Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2014

File:Dorothy Stratten 1979.jpg

This image has her wearing an olive-era BSA uniform with the 1960 Jamboree badge. Should we categorize the image, or no?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Dont people object to categorizing FU images? --evrik ^(talk) 04:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dunno, but it seems these days they object to even having images. :( --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• • I added it to this cat Category:Images of the Boy Scouts of America. --evrik ^(talk) 16:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Linking from articles like Scout Promise

Back in November, a well established editor removed the links in the organisation headings here. This lead to this discussion. I have only now got around to thinking more about it. As that discussion in part indicates, there seems to be five choices:-

1. Revert that edit and go back to using a link to the Association article in the heading, although this is against WP:MOS.
2. Add
   Main article: Scouts Australia
3. Add
   See also: Scouts Australia
4. Add something like "Members of Scouts Australia use the following promises:"
5. One of 1 - 3 above, but linking to Scouting and Guiding in Australia in or under the country heading, so there would be less links than linking to associations.

This would also apply to Scout Law where the links in the header have not been removed. It may apply to other articles as well. I think we do have to have some links that allow the reader to get to the article about the association that uses a particular Promise. What choice should we make? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

• I like option 2. --evrik ^(talk) 01:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Scouting Categories on Commons

I came across an issue looking at this image, on Girlguiding. On Commons, the file is in Commons:Category:Scouting in the United Kingdom, along with several others that are images of Guiding. That category is a sub-category of Commons:Category:Scouting by country, and all its sub-categories are "Scouting in X". Here on wikipedia, we long ago changed the names of our categories to be "Scouting and Guiding in X" for those countries where the female Scouting organisation is called Guiding. I strongly suggest that the same should be done on Commons, but it might need to be handled carefully. I think it is likely that the present naming discourages editors from adding images of Guiding to the appropriare category. Indeed I got to this by noticing that someone added to Girlguiding the template that shows "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Girl Guides United Kingdom", but that links to Commons:Category:Girl Guides United Kingdom, which now has 4 entries and is a sub-category of Commons:Category:Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, which in turn is a sub-category of Commons:Category:Scouting by section. That and Commons:Category:Scouting by country are in the parent category, Commons:Category:Scouting. All this appears to me to be most unsatisfactory as it gives little weight to those who call their associations "Guiding". I think the whole category structure on Commons needs a proper clean-up. Is anyone active, or indeed an admin on Commons, prepared to have a look at this? --Bduke (Discussion) 03:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Be bold. I don't think anyone but us really cares. --evrik ^(talk) 05:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments about merger

Please add your comments about the proposed merger of a short, defunct council article into the current council's article. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 02:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• Closed --evrik ^(talk) 05:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Camp templates

If you have the inclination, the templates found at Category:Outdoor recreation templates have many redlinks and could use some fleshing out. --evrik ^(talk) 05:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding merger

There is a request to merge Old Rajans Scouts Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into 1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) at the Proposed Merger Noticeboard. Discussion taking place >>>Here<<<. Input requested. Thank you, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how a Group page is being held as notable in any case? DiverScout (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The argument is that the international events that they organise have attracted enough attention in newspapers. However, it is clear to me that this does not support "three" articles. The third is Lake View Park International Scout Centre. There is no consensus however since the view from editors in Sri Lanka outweighs the view from outside. The suggestion that both be merged into the camp article seems to make sense, but there will be no consensus for that either. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Project SOAR

A new article?

Project SOAR

The whole organization mobilized for Project SOAR (Save Our American Resources). [1] --evrik ^(talk) 02:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Scout-like

From Scouting:

Scouting (or the Scout Movement) is a movement that aims to support young people in their physical, mental and spiritual development, that they may play constructive roles in society, with a strong focus on the outdoors and survival skills.

In my opinion, Scout-like organizations have the same goals, but do not claim a heritage derived from Baden-Powell's schemes for boys and girls. Their ideals do not include variants of the Scout/Guide promise or law. Scout-like organizations may describe themselves as an alternative to mainstream Scouting organizations and often are formed in reaction to the policies of said organizations.

