article, but won't be problematic. You have to see the article from the point of the reader: 'what is a boy scout' or 'what is girl scout' giving the same answer.
 * And the girl who does the Girl Guide program (nursing, blue uniforms, etc) are described in the separate Girl Guide article (not about the any movements...). And 'what is a girl guide' give the proper answer, different from 'what is a girl scout'.
 * Finally, to wrap all things up, there is one Scouting article mentioning both a Boy Scout line(sometimes including girls) and a Girl Guide line of Scouting (I don't think with boys, right?), and various other lines. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Ah, a snag (I'm read the US-oriented articles): what the rest of the world calls a Girl Guide (blue uniforms and stuff), Americans call a Girl Scout. Then we'll have to weigh: do we follow the US way and redirect Girl Scout to Girl Guide, or do it the European and rest of the world way and redirect Girl Scout to Boy Scout. The US way would be in line with WAGGGS. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC).
 * OK, glad you see my point. In the US a some other countries, a Girl Scout is totally separate from a Boy Scout and it was this way virtually everywhere for decades. I'm glad to continue discussing and would hope more people chime in. Rlevse 01:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * However WAGGGS members have often 'done the tough thing'. The troop I was in certainly camped, backpacked, caved, canoed and that has certainly been true since Girl Scouts/Guides was founded.   Admittedly there was often a stronger emphasis on homemaking skills but the Boy Scouts have badges on cooking and first aid.  The organizations were different but what the members did often wasn't as different. For a bit about the history see  note the bit "in an age when skirts were ankle length and young ladies never ran, the idea of girls being involved in camping, hiking and similar activities received a mixed response." --Erp 02:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the United States, Girl Scouts is Girl Scouts, and Boy Scouts is Boy Scouts. And that depends on your definition of "Tough stuff" we don't wear the annoying skirts anymore, we go camping, we have wider opps trips (which are high adventure mostly), I mean, my Gold Award was restoring the banks of a stream, I used a chainsaw, but I'm not a member of BSA.  Darthgriz  9  8  02:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Chainsaw? Hmm...in BSA youths using a chainsaw is a direct violation of the Guide to Safe Scouting. Interesting. Use of log splitters by youths is also banned. Rlevse 10:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See, this is why we arn't in BSA.  Darthgriz  9  8  16:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in the rest of the world, there are also traditional Girl Scouts/Guides organizations who admit male members - normally these are only called Scouts, since Boy Scout stands for WOSM affiliation. Some examples include Pfadfinderinnenschaft Sankt Georg (Germany), Združenje slovenskih katoliških skavtinj in skavtov (Slovenia), Girl Guides Association of Cyprus, Soma Hellinidon Odigon (Greece). All these organizations have WAGGGS membership only - and you should note that both the Greek and the Cypriote organization don't use male forms for their branches... --jergen 06:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, new idea. Everyone call up just Scout. It's a dab page with about 2 dozen links. We make new page called Scout (Scouting) and move the content of Boy Scout there (which is a GA and the closest to what we want an article(s) on the individual youth member to be), and redirect Boy Scout(s), Girl Scout/Guide(s). Add Scout (Scouting) to the dab page. This will avoid the entire problem of "Boy or Girl or Coed", which seems to be the core of the discussion here. Rlevse 10:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Although a nice idea, it doesn't reflect the current Scout world. As I see it we need to good core articles Boy Scout and Girl Guide and Girl Scouts. This follows the WOSM/WAGGGS line, it caters for GG and GS in one article as they have a lot (all?) in common, and shows the historically correct distinction made by B-P himself. I adjusted the table. Ladies, please comment. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 23:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

None of the ideas reflects the current world scout as there are too many variations on the theme. Rlevse 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't try table rebuilding but my not very deep thinking is

not completely happy with it.--Erp 00:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Scouting - This article needs to include a section on the different ways national scouting organizations handle mixing (or not mixing) of sexes.
 * Scout method
 * Scout (Scouting) - a description of an individual youth member of the Scouting movement whether male or female. Girl Guide, Girl Scout, Boy Scout all point here.
 * WAGGGS
 * WOSM
 * Individual national organizations such as BSA ....

Hi Erp, I'm not completely happy either. Important improvement is necessary for the Scout (Scouting), as this would have to accommodate two very different persons (I also see that they have things in common, but left these out): So, I would prefer two separated articles for this topic (with overlap, but that can't be prevented). Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 00:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC).
 * the male or female 'boy scout' has a green-based uniform, the female GG (and GS?) has a blue one
 * the BS is aiming at tough outdoor life, and the GG/GS for home-care/nursing
 * Scouting for Boys versus ... (nothing)
 * Troops versus circle (or what are they called)

the male or female 'boy scout' has a green-based uniform, the female GG (and GS?) has a blue one - This isn't true everywhere. In South Africa we have 3 different uniforms. Land Scouts wear a khaki uniform (similar to the orginal uniform), Air Scouts wear a sky blue shirt, with navy blue pants and Sea Scouts wear a white shirt with navy blue pants. I do agree with a Scout (Scouting), but it must be rather general information and information concerning boys and girls should rather be in the individual national article.Jediwannabe 06:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed there are exceptions to the rule. But if say 20 million scouts and guides follow the green cq blue uniform distinction, then that is what the two articles should be about. And the exceptions should be mentioned in the articles for what they are (exceptions). Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC).

The US Girl Scouts usually were green uniforms and I also disagree that GS/GG aimed mostly at home-care/nursing. They also had and have extensive outdoor activities (they initially used Scouting for Boys, remember the first Girl Scouts saw what their brothers were doing, read the book, and said why can't we also take part. A separate work was later written for them). . Actually someone should set about gutenberging Scouting For Boys, et al.. I believe they are out of copyright. --Erp 01:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

World Scout Jamboree
Since Chris added the template for the Jamboree years, it seems that this has prodded the creation of about half-a-dozen or so Jamboree articles... all good, but there is more information than simply when and where... I've gone and added as much as I can to the single line articles, but if anyone knows of any other sources - that would be a great help. Horus Kol 14:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * We should make a new infobox for events. An event is an organization and has attendance, not membership. Rlevse 15:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was thinking that... but I haven't a clue how to go about doing that...


 * Done. See any World Jambo aricle for sample. Rlevse 16:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also been thinking about the main article - I can't think of any way to add to the information in the article. Perhaps we can move it from Stub to Start (I doubt it is going to go further than that)? Horus Kol 08:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I uprated it indeed to Start (could you have done yourself: be bold), and I left some technical recommendations for further article improvement on the talk page. Editorially, I think the article still needs a good section on what a world scout jamboree is about, who attends, what they do there, and -regarding History- what changed over the years in these activities. Improvement of the list to a table with some more info, e.g., dates, #attendants, organizing entity, etc (just thoughts). Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 09:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
 * I saw the report that you generated with the AndyZ script, and I'll take your suggestions on board too. As for being bold - there seems to be a limit to how bold I feel, and I used it up on all those WorldJam articles that I updated yesterday... Horus Kol 09:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're getting well on now, Horus. Make more of that: very effective. I like your inclusion of the Jota/Joti/Jott sections: make more of it, I'd say. And I also liked what you did to the lists, and the new infobox. You're on the right track now. I gave it a small copy-edit, to give a hand. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC).


