Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Scouting/archive1

Scouting edit

Main page	Articles
Scouting	Baden-Powell House - Boy Scouts of America membership controversies - Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) - Gilwell Park - Girl Scouts of the USA - History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) - List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America) - The Scout Association of Hong Kong - Witold Pilecki

This is a good core of Scouting-related articles. All are FA/FLs, we also have 3 A-class and 5 GA articles.Rlevse 02:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Would be a great addition to Featured Topics.--Joebengo 03:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object. What were the criteria for selecting those articles? For example, Witold Pilecki may be my personal hero, but being a scout was not the most important part of his life. Linking Polish outstanding Scout Instructors and Związek Harcerstwa Polskiego would be more appopriate. The above list is also very US/Western Centered: 4 US organizations, 1 US list, 2 British places, 1 Chinese organization and a Polish person? What kind of a list is this?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 04:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to arbitrary choice of member articles. The first line of the lead article says that it is a worldwide organization, yet 5/10 of the articles are specific to America and one is specific to Hong Kong with all other countries unrepresented. Maybe you should nominate Boy Scouts of America as its own topic; that would have a much clearer scope. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment choice was not arbitary, I simply picked all our FAs. The reason most of them are US-related is that most project members are from the US, so natually those topics tend to get worked on more.Rlevse 10:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Articles picked to form a topic shouldn't be picked because they are all high quality articles that can become a featured topic. You should pick the articles that fit together properly, and then go about improving those articles. Christopher Connor 13:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just choosing the FA articles breaks requirement #5: no obvious gap. There are main subsections of the main article that are missing from the topic, such as Scout method and Scouting in popular culture. Also, if the The Scout Association of Hong Kong is in the topic, than the Scout Association of every country would have to be. There are a gigantic number of articles that could potentially be under this topic and are conspicuously absent now. I see two ways that you could get scouting nominated:
  1. Nominate a topic with just the high-importance articles that would link off of the main page, such as History of Scouting and Scout method. Or,
  2. Nominate several smaller subtopics, such as "Scouting in America" or "National Scouting Associations". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for cherrypicking, you have to nominate a whole branch of a tree, not just the leaves you like. Someone needs to find a good topic to nominate now, once the hurricane one goes this'll be a page full of opposes, quite depressing. --PresN 18:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm going to have to oppose, the topic choices are just too broad in subject. Darth griz⁹⁸ 05:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThis is just a list of our GAs and FAs, not a coherent topic... Horus Kol Talk 13:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fail --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]