Thoughts? --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

At WP it is not up to the editors to create definitions. We must use outside sources. From Troop 97:

There is no clear line of distinction between "true" Scouting and "Scout-like" or "Scouting Alternative" programs, nor is there any worldwide agreement on what is "true" Scouting.

Of course, it goes not on at the website. Spshu (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Then we can't use the term if there is no definition.

And that is another point- Troop 97 is a self published source, thus fails reliability. --  Gadget850 ^talk 19:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Gadget850's description makes sense to me. However, putting this in context, article titles should be accurate and non-POV. If an article is exclusively containing groups that are like-Scouting, such as, say Young Pioneers and Hitler Youth, then the title would be for "Scout-like). As shown by those examples, though, such a listing becomes exceptionally open-ended.

If, however, it is also listing member associations of an international Scout organisation, it is not just showing "Scout-like" organisations, but Scout ones - and the title is required to reflect this. DiverScout (talk) 19:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

But the Troop97 goes on to their "guidelines":

Here are some guidelines that I use to help determine if an organization is "Scout-like" (and please email me if you can improve on these guidelines, or if you can offer additional information about any of the organizations listed below):

• Most avoid using the terms "Scout" or "Scouting".
• Most do not particularly acknowledge Baden-Powell as the ultimate founder of their program (and a couple pre-date Scouting).
• Most deliberately pattern their programs after traditional Scouting (often including not only an outdoor program, but advancement, merit badges, ranks, and a Scout-like uniform), but usually consider themselves to be an alternative to traditional Scouting.
• "Scouting Alternative" programs tend to define themselves based on how they differ from standard Boy Scouting or Girl Scouting.

True about Troop97 be a self published source (as far as we know). The above sources that I used to start the Scout-like organization of the US article may be start as they are ID as Scouting or Scouting alternatives. Spshu (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is certainly unusable. Three sentences start with "most", meaning that some organisations are not covered be them. The fourth sentence uses instead "tend" - as vague as possible - and compares something to "standard Boy Scouting or Girl Scouting" of which we don't have any definition.

Scouting and Guiding is a very wide field. There are some European or Latin American NSOs in WOSM oder MOs in WAGGGS that differ far more from the BSA than Royal Rangers or Pathfinders - and the other way round, US Scouting is quite difficult to understand for Europeans. Would a BSA member recognise the Éclaireuses et Éclaireurs de France as "real" Scouting or as scout-like? They don't have uniforms, they use a promise without reference to God (or any other higher instance) - but they are members of both WOSM and WAGGGS via their national federation.

The discussions above are very US-centric and far away from NPOV. --jergen (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The next level of logic (after the fact that an actual Scout organisation cannot be Scout-like) is, of course, unless these organisations that are not Scout organisations but, in the opinion of Scouters and Wikipedia editors appear to be more or less like Scouts consider themselves Scout-like, why are they in such a category? Are they not, in fact, "Boys Brigade-like" or "Woodcraft Indians-like" organisations? In fact, surely all Scout organisations could surely be justifiably listed as "Boys Brigade-like organisations" (seeing as B-P developed Scouting out of the earlier organisation)?

It seems that this whole concept has appeared, with good intentions I'm sure, out of a reading of a personal web site rather than through any actual agreed relationship between the selected organisations or careful thought about grouping criteria. A lot more thought really should have gone into this before the edits were made. DiverScout (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I just pointed out that Troop 97's website had guidelines, which yes can be vague, and quote them only indicate that, Jergen. Also, the site asks for corrections (so wanting non-primary sources I used to fill in some gaps at the Indy Scout/-like article) thus not completely useless.