 * Hey, while we're at it... Why is World Scout Jamboree capitalized, but not National Scout jamboree? Chris 00:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know about World Jambo, but BSA policy is to uppercase the J in jambo only when talking about a specific Jambo such as the 1960 National Jamboree, but not for a generic term like a National Scout jamboree. Rlevse 01:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Capitalisation on a specific title/event/name - lower case on descriptive word, so the Jamboree versus a jamboree... since there is only one World Scout Jamboree, but many national Scout jamborees... at least, that's my logic. Having said that, I talk about Jamborees in other places... argh, English sucks... Horus Kol 08:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

JOTA et al - should we make a move to merge these articles? I'm not sure that if I add much more information about them in the WSJ article that we'd have much call for the separate ones... Opinions? Horus Kol 08:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Category - Scout Campsites?
There are many of them - perhaps a category for them? Horus Kol 08:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We already have one: Category:Scout campsites, which is a subcat of Category:Scouting. Also, BSA category already has local camp and a national camp campsite categories. Rlevse 10:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I just did a quick map of all the Scouting categories. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Gee, That many? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 19:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
 * Just looking through there, I found several user pages that were incorrectly cat'd as being Scouting User Templates. I have fixed them all.  Some were due to subst'ing the noinclude tags, while I found a couple of "no include" mistakes on the user templates.  Also, I found that Wikipedians in Scouts Canada is listed as a subcategory of Scouting User Templates.  Can anyone help me figure out how to remove it from there? --NThurston 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I figured it out. Let me know if I messed something up.  --NThurston 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work, Nthurston. Rlevse 21:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the Alphi Omega cats yesterday as they were looping. I was going to bring up the Canda cat, as I'm not sure why we even have it. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Scouting Categories
The 114 or so articles in the Scouting category seem to be a hodge-podge of things that could conceivably belong in sub-categories. A few that come to mind - Scouting:Pioneers, Scouting:Origins, and Scouting:Scoutcraft or Scouting:Skills. Also, what category can I re-cat the WJ articles into? Any support or concerns? --NThurston 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anything that makes sense and follows naming conventions. I fixed the parent cat of the Scouting jambo cat for you. Rlevse 22:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --NThurston 22:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks also, as this ties nicely into Do we really need Category:International Scouting? above! Chris 00:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a few selected categories that seemed to have enough articles in Scouting to justify it. I also tried to leave things that really should not be sub-cat'd. I have also considered adding "Scouting literature" to accommodate all of the handbooks, etc. There are a few that I would like to sub-cat, but I just don't know what to do. Any ideas on: --NThurston 15:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation
 * Prince Moulay Rachid of Morocco
 * Muzafer Sherif

No, we don't need international scouting, handbooks should stay with their organization. Rlevse 15:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - I just realized that the only books there are historical, foundation books. In addition to the three above, what to do with American Camp Association and Friends Committee on Scouting?  --NThurston 15:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Put the sexuality article in Scouting pioneers. Rlevse 16:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any interest in making sure that all Scouting-related articles include a Scouting cat or sub-cat? If so, how would one go about doing that? Do we have a comprehensive list of all Scouting-related articles? --NThurston 14:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

deletion of images
I have had several images, used with permission of the author, deleted by other Wikipedians recently. Randy has suggested other members of our project who are apparently good with such issues, but they were no help. Is there anything we as a project can do to tag images so they _won't_ be deleted? Chris 21:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Images tagging is a pain, especially Fair Use ones. Rlevse 22:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have a solution, but noticed this morning that there were several of the historic Eagle medals tagged for deletion, presumably because "nothing links here." Randy might want to check through those to see if that's actually true or if it's a mistake. --NThurston 23:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't a mistake, there were once in the Eagle article, but we removed most because there were so many. Don't worry, I have copies on my computer if we need them. Rlevse 23:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories - Scouting & BSA-related
I have been cleaning up categories. BSA logos have been sub-cat'd into Category:Boy Scouts of America logos. Note that I am distinguishing between logos and BSA-related images, which are sub-cat'd into Category:Boy Scouts of America images. I did not have enough energy to add the logo category to every merit badge in Category:Scout logos. Please feel free to do this.

Also, I have finished my work on cleaning up Category:Scouting. You might want to take a look. I am thinking of ways to sub-cat the BSA articles to make them easier, although 111 is not a tremendously large number. Perhaps the first step is to sub-cat the biographic articles. Not sure. Thoughts?

As I have worked on this, I was also impressed by two things: 1) There are a lot of BSA related articles Category:Boy Scouts of America and 2) there are not very many BSA-related images besides logos. --NThurston 00:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Very nice work, NThurston. Rlevse 01:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have gone as far as I dare for now with sub-catting Category:Boy Scouts of America. A few new sub-cats were created and I moved the program articles to the top of the list. --NThurston 20:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Congrats. I think you've done fine work. Rlevse 21:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Stubs - trying to move them up and clear them out
I've been going through some of the Scouting stubs, and adding some information where I can to try and make them up to at least a "start" class. But I'm hitting on some odd problems - as an example, on the stub listing there is a link to Talk:129th Toronto Scouting Group... this being a group, the article has been merged into the Scouting in Ontario article and a redirect is now in place (all good considering the project policies on groups and such)... but the original articles talk page is still listed as a stub... I'm sure this is happening elsewhere, and it does skew the lists a bit - making it difficult to spring-clean... any ideas on what to do? Horus Kol 09:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You change the project tag on the talk page of the redirect to class=NA and take out importance completely. If someone doesn't know how or want to, let me know on my talk page and I'll do it. Rlevse 11:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ah - thanks for that Horus Kol 12:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