An actual scouting organization can be scout-like else it isn't a scouting organization. Say for example, the criteria for a scouting organization is five separate items/attributes while a scout-like organization only needs to meet 3 of the scouting criteria's attributes. Since, the scouting organization meets at least three items as in fact it meets all 5 items, not only is the organization a scouting organization it is also scout-like. Scout-like is the big circle with scouting the smaller circle within (ie. set & subset as pointed out else where), DiverScout. Scouter and WP editors opinion are not supposed to come into use. Sources are suppose to be our guides since list is based on

• Hallowell, Billy. (February 18, 2013) 9 Faith-Based (and Secular) Alternatives to the Boy Scouts of America Amid Furor Over Gay Ban. AP. The Blaze. Accessed on October 16, 2013.
• Connor, Tracy. (July 28, 2013). Wiccans, earth-lovers, do-gooders: There's a 'scouting' group for your kid. NBC News. Accessed on January 17, 2013. Archived at AHGonline.org.
• Banks, Adelle M. (May 13, 2013). SIDEBAR: Evangelical alternatives to the Boy Scouts. Religion News. Accessed on January 9, 2013. Spshu (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

minor organizations

I have create an article for minor organization of Scout like organization from scratch from 90% outside sources as the organization either doesn't have an article or the article is 100% unsourced or primary sourced. I felt most of them didn't really meet notability standards here at WP, some times just short of being notability (a couple of national coverage article but not a major focus, for example). I plan to redirect the current articles to the combined article so: 1. there is a 100% sourced (sub)article about the organization and 2. that the articles as written don't go away but stored by the system if any one can restore and source the article.

When I have done this in other areas that all gather in arms in a full out attack (even when the article are 100% unsourced!!!). They demand that I report the article for Deletion, well with a redirect the article as it was doesn't go away. Just a fore warning that I am going to be bold in the redirects. Spshu (talk) 00:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have no issue with this, but can you give us a list of articles that you propose to redirect to that article? Also do you have thoughts about similar articles outside the US? Mostly, I think the organisations are mentioned in "Scout (and Guiding) in X". --Bduke (Discussion) 04:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the situation in the U.S. - but are these organizations really all "scout-like"? To me, this looks like a very broad interpretation of "scout-like"; if I'd use something this broad on German youth organizations, "scout-like" would cover nearly all of them. --jergen (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Much of this is already touched on in Scouting in the United States. Trail Life USA belongs on the list as Scout-like. But BPSA is a Scouting organization.

We probably should better define Scout-like. As I see it, Scout-like refers to an organization that uses the Scouting elements of informal education, physical, mental and spiritual development and a focus on the outdoors, but does not claim a heritage to Baden-Powell's scheme, which includes the Scout/Guide promise. Many Scout-like organizations present themselves as an alternative to other Scouting organizations. --  Gadget850 ^talk 13:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Bduke, Every organization listed at the new article, I intend to redirect:

1 Adventure Corps, 2 AWANA, 3 Baden-Powell Service Association, 4 Caravan, 5 Christian Service Brigade, 6 Columbian Squires, 7 Dynamic Youth Ministries, 7.1 Calvinist Cadet Corps, 7.2 GEMS Girls' Clubs, 8 Earth Champs, 9 Frontier Girls, 10 Kepha, 11 Kids for Earth, 12 Navigators USA, 13 Pathfinders, 14 Pioneer Clubs, 15 Royal Rangers, 16 SpiralScouts International, 17.1 Challengers, 17.2 Royal Ambassadors, 18 Troops of St. George

Of course part of this post is to let editors object to redirects for particular articles. I have already started with the less controversial ones, those completely unsourced or have no article to begin with.

I don't see any reason why not to have similar articles outside the US. It collects all the info about a lesser known groups in one place, in a section (or subarticle as I some time called them).

Jergen and Gadget850, I choose cover those organization that were listed, thus ID as scouting alternatives, in the following articles:

• Banks, Adelle M. (May 13, 2013).SIDEBAR: Evangelical alternatives to the Boy Scouts. Religion News. Accessed on January 90, 2013.
• Billy Hallowell . (February 18, 2013) 9 Faith-Based (and Secular) Alternatives to the Boy Scouts of America Amid Furor Over Gay Ban. AP. The Blaze. Accessed on October 16, 2013.
• Connor, Tracy. (July 28, 2013). Wiccans, earth-lovers, do-gooders: There's a 'scouting' group for your kid. NBC News. Accessed on January 17, 2013. Archived at AHGonline.org.
• Schiffer, Kathy. (May 24, 2013). And Now It Begins: Catholic Groups Rise Up to Replace the Boy Scouts. Patheos.com. Accessed on January 15, 2014.