just out of interest - when does the overview on the numbers of stub/start/etc articles get updated here? - it seems like it has been at 476 for a week now and I know that I have upgraded some stubs to start and so on... Horus Kol 09:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It gets updated every night (well, in the UK it's probably early daylight) when the 1.0 project mathbot runs. Right now it says 468 for stubs, so it has changed. How long it takes to run depends on how many changes have occurred in the entire 1.0 project. You can view the log here: Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Scouting_articles_by_quality_log and click on V1.0 index here: WikiProject_Scouting Rlevse 10:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Horus Kol 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The stub count went as high as 490, see, so while you were upgrading some, others were creating new ones. Rlevse 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Several stubs are Philmont-related. Could they be merged into Philmont_Scout_Ranch_camps? --NThurston 16:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, there are many stubs that are World Scout Committee member bios. What would be a good course of action given that it is unlikely that we will find more info on most of them? --NThurston 16:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There was already a thread on the Philmont subcamp, and yes they are supposed to be merged into the main subcamp article. As for the WSC members merging into a master article, it's okay with me. Rlevse 18:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have merged the stub articles on camps into Philmont Scout Ranch camps and the stubs on programs into Philmont Scout Ranch. Currently, only 425 Scouting stubs.  Next low-hanging fruit - World Committee member bio stubs? --NThurston 13:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * OK with me. FYI, Jergen is going through stubs and changing the rating to Start in appropriate cases. Rlevse 14:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that and think that's very useful thing to do. --NThurston 14:08, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Pax Lodge and Pax Hill Clarification
A request for an article on Pax Lodge also queried if Pax Lodge and Pax Hill are the same place. These are two separate places. Pax Lodge is in Hampstead, part of London, UK, and Pax Hill is in Hampshire, a county of the UK. Kingbird 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Article of the Month template: in mainspace or in talkspace
I noticed that the Article of the Month was placed in the main article space of Gilwell Park instead of the talk page. I believe there is a WP policy to refrain from putting this kind of templates in the mainspace, although I can't find a reference to it quickly. I personally think that that policy (if it exists and can be found) would be a good one. Therefore I propose that the said template be moved to the talkpage. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 16:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC).
 * I've seen them in both the talk page and article's main page (other projects too, not just ours). I have found no such policy, but if it exists, please point it out to me. I do the same thing with Collaboration of the Month too. Rlevse 16:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy question - local units
What is to be done with things like Boy Scout Troop 24? I am sure this has been resolved before, please remind me what was decided. --NThurston 17:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See RulesStandards page. Local unit articles are highly discouraged. They rarely meet Wiki guidelines for notability. The article in question (which I haven't seen before) also read like an advertisement. I've afd'd it. Rlevse 17:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already deleted. Rlevse 22:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lashing knot images
I'm working on massively improving all articles on lashing knots, so any new images would be highly appreciated! I'm still working on the articles, and I need images showing how to do the knots, and some examples of how to utilize them. --Captain538 12:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The pictures in the square lashing look excellent to me. What is wrong with them? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 20:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC).


 * Some of the proposed merging articles don't have images and I think he's looking step by step photos and example of them actually being used for something practical. Rlevse 20:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Help needed with images
There's a problem with the images on Girlguiding UK that I haven't been able to solve. The length of the text is shorter than the length of the images stacked on the right, thus there are things out of place (like the 'edit' links on the headings) and it looks messy. Can anyone help out? Thank you. Kingbird 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I started working on this, but ran out of time. Feel free to make other changes.  Hopefully I can come back later and work more on this. --NThurston 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replied at Talk:Girlguiding UK. Johntex\talk 22:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Krian Scout
An article with this title was but up for deletion yesterday and very quickly speedy deleted. It appears to have been about a Scout Troop in Malaysia. See Articles for deletion/Krian Scout. I have no problem with articles about individual troops being deleted. They are indeed not notable. However, I do not think they should be speedy deleted as we should have the opportunity to see whether the article contains anything of note that could be added to a County, State or Country Scouting article. Is there anything we can do about this point in general? --Bduke 01:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ask Johntex. He's an admin and in our project.Rlevse 01:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, looking at the discussion ... it went pretty quick. --evrik 10:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Image talk:Barnstar scouting suggestion 05.jpg
It is not the barnstar they are trying to delete but its talk page which was only created on 18 October by someone suggesting the barnstar looked like a condom. It is just idiocy. The barnstar itself seems safe. --Bduke 23:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * AH, I was confused then. Thanks for clearing it up. Rlevse 00:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think the barnstar is safe. I tagged the comment page for deletion because I didn't think the comments were respectful or appropriate (even if it was humorous in an off-color manner). I can't believe what a waste of time this has become because User:Descendall wants to protect their right to say what they want on a talk page, "Comments are in no way incivil. It would be impossible to phrase this in a more civil manner. Furthermore, pointing out a problem with using a particular image as a barnstar is entirely appropriate for this image."


 * Sheesh --evrik 10:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah, if that's what's going on here, I agree it's overblown.Rlevse 11:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * i'm just wondering how it looks like condom... this could exlpain why unwanted pregnancies are rising when people can't distinguish between a cloth-badge and a condom... Horus Kol 12:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Something else is going on here, though I can't figure out what. Alphax closed the debate and deleted the page that Descendall went back and added the comment on again. Could someone explain to be why Descendall hasn't faced some discipline for this actions? --evrik 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just don't get in an edit war over him. He is very unlikely to give up, probably a vandal or rouge editor trying to PO you to get a laugh.   Darthgriz  9  8  14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah, I'm trying to keep to the proces here. Does anyone one else want to tag the page for deletion? --evrik 14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Let it go. It is not important - just a slightly uncivil attempt at humour. Leave it alone. --Bduke 21:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I say let it go, there's not much you can accomplish from fighting him.  Darthgriz 9  8  02:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Scouting 2007 Centenary
Has anyone else ordered from the UK website? I just placed my order and expect to get the package in a week or two. --evrik 22:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did. A badge, and a survival thing for my son, and a book for myself. I expected it to arrive in a good week or to, at the campsite on Guernsey we then would have been, just in time for my son birthday. It was there on the second business day, much quicker than I expected: good show. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC).

Outlander Promise
The section on the Outlander promise in Scout Promise now has a tag by it. As you can see in Talk:Scout Promise it appears that this Promise is in the 1912 edition of Scouting for Boys. I tried to track down that edition here in Melbourne but failed. Could someone, possibly in London with access to B-P House, see if they can nail this reference down? I think it is pretty clear from several references that B-P did write the Outlander promise, but we need a definite reference. --Bduke 00:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

www.scoutpedia.com
Hello,

Did you know there were some scouting wikis on the net ? Today, we've listed the following :
 * http://wiki.partio.net ; Finnish, 1800~ articles,
 * http://www.scoutpedia.nl : Dutch, 1000+ articles,
 * http://www.scoutopedia.net : French, 500~ articles,
 * http://scout-o-wiki.de : German, 450+ articles,
 * http://www.pfadiwiki.ch : German-Swiss, 200~ articles,
 * http://wiki.larocadelconsejo.net : Spanish, 200~ articles,
 * http://scoutwiki.nl : Dutch, 10~ articles,
 * http://www.scoutpedia.com : English (US), 10~ articles,
 * http://www.schlauesbuch.de : German, seems to have very few articles,
 * http://www.gondi-online.de : German,
 * http://www.scoutaid.de : German,
 * http://www.roexploratori.ro : Romanian.

As you can see, the only English-language project is tiny, and doesn't look liki its webmaster is still taking care of it. Anyway, it's still open to contribution, so maybe some of the contributors may have a look to it, and consider increasing it a bit ? I think that it would be a good idea to make it be active again. English is the most frequent language in the world, and BP's native language, it's a pity there is no real English scouting wiki, isn't it ?

Well, see you soon I hope. You can contact me on my French talk page.