AWANA and Pioneer Clubs are the only ones not selected based on those sources as they came up during research as an alternative scouting organization. I chose the "scout-like organization in the US" to keep the article title short and use the terminology in the Template:Scouting in the United States, but I am using it the broadest term (scout-like, brake away organization, alternative scouting, etc.). Most US scouting organization cannot state that they are scouting organization given the BSA's trademark of it. I didn't included Dynamic Youth Ministries' third youth organization, Youth Unlimited, as it seems to be a general youth group as opposed to the scouting. If more groups are added then we might want to split the article up along category names.

And the first reversal of a redirect has occurred while I write this. Spshu (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Any organization can describe themselves as Scouting, but they can't use Scout in their name.

When creating sections like this, it is appropriate to create a redirect like the one I created for Royal Ambassadors, then use the redirect elsewhere. Thus, if the redirect it turned into a full article, then links do not have to be updated. --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Baden-Powell Service Association is not a Scout-like organisation, it is a Scout organisation. This needs amending. DiverScout (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are some more organizations in the list that describe themselves as Scouts or Scouting (SpiralScouts, Navigators) or that are seen as Scout organization outside the U.S. (Pathfinders, Royal Rangers). --jergen (talk) 11:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Royal Rangers and Pathfinders (Seventh-day Adventist) are worldwide programs. (added some ":" for readability)

Logo's in sub-articles will be removed and deleted, so when a logo can be found for the organisation avoid merging the article. There is a negligible chance that you can keep a logo in a sub-article even if all the elements and history of the logo are discussed with full reverences. If you want to use that opportunity first question a rule-expert for advice and consent. --Egel _Reaction? 11:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

←Logos are not indicators of notability, nor that they are worldwide, Egel. Spshu (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Royal Rangers and Pathfinders (Seventh-day Adventist) should, if merged, only be merged to a worldwide article, for example "Worldwide Scout-like organizations".

It's more like, when in doubt and the article has a logo please try to keep it a separate article.. --Egel _Reaction? 14:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Now we have Defunct Scout-like organizations in the United States. The Medical Cadet Corps were Scout-like? And the Salvation Army Life Saving Scouts, were Scouts, not Scout-like and are still operating in Canada and Europe. --  Gadget850 ^talk 03:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

We have had the Defunct org. in US for a while now, as it was in user/sandbox space the same article. It seems a tad too long and the defunct group seem category wise the easiest to place in their own article. Scout org. can be seen as a subset of Scout-like organizations, thus a Scout-like organization. Second in searching nothing came up about the SA's Life Saving Scouts of the World still operating or having much operated any where else. Egel, Re: Royal Rangers and Pathfinders, a lot of the organizations claim groups outside of the US, it is hard to know if they are truly international or just have a handful of groups outside the US. I know the Rangers are in German, but the scouting environment is highly fracture there as I understand it.

There is a discussion at the article's talk page instead of including it here over changing the name of the article. Although the other party decided that he was a consensus of one and did so already. Spshu (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Where incorrect, POV information or misleading titles are being employed by an editor there is no requirement to wait to correct them. Please look up WP:Be bold. DiverScout (talk) 19:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How, ever as point out to you several times now the title has been used in a navbox and to be used as a shorter title not as injecting POV do to subset/set, but you don't want to grasp the concept. Secondly, you decided to start a discussion and jump the bold stage of WP:BRD, so you should wait for the consensus. Spshu (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you posted an incorrect article title. It became incorrect the moment you put an actual Scout organisation into your page - and titles are not written for the convenience of your navbox. I have repeatedly attempted to speak with you, but you appear incapable of comprehending the use of standard English. Calling a Scouting NSO as Scout-like is BSA POV, or that of yourself, nothing more. As was pointed out earlier, the listing "Scout-like" can be stretched to include almost any youth organisation - so pehaps it is you, not I, who should have waited for consensus on a major edit rather than rushing it through mid-week and, as a result, getting it wrong. DiverScout (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