Sorry for my poor English ... Scout greetings. Akela NDE on, Monday July 29 2024 (UTC)


 * We do have an English-language wiki on Scouting - at wikipedia... thanks for the links though. Horus Kol 10:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes but I do think a wiki specifically about scouting has something different. As Akela just said, scoutpedia.net is a tiny wiki, and you can all help to build it. I don't think you English speakers are gonna let the Finnish to have a scouting wiki 200 times as big as yours ??? Contributing to Wikipedia and to other wikis isn't impossible (I'm a living proof of it ^^) benji 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Although not a Wiki, we do have a great resource in the U.S. Scouting Service Project. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Resource yes, but is that only what a wiki is made for ? Do you just read Wikipedia, or do you actively contribute to make it better ? We had the same discussion on the French scouting wikiproject talk page, and everybody agreed that both fr:wikipedia's scouting portal and Scoutopedia were useful, and that they were not redundant, but completed each other. Actually, Wikipedia's made for everyone, isn't it ? Well, Scoutpedia's made for scouts. Don't you think that a wiki project enabling scouts from many different countries and organizations to share their practices and experiences on a free scouting encyclopedia is something useful ?
 * I'm quite suprised by your reaction. Are you scouts, or just normal people writing about scouting ? (That's a real question, not an insult or anything. I just ask !)
 * Anyway, thanks a lot Gadget850 for the link !!
 * Akela NDE

Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Rlevse 00:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. I fixed that one too. I added more detail and also moved it out of crafts/hobbies (which it isn't) into society. Rlevse 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorting of WOSM member organizations
Category:WOSM member organizations seems to be inconsistant in its sorting. Are pages meant to be sorted as they are (ie. "The Scout Association of X" is sorted under 'T', ignore words such as 'the' and sort as "Scout Association of X", or sort by country (ie "X").

Most organizations are sorted as they are spelt, but Scouts Australia is sorted as 'Australia, Scouts'.

--RobBrisbane 05:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There seems to be no guideline (couldn't find anything on this in Categorization and its subpages), the only remarks on sorting a category are on Categorization of people.
 * I'd suggest to omit the articles and to use official name; any other comments on this? --jergen 06:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, we normally leave out "the", etc. It comes from now specifying the name in the cat link on the article page. Good catch. Rlevse 09:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would make the most sense to sort by country, rather than the organisations name... Horus Kol 11:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This would only make sense, if the country's name in its English version was part of all the associations' names. Nobody would understand the sorting method, if the category started with (all listed under A):
 * Beslidhja Skaut Albania
 * Scouts Musulmans Algériens
 * Associação de Escuteiros de Angola
 * Scouts de Argentina
 * Hayastani Azgayin Scautakan Sharjum Kazmakerputiun
 * Scouts Australia
 * It would also lead to problems with organizations not mentioning the country of origin like The Scout Association or Speidernes Fellesorganisasjon. --jergen 18:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is there no way to add some text at the top of the category page to say what sorting method is used? I still think this is the best method...


 * I understand the problem of organisations like The Scout Association not including a country name, but someone looking for an organisation of Scouting in the UK would look under 'U', and not under 'T'. Horus Kol 08:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And to what result? Looking under 'U', he would find nothing helpful. For searching by countries whe have Category:Scouting by country. --jergen 17:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * the would find the article The Scout Association and open it? Horus Kol 20:11, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Circle 10 Council assessment
I'm requesting an assessment on the quality and importance of the article on Circle 10 Council, which was recently expanded out of the Scouting for Texas article. As it is an article on an individual Council it should, according to guidelines, fall under Mid-importance. What I'm really looking for is a quality assessment and ways to improve the article, thank you. Chris M 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Scouting in Texas should really have more than one sentence on Circle 10 left in it. The state articles should provide a summary of such articles. Rlevse 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * After just a quick look...lead does not summarize the article, refs are not in cite php format, ref 9 is a dead link.Rlevse 16:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I added to the entry in the Scouting in Texas article and beefed up the lead for the Circle Ten article. I don't believe the 9th ref. in the Council article is dead.  The entire scoutingforall page is down for maintenance so it should be beack up shortly.  I don't quite know what you mean by cite php format so if you could explain a bit more to help me out? Chris M 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * See how the refs are done in Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America). Rlevse 17:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting website

 * http://www.angelfire.com/wy/gilwell/plates.html --evrik 21:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, funny site. Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 21:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Another site:
 * http://n2zgu.50megs.com/INDEX%20SAW.htm

--evrik (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this page is outdated, gives incorrect informations on the program and uses incorrect translations of both Promise and Law. It was used for starting most of the entries on WOSM's members, but most articles are beyond that state. --jergen 20:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

GSUSA FAC
Just as a heads up and reinforcing the announcment section, GSUSA is up for FAC. Check it out on GSUSA's FAC page. Any help any of you or your wiki friends would be greatly appreciated! :)  Darthgriz 9  8  21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the head's up. --evrik (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Organisation vs Organization
Actually, this is a general question about American vs English spelling - I just noticed that someone has edited the Scout Association (UK) article to have the non-English spelling of organisation... what are the rules on this? Also, things like colour/color and so on... Personally, I think an English article on British subjects should be spelt in the English manner... Horus Kol 09:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is in our Rules/Standards page, at WikiProject_Scouting/RulesStandards towit: edit the article per the spelling of the country in question. Generic articles use American. We had this discussion before on some talk page, and that was the outcome, so I added it to our Rules page. Rlevse 11:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

list of prioity articles?
I notice that someones made a change to the template which shows the various quality levels of articles to include a breakdown of the priorities... is there an easy way to bring up a list of articles with a certain priority within a certain level? For example, all top priorities within the stub quality level (makes it easier to find what article to focus on). Horus Kol 17:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * YOu can go to Category:Scouting articles by quality or Category:Scouting articles by importance and browse the subcats, but I know no way to cross ref them. Maybe Wimvandorst does.Rlevse 18:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean these three lists (broken down for convenience only): Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scouting articles by quality ? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 00:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC).
 * OH YEAH, I even knew about them but forgot-;) Rlevse 00:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent Wim - that's exactly what I was after... Horus Kol 08:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you wondered, there isn't Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Scouting articles by importance ? Wim van Dorst (Talk)'' 00:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC).