←It isn't my navbox, it is Template:Scouting in the United States which I did not make and is classified by category a "WikiProject Scouting templates" and includes a grouping called "Scout-like organizations". So the English are not British too. Don't blame me for what you can not do: "incapable of comprehending the use of standard English." The group is technically an ["Outlander"] group as P-B would call them given the atheistic natural of its leadership and thus idea. Well, you better get cracking changing all the templates and the "Scouting in the US" article as it cannot included any Scout-like group since the title doesn't say "Scouting and Scouting-like in the US". Spshu (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Antes de qualquer coisa, não me peçam pra escrever em inglês, tenho pouca fluência neste idioma. Discordo veementemente da fusão de todos estes artigos como se fossem um só. Na Wikipedia em português propuseram algo parecido, justificando a mesma coisa: que os artigos tem somente fontes primárias, não tem notoriedade comprovada, etc. O fato é que como o tal argumento de "ser audaz", estavam na verdade construindo uma espécie de Frankenstein. O caso do artigo sobre o Pathfinders club foi o mais notório, pois mesmo podendo verificar que nas Wikipédias em português, francês e alemão há artigos repletos de fontes secundárias fiáveis, aqui vocês preferiram resumir o artigo a uma minúscula e ridícula seção, por pura preguiça. Hallel (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation of above: "Before anything, do not ask me to write in English, I have little fluency in this language. Strongly Disagree fusion of all these items as if they were one. Wikipedia in Portuguese proposed something similar, justifying the same thing: that the articles have only primary sources, has not proven reputation, etc.. The fact is that as the "be bold" such an argument were actually building a sort of Frankenstein. The case of the article about the Pathfinders club was the most notorious, because even if they can verify that the Wikipedias in Portuguese, French and German there full articles of reliable secondary sources, here you chose to summarize the article to a tiny and ridiculous section of sheer laziness." DiverScout (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that redirecting to the new article is a good idea. These organizations have notability outside of them being scout-like. By all means the scout-like organization article is important, but instead of deleting all the information and redirecting to an article with less information, it would be better to find sources for the main articles, and link to the main articles from the "scout-like-organization" page. Is there general consensus to blank and redirect these articles? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I will re-iterate I find your blanking/reversion of Pathfinders in particular troubling. This is not just a US-based organization, the article has several sources, it is not a "minor" organization (as it has hundreds of thousands of members). 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly no consensus on redirecting Columbian Squires, Pathfinders (Seventh-day Adventist), Navigators USA, SpiralScouts International, Medical Cadet Corps or Royal Rangers to that list with several issues. This is a major deletion of content, and IMO very close to vadalizing the mentioned articles. All these organizations are notable on their own; even if some sources are missing, each of these deletions should have been discussed on their own - and not in some backyard (like this project), but on the appropriate AfD-page. --jergen (talk) 09:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

@Spshu: You have gone through the BR part of the BRD cycle, now it is time to discuss. Per the above discussion, there is no consensus to redirect these articles in question. Either leave it be, discuss here, improve the articles to resolve the issues, or; if you just have to, then take them to AFD. --  Gadget850 ^talk 13:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hallel, don't just come here and insult people for following the WP guidelines on notability. If you don't care for it then don't edit on WP. It is not as if they are one then about complaining about Scouting in the United States. How about I report you for that. They all have there mini-article their section so they can be grown and when enough sourced content and notability is met. The sections were designed to be taken out when notable is met (for example, the a source used in multiple organizations' section has the full cite in each section instead of the ref "name"/ tag) Plus with out going to AFD, the redirect SAVES the previous article for some one to retrieved, move to user or draft space. Those article were written in sure "sheer laziness" since they didn't check for notability, used primary sources or no sources at all. Excuse me for getting busy to save some information about the organizations to build on instead just going to AFD and having them deleted.

78.26, just stating that you think that they are notable doesn't make them so. Problem being most of the news coverage is slanted to the BSA and GS/US in the US. In doing the combine organizations article I looked for sources. If they are so off the cuff notable then would not have been hard to find major news source to designated them as notable. Why have not you (or any one else) gotten the article to that level to begin with? Since, no one objected previous, I would say yes there was consensus for redirects.