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Scout/Guide or Boy Scout/Girl Scout equality
In recent months we have seen the welcome introduction to pages under the project of material about Guides/Girl Scouts. Great. However, a lot of it is "girl" stuff added to "boy" articles. I have just seen this in The Scout Association of Papua New Guinea where the Guide material is added to a Scout article. This is happening all over. The UK "Scout" County articles are getting stuff added about Guides yet I think the Guide administrative areas are different from the Scout ones. I have to say this looks POV and we need to address it. How? Suggestions please. --Bduke 10:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm the guilty party for tacking the girl information into the boy articles-there were not articles on the individual organizations, and where this was done, information was scant so I gave it a place to gestate into its own article, which I have seen happen about half-a-dozen times. Believe me there was no POV aforethought, I am the most egalitarian guy you'll ever meet, I put it there because there was _not_ information elsewhere on the 'pedia at the time. Chris 08:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why do I raise it now? On the WikiEN-l e-mail list there has been a discussion about sexism on WP and one woman editor reported that after discussing this on the list, she was overwhelmed by e-mails from other women saying they were intimidated from contributing to the list and to some WP discussions. This can not continue.--Bduke 11:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There are different ways adressing this problems:
 * Included informations on WAGGGS member organizations should be moved into separate articles.
 * For the UK regional articles I'd propose to change to the system used for the US and Canada: Articles including all informations on Guiding and Scouting in an official administrative area (perhaps with redirect from the respectiv Scout County/Guide Area).
 * I also propose to change the project's name to WikiProject Guiding and Scouting. The actual name is only correct for the US and parts of Canada. And we should include more trefoils... --jergen 11:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As to adding trefoils, I am going through boxes and books and all resources in my collection, about 30,000 pieces and I am a slob so of course they're in no order, but of recent days have been finding more Girl Guide emblems catch-as-catch can and including them in the Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems and in articles. Chris 08:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with (3). (2) is more difficult because the administrative areas keep changing and they are not all on the same basis. Several Scout Counties/Areas now cross administrative boundaries, but this can change from year to year. I largely agree with (1) but wonder, for example, whether Scouts Australia could become Scouting and Guiding in Australia as it currently mentions Guides and mentions non-WOSM Scout organisations. This could perhaps be the best way in some countries. --Bduke 11:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bduke about (2). Additionally, I would be happy to start putting up regional articles for Girlguiding UK. I haven't got tonnes of information to hand, but I think I can make a good start. I think (1) is what should be happening, with appropriate links in the "See also" sections to guide readers to other organisations in the country. I also think (3) would be a step in the right direction. Kingbird 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with 1. Agree with Bduke on 2. I don't agree with 3. Scouting is one movement, not two that joined together. It'd also be a major evolution to change all the project links, cat names, V1.0 setup, etc. Rlevse 17:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sleeping on this, I changed my view on (3) but for different reasons from Rlese. Changing the Project name as suggested might make it more inclusive to Guides but it might make it less inclusive to other organisations such as the Boy's Brigade and the Girls Brigade. It loses the link that all organisations in the Project use the Scout Method. It is not called the Scout and Guide Method. A few weeks back I had to convince an editor to not remove the Project tag from Talk:Girls' Brigade. I would however like to know the views of more women wikipedians. --Bduke 21:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In a large part of the anglophone world, "Scouting" has a gender specific connotation: it's for boys. There are many women and girls who would fervently defend that what they do is "Guiding" not "Scouting". This may not reflect the roots of the movements or the practice of local organisations, but it's what people associate with the words. Wikipedia and Wikiproject Scouting have a heavy US influence where this connotation does not exist. If we remain "Wikiproject Scouting" we will always alienate a significant number of women from outside the USA. Kingbird 22:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think one reason the project has such a heavy US, shall I say appearance, is that most of the people who join it are from the USA. This is probably because en wiki itself seems to have a heavy USA and male base. I've always tried to get more non-USA and and females to join. Scouting/Guiding/etc is one movement. If we rename it as proposed, we further perpetuate that it's not, not to mention other reasons that have come up. Most of you have no idea what havoc will be with the things I first mentioned if it's renamed. Kingbird: I'm curious as to what basis there is for those who feel Guiding is not part of Scouting. Rlevse 22:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The average Guide would be horrified to hear that what she does is Scouting. She would realise Guiding and Scouting had similarities and a shared history, but that is where it ends. Some part of that argument isn't about logic, so it's rather hard to explain. I'm loath to quote early Guiding documents that say the movements are distinct because you can also end up implying a lot of things that aren't true (or aren't true any more) that way, but it is certainly possible to do so. I still think that at the end of the day, if we don't use the word "Guiding", we're going to miss out on the participation of many Guiding women. Kingbird 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If I may add my ha'penny's worth as a lurker, I had some experience of this controversy while writing the webpages for a Student Scout and Guide Organisation group in the early 90s. I made the mistake of referring to what we did as 'Scouting' on these pages.  The next executive meeting was rather heated, and threw up a number of points that may be relevant here.  Almost all of the Scouts on the committee thought that 'Scouting' was fine as an inclusive word that covered both Scouts and Guides - but this was completely unacceptable to any of the Guides.  They were quite clear that what we did was Scouting and Guiding, not just Scouting - which made the women's movement seem second-class and unimportant.  By putting just 'Scouting' on the page, I had behaved as unacceptably as someone who puts out a job advert with the banner headline "Are you the man we're looking for?" and then puts "applications from women and minorities are encouraged" in small print at the bottom.
 * By referring simply to Wikiproject:Scouting, the message that is being sent out (to most anglophone countries) is that this is a project that is not about Guiding. In the worldwide context, 'Scouting' is not the inclusive word that it is in the US, it is an exclusive word that says 'No Girl Guides Here'.  If the project is serious about getting non-US women involved, then it must change to using inclusive language - which means changing the name to something like Wikiproject:Scouting/Guiding.
 * --Robminchin 02:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Robminchin, Guiding and Scouting are two completely different aspects. Most of my scouts don't agree with the view point that Scouting also covers Guiding. I full support a name change to incorporate both Scouting and Guiding under one topic. Also, I'd recommend that if a country has a separate Scouting and Guiding organisation (These being officially WOSM or WAGGGS organisations) they get separate articles. If a country has any non-WOSM or non-WAGGGS scout/guide (These being Scouts under the definition of scouting - Not something like BP Scouts which have their own international organisations) organisations they have a section in the WOSM/WAGGGS recognised organisations article. Hope this makes sense... Jediwannabe 06:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am impressed by Robminchen's arguments and it reminds me of working with Student Scout and Guide Clubs in UK in the 1950s and 1960s. I am going to change my mind yet again. It is very important indeed that we are seen to be inclusive of Guiding. If other organisations find this less inclusive (see my comment above) then that is unfortunate but it is less important than being inclusive to Guides. I think the name should be changed to Wikiproject:Scouting and Guiding. We can use a redirect and work together to correct everything. Sorry, Rlevse, it has to be done. --Bduke 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No one has yet to tell how Guiding is so different other than the girl side simply considers itself different. I still fervently believe that making it two separate names perpetuates it being two movements and that simply isn't true. It's like saying "Black and white Americans" vice "Americans". Making separate terms perpetuates the separation, making one term doesn't. I will not support a name change.Rlevse 08:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rlevse. BP founded ONE movement using ONE method. To carry the opposing arguement to its logical conclusion (those supporting rename), the project name should be "WikiProject Scouting, Guiding, Boys Brigade, Royal Rangers, etc and so on"...just where would the cut for being important enough be made and how long to make the name? Sumoeagle179 08:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Let us take a reality check on this point. I have just looked down the list of Wikiproject Scouting participants. There appears to be nobody who lists Boys Brigade, Royal Rangers or any other organisation that is not Scouts or Guides. The articles on these have either been written by people interested in the organisation who did not then join our project or by Scouts or Guides wanting to fill in gaps. They have of course often been added to by Project members. For many of these organisations we really have no evidence that they think of themselves as using the Scout method or think of themselves as part, in some vague sense, of the Scouting movement. In fact what little evidence we have is to the contrary - see Talk:Girls' Brigade. They might well think that we have done an imperialistic grap for their territory! Keeping all these groups in the Project is not important. Treating Guides on a equal basis as Scouts is very important. --Bduke 21:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with BDuke here - the Boys' Brigade was started a little earlier than the Scout Movement, and while it might have some parallels to Scouting, it is not related - unlike Guiding, which came about because of a desire to provide the Scouting method to young girls/women as well as to young boys/men. I think we should maintain a focus on Scouting and Guiding, as any relation to other youth organisations like the BB is mostly incidental. Horus Kol 08:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Two more thoughts-unless I'm totally misreading some of the above, some posters are trying to make the argument that Scouting and Guiding are tied together only with the thinnest of threads, as if by chance, and have precious little in common. I can put the lie to that specious argument with the fact that so many of the world's organizations are joint, even their logos superimpose the trefoil and the fleur-de-lis. They serve the same need, for different markets, if you will. And if I have read too much into the above, my apologies.
 * Second, WAGGGS itself is partially culpable for the lack of information available on these associations-their printed materials are usually lackluster, their website is more colorful than useful, and when I dropped in at the local Girl Scout office to see if I could get more information, I was treated as though I had ebola. We're asking the right questions, but we should not blame ourselves for any cultural or gender bias, we're trying to do the best we can with the materials available out there. Chris 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent points Chris. Rlevse 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The analogy of "White American" and "Black American" does not, unfortunately, hold outside of countries where the division is into "Boy Scouts" and "Girl Scouts". To a British Girl Guide, using "Scouting" is more akin to trying to use "White American" as an inclusive term to cover Black Americans!  Guiding is not Scouting simply because that is the meaning of the word in most english-speaking countries.  There may not be a logical explanation for it, any more than there is a logical explanation for an awful lot of differences between British and American english, but it is a fact of how the language is used that Scouting simply does not work as an inclusive term to encompass Guiding.
 * I also think the Guides would be most distressed to be told that BP founded only one organisation when it is quite clear that they were founded as a closely linked, but most definitely separate, organisation.
 * --Robminchin 13:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sumoeagle179 said one movement with one method, not one organization. There's a distinct difference.Rlevse 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologise to Chris (and anyone else) if it was my previous post that gave the impression that the shared history and many commonalities of Guiding and Scouting organisations were being ignored. I was trying to restrain myself from starting a pointless exchange along the lines of "But B-P wrote...".  Kingbird 16:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One method? Note that BP and his sister Agnes wrote a separate book for Girl Guides though it pulled a lot from his original book for boys.  How much?  I don't know.  It would be a useful non-wikipedia project to get the full text of both books on line (they should both be out of copyright).  Historically the orgs for Guides (including Girl Scouts) and the Scouts have been parallel but borrowing from each other.  I suspect sometime in the future WAGGGS and WOSM will merge.  Note that both already have co-ed organizations (though in the WAGGGS case less than a handful of their organizations are co-ed and belong only to WAGGGS [e.g., Slovenia, Spain, Greece] though others are co-ed but only the female members belong to WAGGGS and the male members to WOSM). --Erp 02:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Scout method applies to all. Can you show us a Guide method? I have never seen one, but maybe it's out there somewhere. Rlevse 02:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect that some Guiders would talk about a Guide method as including "encouraging girls to be self-assertive in a girls-only environment". I also suspect that Guiders do not use the term "Scout method", but perhaps call it "BP's methods" or the "Scout and Guide method". Can any Guiders throw light on this. {{subst:Unsigned|Bduke}]
 * In 1918 in "Girl Guiding", BP wrote: "Our method of training is to educate from within rather than to instruct from without; to offer games and activities which, while being attractive to the girl, will seriously educate her morally, mentally and physically." Sound familiar? A rose by any other name is but a rose. Rlevse 03:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Scout/Guide Method" Bharat Scouts and Guides, "The Scout and Guide Method" Partnerships, "Using the Girl Guide method " Refugee Reproductive Health, "The Guide/Scout Method" Welcome to Europe --Erp 02:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3 of those 4 also have Scout in the title and none of them teach anything about the method significantly different from the Scout method. Rlevse 03:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I deliberately chose exemplars of different ways of referring to things; it was not meant to reflect how common any one usage was. I think we have two things to consider (a)  whether there is a distinction between Guide method and Scout method and (b)what terminology to use: "Scout method" "Scout and Guide method" "Scout/Guide method"....  If they are not separate and we are talking about a generic method then I think we should be using Scout/Guide method or something similar (note that two of my examples are in WAGGGS/WOSM sponsored events). --Erp 22:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Two suggestions
I have thought of two possibilities that the GG/GS folks may want to consider. I've seen both used in other WikiProjects in similar instances. Both would keep the GG/GS group as a sub part of the larger WP:Scouting and yet give them their own name and own "wiki entity". These ideas are 1) a WP:Guiding as a subproject of WP:Scouting and 2) WP:Scouting taskforce named Guiding. If you are not familiar with project taskforces, see WP:MILHIST as they have dozens of them. Rlevse 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing about that is that I don't think we have enough female editors/GS/GG specific editors to keep such a thing moving. Also, I would like to throw it out there that when the British Boy Scouts came to the US and went camping with my brother's troop, they always bring Girls with them.  I am not sure if they are Guides or they are simply female Boy Scouts, but nonetheless they come.  I am/was/always will be at heart a Girl SCOUT.  That's right, a scout.  Guiding is scouting.  I'm sure that my sisters in scouting/guiding around the world with agree with me when I say that indeed we are all sisters in well, scouting.  Whether it is under the name Guiding or Scouting no matter if our founder was Anges or Julliet, we are all sister scouts.  Another comment, if women/guides are so distraught over such issues, why won't they speak them out here?  I have yet to here of any Guiding disent.  If I am wrong then I'm sorry, but I would like to hear first hand their side of the story rather than what we would assume they would say.  Darth  griz 9 8 15:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They were Scouts, the British (WOSM) scout organisation is co-ed. There is also a British (WAGGGS) Guide organisation.
 * But from a Girl Scout perspective is there a HUGE difference in the BSA and GSUSA programs? That is, what lots of BSA-members think. --Egel Reaction? 15:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But, the point is we are still a scouting program.  Darth griz 9 8 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have started something, have I not, but it was a debate we have to have. I appreciate Chris' comments above, but the real issue is the absence of women editors and that not all of those are in WAGGGS organisations. For example, there is at least one women editor on Australian Scouting articles but she is a Rover Scout not a member of Australian Guides. I really appreciate Randy's attempt to take the problem seriously, even though the basic US response is to think it is not important. It is important and we may well be putting off women Guide editors in countries that think the term "Girl Scout" is a rather odd term. The point that two of us have made about working in Student Scout and Guide Clubs is that this, along with the related SAGGA, is to my knowledge the only umbrella organisation for Scouts and Guides and thus the only place that one is really forced to address the issue. The Guides there very clearly do not let you use "Scouting" as a collective noun. To Griz, maybe you are not seeing this because you are not a Guide. "Scouting" is a collective noun in the US, but not in most other countries. I presume Kingbird is a Guide in UK, so we do have some Guide input. I wish we had more. --Bduke 20:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I think it's very important, some of us are just on the opposite side of the fence. We've had things like this before, significant disagreements where there may be no way to reach a significant consensus. Why did this not get mentioned when we first named the project? Making redirects due to a rename is not as simple as some think. The portal alone has 150 pages associated with it...then there are a multitude of articles, templates, categories, etc to deal. I simply honestly feel if we use more than one group in the project name, it's magnifying the problem and differences rather than bringing us together and then you have no solid marker to stop adding organizations to the project name, a la Royal Rangers, Boys Brigades, etc. We've always been very clear and careful from the beginning to include ALL groups that use the SCOUT METHOD. To that point, I've never heard of a GUIDE METHOD. If the Guides see themselves as non-Scouts, I can't help that.Rlevse 20:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean no offense to girls who call themselves Guides, but the thing is that no matter what they call themselves, may it be Guides, Scouts, 2Bers, Rovers, Campfire Girls, or American Heritage Girls, they are all in scouting organizations and therefore scouts of one type or another.  Darth  griz 9 8 20:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For me (I'm male) mentioning Guiding and Scouting depends of the context - but I'm in a unique situation since my association is the only one worldwide with all members named to both WOSM and WAGGGS. So I'm a (male) Girl Guide as well as a Boy Scout...
 * But we should take this seriously: Scouting and Guiding have the same sources but are - actually and unfortunately - not the same movement. Both world organizations rival on many grounds. One eyample: WOSM celebrates the century of Scouting in 2007 - and WAGGGS will celebrate its jubilee in 2010. --jergen 11:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The diff in the anniversary dates are two organizations, it is still one movement. Following that reasoning, a "The National XYZ Boy Scouts" who were founded in 1925, let's say, shouldn't celebrate their anniversary until 2025. Boy Scouts and GG/GS were all started by BP, et al.Rlevse 12:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me point out that there ARE other countries besides USA and Canada where the girls are called GIRL SCOUTS--see Girl Scouts of the Philippines and Girl Scouts of Japan for two examples.Sumoeagle179 00:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the best solution is a GG/GS taskforce within the Scouting project. The reasons have already been stated. The suggestions made by Bduke in the other subthread have much merit too and could easily be done within a taskforce framework. Rlevse 11:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A modest suggestion re articles on Guiding
When I started this thread I had not thought about the Project name, but I now think it is important. However, let me go back to what I first noticed. I'll restrict examples to my own region:-
 * Australia - Scouts Australia is about the WOSM coed organisation but it mentions Guides Australia, the WAGGGS organisation, as a redlink.
 * PNG - The Scout Association of Papua New Guinea is the WOSM organisation and it has a paragraph on Girl Guides Association of Papua New Guinea, the WAGGGS organisation.
 * New Zealand - Scouting New Zealand is the WOSM organisation and it has a paragraph on Guides New Zealand, the WAGGGS organisation, as a redlink.
 * Solomon Islands - Solomon Islands branch of The Scout Association exists, yet is not affiliated to WOSM, and it includes a paragraph on The Girl Guides Association of the Solomon Islands, which is affiliated to WAGGGS.

Now it is great that material is there about Guides in these countries, but the pattern is clear. The Scout article is important and the Guide material is less important. This is not intended but it is the impression. The last example is particularly offensive in that the Guides are further developed in terms of international affiliation than the Scouts (I do not intend to say that any person who contributed to this article has been offensive, but it is offensive to the Guides). I propose that the Guide material in each case be removed from those articles and put into a new article stub for the Guide Association in each country. This puts them on an equal basis and may encourage the Guide stubs to grow. Maybe there are many other places where this can also be done.
 * I have now created these four new stubs for the Guide organisations in these countries by moving the material from the four Scout articles. I would like to propose that this be a standard for the Project. The wording might be something like "In articles about the WOSM affiliated Scout organisation in a particular country, there should be no mention, other than a "See also" link, to the equivalent WAGGGS organisation. Material about the WAGGGS organisation should be put into a new article, even if only a stub". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bduke (talk • contribs)
 * That's fine with me, except it should cut in both directions, not only WOSM-WAGGGS. Rlevse 23:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Reword and put in the standards page. However, I very much doubt that we have a WAGGGS article for a country and do not have a WOSM article for that country. That is why the debate has started. Female organisations do not have the status of male organisation and the web is male dominated as well. --Bduke 23:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My second suggestion is that the category "Scouting in Australia" be changed to "Scouting and Guiding in Australia". Maybe this could also apply to countries that have Guides as well as Scouts and such a category. What do people think? I might add that every article in that category at present is a Scouts Australia article except for Baden-Powell Scouts which is in several Scouting in XXX categories, perhaps wrongly. I think it is down at this level where we can be more carefully inclusive. The UK of course is another place where something similar perhaps can be done. --Bduke 07:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleaning up redlinks as you suggest is excellent. They may well send an UNINTENDED message that Guiding is not important. I'm sure no one did that on purpose as the problem is few editors knowledgeble on the GG/GS issues. The "Scouting and Guiding in XYZ" idea is certainly less of a problem than a project rename, but I think a better one is to make a SEPARATE "Guiding in XYZ" category and put whatever appropriate there. Rlevse 11:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * On my first point, it is not a question of cleaning up redlinks but giving equal treatment to Scout and Guide organisations in a country. I'll do what I suggest for the 4 countries above tomorrow and people can see whether they want to do it in other cases. On my second point, does Rlevse's view have other support? If so I will do that for Australia when there are more articles. It is more of an issue for UK. However, where do articles on UK Girls Brigade go (if any)? --Bduke 11:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse's suggested subproject or taskforce with a Guiding label is interesting development. I'm daunted by the extra work that either of these suggestions would require of someone though. Perhaps if the point is to make women and women's information better represented in the project, then a WAGGGS taskforce would better fit the bill. By using the WAGGGS label, we are not excluding Girl Scouting, or discourgaing people of any sex who want to contribute. Could a taskforce be disbanded in the future if it had addressed the problem, or is that not how they work? Kingbird 17:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A taskforce is nothing more than a group of people interested in a particular part of a project. It can be as simple as adding a subpage to the project page and they using that as their meeting and info place. The MILHIST project also adds a tag to the talk page banner of taskforce related pages that says "this article is supported by the XYZ taskforce of the MILHIST project". I'd do the tag additions if you want to pursue this part and set up the subpage for you if you like. So, the backend work would be minimal to the taskforce members. Rlevse 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Related Question: Category:Guiding
What should we do with this category? If we consent that there is no distinct Guide movement, it's unnecessary. If not it needs a better definition: Actually it is quite unclear which articles should go in this category. --jergen 07:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see this is what you think we should discuss. I suggest that anything that refers to a Guide person or activity should go into that category. In fact anything that is Guiding except for articles on WAGGGS organisations, which are in the WAGGGS category that is below Guiding, should go there. Note that WAGGGS is in Category:Guiding for the GG and in Category:Scouting for the GS. I think that is appropriate, even if not entirely logical. I think it helps to show that we are treating Guiding seriously in the Project. Guiding may or may not be a distinct movement (people may have different views) but it is certainly a term that has a lot of loyalty, and support as a distinction from Scouting. I suggest we leave things as they are. --Bduke 08:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at this to see what your guys are talking about. What's odd is that WAGGGS is both on the same level as Guiding (both as a sub of Scouting, as is WOSM) and also a sub of Guiding. If we make WAGGGS only a sub of Guiding, some GG/GS may say why isn't WAGGGS at the same level as WOSM? I have a suggestion that I think will meet both your concerns and also follow wiki policy on categories: Put WAGGGS, WOSM, and the non-aligned cat all under "Scouting related associations" and put WAGGGS under Guiding also. Thoughts? I've put this on both your talk pages. Rlevse 12:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See by sandbox, User:Rlevse/sandbox, Jergen and I have worked something out. Rlevse 14:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Inviting Participation
I am aware that there are people on Wikipedia who are likely to be/have been Guides, based on their posts. I was wondering about inviting them to join the Scouting Wikiproject, as they may not know we cover Guiding too. Does anyone have any advice on how to do this successfully? Kingbird 17:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We are listed here, and I listed Guiding specifically: WikiProject_Council/Directory/History_and_society. I'll look for other ways to advertise. The portal also lists that we cover Guiding, etc. Rlevse 18:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've now put a goals and scope section at the top of our project page. Rlevse 22:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * KINGBIRD-I'd be honored for you to write an article about us for: Wikipedia Signpost/About. Rlevse 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for inviting me to write about the project in this way. At this time, I'm afraid I must decline due to lack of time. I have recently committed to doing work on Girlguiding UK matters, both programme details and regional information, plus I was already researching information for a few new articles when I made those commitments. I want to keep on enjoying being part of the Scouting Wikiproject, not feeling hassled by being over-committed.
 * No problem, it would be a good way to advertise the project, so I'll do it sometime this weekend.Rlevse 15:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Added a blue Guiding link on the project talk page template. Rlevse 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