The Pathfinder article has been tagged for quality clean up since 2009!!! And was TOTAL primary sourced thus not meeting notability. So, no you did look as the article was notable and should have been deleted. I find it troubling that you are really looking in a WP way. I have only one notable (but weak /not mostly about them/) source in the Pathfinder section in the Ind. Scout of the US article. Second, "minor" isn't even in the name of the group article it was "Scout-like organizations in the United States" then moved to "Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States", but yes in the US most groups are minor. The size of membership is NOT necessarily an indicator of notability.

No, Gadget850, we discussed this first then I was bold. Jergen did not object to it. He just made some other comment on the "scout like" issue, nothing on the main issue. He had a chance to make a statement against it on the two occasion that he previous posted in which he complaint about was the "scout-like" and Troop97.net being US centric & NPOV. To now complain that no attempt at a consensus was made is nonsense as I listed the articles that were to be redirect to come back now after jergens KNEW WHICH ARTICLES WERE TO BE REDIRECT IS AKIN TO TROLLING. Really, jergen, know it was happening via this discussion then wait until AFTER the fact then objected. As, I point out that the article were poorly WP written, removing the article for sections in an article that follow proper WP sourcing instead of being primary source, unsourced or any number of issues that were previous (written like adverts) tagged for.

previous to 3/17/14--

For: spshu, Bduke

Actions/statements that agree with redirects: Gadget850

Other issues but not against: jergens, DriverScout, Egel

Against: NONE

Were was your enforcement of the lack of consensus when DriverScout ignore objections to the renaming of the article from "Scout-like organizations in the United States" to "Independent Scout and Scout-like organizations in the United States", Gadget850? There was no consensus to do so and it was logically explained to him there and he just ignored it. Came to this topic as a response to get more in the discussion then DriverScout declared he could ignore consensus and enforce his own definition. Move it back, Gadget850. Spshu (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment referred to Royal Ambassadors, where there was never an article, thus when you created a section, a redirect was appropriate. I have no idea how you jumped from that to redirecting articles. --  Gadget850 ^talk 15:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

1. I read [2] (concerning Royal Rangers and Pathfinders) as very clearly opposed to your proposal.
2. The proposed merger (if you want to call a deletion of nine tenths of the content a merger) was never properly discussed. Several contributors had issues with that badly defined list and none were resolved - how could anybody expect that you would maintain your plans before resolving the overall problems?
3. I repeat: Your view ist very US-centric. That is quite opposed to the basic principles of Wikipedia having a worldwide scope.

Unless there is a valid (best scientific) and agreed definition of "scout-like" I oppose any merger to that list. --jergen (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

BECAUSE IT WAS THE PRIMARY SUBJECT of the discussion, Gadget!!! Bduke asked point blank on February 27, 2014 which articles were to be redirected to which I responded on February 27, 2014. Since, you were not objecting in that or your previous post, the statement seems supportive.

1. Jergen, Egel seemed fine with merging the articles in that post but seem to be stating that he felt those two should be in their own "World Scouting organizations". So that isn't an opposition to the merger, just an opinion of a possible better split in having two
2. It was never properly discussed? That was the point of THIS tread. So point the finger at yourself. You had a chance to say know or ask other question regarding redirects starting from your first post on February 27, 2014 when you went off on a tangent. At some point other will act based on the fact that there was no overt opposition and general support.
3. Jergen, how in the world is a US Centric article (Indy Scout like orgs. in the US) not going to be US centric?

Jergen, I directly responded to that question earlier that the media gave them that designation or at least a synonym (alternative, or "to replace the Scouts" or "a 'scouting' group"). It is not up to us as I point out in the Tangent discussion (as Gadget right decide it was) below as that would be original research. If you have such a huge problem over the article then perhaps you should lobby to end the Scouting wikiproject since "a valid (best scientific) and agreed definition of 'scout-like'" has not been agreed to, so thus we have no idea what exactly the wikiproject covers. Spshu (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please remember WP:CIVIL. Obviously, there is some current opposition to your plans so it is unnecessary to discuss older misunderstandings.