130th Glasgow Company, The Boys' Brigade
If we are interested in the Boys' Brigade, this article is up for deletion. It is not straight forword as it does seen fairly notable and old. --Bduke 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything that notable about it - apart from the names of the various leaders involved, that could be a fairly generic article on other BB companies. Horus Kol 08:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Caio Vianna Martins
I just started a stub article on Brazilian Scout and national hero Caio Vianna Martins, if anyone has anything to contribute to it. -- Writtenonsand 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Page redesign
I've been working ideas for improving our project page layout for some time--I for one am tired of all that scrolling! I started working on Scouting WikiProject Navigation box a few days ago. Over the next several days, I'll be working this and at various points playing with the page layout. None of it is chiseled in stone, so if you have ideas, please leave talk here on this talk page. Rlevse 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Could I mention the instructions for placing the Scouting Portal tag? The How you can help section and the Templates section indicate different places to put it. I haven't liked to change either section as I haven't been around here too long. Also, if using the WorldScouting Infobox, should we omit the Scouting Portal tag, as for the BSA box, or not? I don't mind the what the answer is, I'd just be happier knowing the standard. Many thanks, Kingbird 16:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fixed the portal discrepancy, it should go in See also, BUT if you use the info box, since it has a portal link builtin, you'd don't need to use the standalone portal tag. Rlevse 16:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've just dropped in the first version of the navigation pane. Constructive feedback and ideas for improvement are welcome.Rlevse 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting colour scheme... it was a little too bright for viewing before my first cuppa of the morning... Horus Kol 10:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I went with green, gold, and ivory....ivory to offset a tad from the white background of main space, green and gold as they are good Scout colors. I'll check for a tad darker green, but before when I used one particular darker green, it was too dark. Rlevse 10:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)....try the one I just changed too. Rlevse 11:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Its a bit easier on the eyes now... good work with the reorganisation. Horus Kol 08:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm now putting this on all project pages. Rlevse 03:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this original research?
I just came upon History of the Scout movement in Poland and don't know what to to with this article in need. It names only one unpublished source for the whole text - to me this is quite near to original research. Waht should we do with it? --jergen 09:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, quite interesting, but it says it's based on a memoir, which we can't verify as it's not a web reference. I'd say it's not original research, but more likely a copy vio, but we can't verify that. I'd hate to lose this interesting info on the other hand. Rlevse 11:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like most of this was added by User:Andrzej anonimus. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Explorer Scouts
I've been following the recommendations of the peer review I had made, and I think I've taken it as far as I can... could anyone else do a copyedit and see if there are any more links we can get in there? Horus Kol 10:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Boy Scout Vespers
Hello, I have added a comment at Talk:Boy Scout Vespers. Carolynparrishfan 23:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

UK Scout County Style
I'd like to come up with a standard style for the UK Scout County articles - I've been developing one with Scouting in Royal Berkshire (trying to get the relevant information in the article for anyone interested in the County)... firstly, I'd like any suggestions about it... and then how do I let people know about it? Cheers, Horus Kol 15:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Images of World Scout Bureau document
I have some images of a certicate and a letter from World Scout Bureau for accepting a new member. Could I upload to commons or here? If yes, What kinds of license could be written down in their comments? &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * wikisource is probably a better place. I think GFDL is automatice for wikisource and wikicommons.Sumoeagle179 02:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's an image, not text. As the copies of document are written by World Scout Bureau, I'm worry about copyright. Is it in fair use or public? &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 13:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, try User:Wimvandorst, I'm not sure.Sumoeagle179 12:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 00:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Return to wiki
Many thanks to all who supported me during my MUCH NEEDED WikiBreak. Now I FULLY understand why they are needed. What an intense year! Man, did I need that break. Many thanks to you all for supporting the project. You are all fine Scouters and editors. Let’s keep improving our articles. Scouting is still a FAC (not sure if it’ll make it or not on this round) and the Girl Guiding and Girl Scouting Task Force was recently started—please support the GG/GS Task Force if you can. We really want to beef up our articles in that area. I myself ordered a book on Our Chalet and have started an article on that. Yours in Scouting, Rlevse 21:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)