Let's have a look at the orgs "merged":

• Royal Rangers has a membership of 125,000 in the US and another 125,000 in 85 more countries - this is certainly no minor organization in the US. It is not in the scope of this strange list.
• Pathfinders has about 2 million member in 150 countries - again out of scope.
• Navigators USA: 61 chapters in 3 countries. It is minor, but with its international groups out of scope.
• SpiralScouts International: Again minor bit an international org with groups in Canada. Out of scope.
• Medical Cadet Corps. In what way was this org "scout-like"? Which valid source describes them as such? Unless there is any valid source: out of scope.
• Columbian Squires: 25,000 member in (at least) 9 countries: Out of scope. Sources for "scout-like" are missing ...

None of the articles "merged" in the list fits in its "definition" - if we only had one... Five orgs out of six are international and there is no source for the sixth that anybody considered it "scout-like". --jergen (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I have plenty of issues relating to the "scope" of this new page, which seems to have been created for most interesting reasons - none of which, to me, further an encyclopedia. My main issue was the incorrect original title (now corrected), but I am fully supportive of the above claims. I am also wary of claims that organizations that do not consider themselves to have anything to do with Scouting are being labelled as "Scout-like" where there is no fixed definition for such a "movement". This is not a can of worms - its a barrel. I will pass on making any comments relating to the creator, even though I am thinking them loudly. DiverScout (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree on barrel of worms. In addition there is no discussion on the talk pages of any of the articles that I've checked. A lot of the Christian organizations probably have closer ties to the Boys' Brigade which predates Scouting by a couple of decades. --Erp (talk) 05:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The current opposition was based on asked and answered questions, Jergen. I just pointed out that you, Jergen, and other were not WP:CIVIL. How about you read it.

I couldn't find any outside source for any of the membership numbers you claim for Royal Rangers, Pathfinders, Navigators and SpiralScouts. With the number of countries with out any idea how many members or groups they have, there could just be 1 member or group making them barely international. Any ways, these groups are primarily USA, USA HQ or USA originating groups. Also on WP, editors don't claim that GM isn't an American/USA company despite it being almost everywhere. With any organization, existence in each nation creates a new organization (with the GM example, other corporations GM Opel; in Scouting, UK Navigators) just due to the sovereign nature of each nation.

Medical Cadet Corps is not a part of this article, so out of scope of this discussion. I will say it was included in the defunct groups article as it was an affiliate of Pathfinders, had a part of its program adopted by the Pathfinders and seemed like one big expanded First Aid merit badge program as a quasi-military group (similar to Scouting). Squires is not missing a source for being scout-like, it is the AP article (currently source 6) and the Patheos article (as a replacement; currently source 14).

Again (this will be what, at least 3rd time I have answered this question), we are not in the business of defining who is and isn't a scout-like, or scouting alternative, organization. The AP, NBC News, Religious News and the Patheos articles were the primary sources for who the scout-like organizations are. Spshu (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that none of these sources calls any of the organizations "scout-like". They speak of "alternatives to Scouting" or of "Scouts". Perhaps you made up the term "scout-like"? Very strange indeed.

Well, I put the list up for deletion. It is obviously original research. --jergen (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

←It is the term used in this groups' Template:Scouting_in_the_United_States and has been in use since the template's second edit by Gadget850. You are the one who is making up fiction in stating "Perhaps you made up the term "scout-like"?" It is obviously NOT original research, most of the redirect that you have reverse ARE so. Spshu (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we can learn as we progress and perhaps the term should not be used in that template. Both of you, Jergen and Spshu, are a little on the confronting side of working here. Now it is at Afd, perhaps you should both calm down, let other editors give their views and learn from them. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Scout Association - what constitutes membership?

There's a bit of a dispute going on at The Scout Association, as an editor has, by a pedantic interpretation of the Association's Royal Charter, changed the referenced membership figure in the infobox from "433,850 youths" to "300 to 500". This is the number of the members of the The Council of The Scout Association.[3] He contends that the other half million paid-up members are merely "participants in the association's programs" [sic]. An attempt to revert to the previous text has itself been reverted. How do we we put this right? Alansplodge (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The section of POR referred to does not define membership of the Association, rather the council. Further sections of POR give criteria for the various membership types of the Association (e.g. Youth, Adult, etc). DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. What is the procedure for breaking the deadlock? Alansplodge (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, I see that you've undone his edits. Let's hope it stays that way. Thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I thought I'd be bold! The edits do seem bizarre, it's not a viewpoint I've heard expressed before (and I think I've encountered most of the daft theories about Scouting at some time or other!). DuncanHill (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Scouting At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Scoutmaster

Do any of you know of any good resources to strength this article that I started? --Guerillero | My Talk 03:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bharat Scouts and Guides

This article had recently a lot of reverted edits by IPs. Should it be semiprotected? --jergen (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Scouting At Wikimania 2014(updated version)

Please note: This is an updated version of a previous post that I made.

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Article wishes: Missing member organizations of WOSM and WAGGGS

I know that there are lots of missing articles on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Todo - but these three seem crucial to me, since the organisations are members of WOSM and/or WAGGGS:

• Myanmar: Myanmar Girl Guides, WAGGGS, admitted in 2014
• Russia: All Russian Scout Association, WOSM, evolved in 2014 from Russian Association of Scouts/Navigators
• Sweden: Scouterna, WOSM+WAGGGS, a new single org formed in 2012, successor of Svenska Scoutrådet

Please, could somebody create these articles? --jergen (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

For Burma, the Union of Burma Girl Guides Association article could be updated as a continuation-the book they gave me shows exactly the same emblem, so there is a continuity...--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Myanmar Girl Guides seem to be a new association and not a continuation of the Union of Burma Girl Guides Association, so a separate article should be appropriate. Possible sources are [4], [5] (several articles). --jergen (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Woodcraft (youth movement)

Woodcraft (youth movement) could use a major trim-I can't tell which is copyvio and which is fluff.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A lot of overlap with Woodcraft Indians. --  Gadget850 ^talk 14:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Numbers attending 3rd World Jamboree in 1929

If anyone has a reliable source for the above, please let me know at Talk:3rd World Scout Jamboree. Thanks... Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Beslidhja Skaut Albania

Beslidhja Skaut Albania has been expelled from WOSM.[6][7] I will start making updates is a day or so. --  Gadget850 ^talk 02:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Some details in the full text of the resolution by the World Scout Conference [8]. I'll move Albania up to "potential members" in WOSM; there is Scouting with Shoqata Skaut Shqipetare, which could be the next member. --jergen (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Userboxes

I modified the BSA Eagle Scout userbox to allow those with more than three palms to enter the number (up to 10). The image that will display is currently the knot with no palms. If someone creates the images (not my strong point) for palms beyond the silver palm, I will modify the userbox to display the new images. If you upload the image files, please drop me a note on my talk page. No changes were made that would affect the display of the userbox for anyone already using it.

I also modified the BSA Religious Award userbox to account for those who have received multiple youth or multiple adult awards. Folks who fall into that category may want to update how the userbox displays on their user pages. None of the changes I made will change the way the userbox displays for anyone already using it.

Finally, I created an Arrow of Light userbox. The text of the info area of the box can be changed by users who earned the equivalent WEBELOS Award before 1968. I could not find a free use image for the userbox, so it currently displays AoL. If someone can find or make one and upload it, please let me know on my talk page, and I'll change the userbox template.

Yours in Scouting, Taxman1913 (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I will see if I can create a vector image of either the AoL award proper or for the adult knot. If I run into trouble, I'll update here. YiS — Jkudlick ^tc_s 17:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: You cannot use a non-free image such as the AoL in a userbox. The knots don't meet the threshold for copyright. You can create a generic AoL image. See WP:S-UBX. --  Gadget850 ^talk 18:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

@Gadget850: Thank you for steering me away from any potential trouble. I see that there is already an image of the knot in place, so there is nothing else that I need to do. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 19:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to Evrik for putting the already existing image of the AOL knot onto the template. The file used is not the official knot but an excellent public domain creation that will not cause copyright issues. Yours in Scouting, Taxman1913 (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)