Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2011

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New WOSM census out

Nearly all entries in Category:WOSM member organizations should be updated with the new membership numbers published by WOSM. I already did update List of World Organization of the Scout Movement members and Scouting, the new numbers can be taken from the list. --jergen (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

BSA dropped 2 million. What happened?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
And Gerakan Pramuka has grown 9 million in two years? --Egel Reaction? 19:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
However, one million Scouts more or less does not affect the membership fees for the US or Indonesia; fees are capped at one million members. --jergen (talk) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Not really worried about the fees, just the strange numbers.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

A through Z are done. --jergen (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

We could template this so future updates are easier. See {{Scoutstat BSA}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't think that this would work; lots of different articles with as many different sentences. --jergen (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Update finished. --jergen (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A job well done. Thanks. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming question at High-adventure bases of the Boy Scouts of America

You thoughts are requested on the naming question for the Region 7 Canoe Base / Northern Wisconsin National Canoe Base in the subject article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Why not call it both, "Northern Wisconsin National/Region 7 Canoe Base" in the title and give the separate names below as its history is described. If this is not acceptable, I suggest using the name it was know by when it closed. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Great idea. Thanks! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Anniversary

WikiProject Scouting is five years old today! ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Go us! Sorry I missed that! Should we set resolutions or fresh goals?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats exciting--Guerillero | My Talk 11:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Girl Scout cookies in popular culture

Girl Scout cookies in popular culture is being discussed for deletion. Your input would be helpful.(get it? its one of the points of the law. haha) Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

1963 Philippine Scouting tragedy

I've asked a question at the RefDesk here about the crash which took the lives of the entire Philippine contingent to the 11th World Scout Jamboree. If anyone here can help it would be very much appreciated. Answers on the RefDesk would be best, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

COI issues at World Scout Foundation

Can someone give this a look?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

My initial gut feel / guess is that it more or less has just one editor who's only source of material is the organization's materials and who is just repeating them, possibly not being familiar with how to write a Wikipedia article. And that that might be the problem more than COI. Just a guess after looking at the article, it's talk page and their WP contributions. I'll write a low key note there, others should go further if they see fit. Good that you brought it up here; that article has a long way to go. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Totem in Infobox Worldscouting

Hey, I was wondering if it would be good to add a section to Template:Infobox WorldScouting to show what an OA Lodge's totem is. Most articles I've seen already mention it and since it is supposed to represent the lodge, why not have it in the infobox? I put this here because I figured it'd be more likely to be seen and input given than on the infobox's talk page. So what do you guys think? (Also, I'm not active anymore on Wikipedia, I just decided to clean up my home council's page. Otherwise I would join the Project!) Deflagro C/T 22:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is cool, can we put this on the portal or something?

Libyan Boy Scouts helping in the social services in Benghazi during the 2011 Libyan uprising

I am going to add this as the "Selected picture". If anyone objects please revert me. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 20:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

problematic Al Jazeera report?

Watching some Al Jazeera English here in Japan, about the Ivorian Civil War in the Ivory Coast, and from what I caught, it said youth leader Marcel Blaguet was inciting violence. It did not give a spelling, but I though the name sounded familiar, then I remembered writing Marcel Blaguet Ledjou. Could this possibly be true? Help?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The bad guy is Charles Ble Goude, not Marcel Blaguet. --jergen (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
*Whew*, thanks, brother!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File:Karin Ahlbäck in 2010.jpg

Seeing the composition and the user contributions, I'm certain the uploader took the photo. I've asked him to contact me, but he doesn't have his account connected to e-mail. I can't tag this PDself, it's not mine, what's my next option?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Acres and Hectares and m2 and km2

I note that in most of the US articles that the metric unit of measure for the area of scout camps has been either km2 or m2 which are the official SI units. This leads to mixes where small camps are given in square meters and large camps in square kilometers which seems untidy.

Hectare (ha) though not an official SI unit (but recognized as fitting in) is commonly used in most countries for land measurement (e.g., the Hyde Park, London article uses hectares/acres), and, I think it might be more appropriate to use that for describing the area of most scout camps (an exception might be Philmont and similar large camps where area in square miles and square kilometers might be more appropriate). For example in the Scouting in Missouri article one council's camps are given as

  • Camp Cedarledge is nearly 700 acres (2.8 km2) near Pevely, Missouri. Originally an old farm acquired by the Girl Scouts in 1927 and later expanded.[1]
  • Camp Fiddlecreek is 83 acres (340,000 m2) near Gray Summit, Missouri.
  • Camp Tuckaho is 521 acres (2.11 km2) near Troy, Missouri.

but with acres/hectares would look like

  • Camp Cedarledge is nearly 700 acres (280 ha) near Pevely, Missouri. Originally an old farm acquired by the Girl Scouts in 1927 and later expanded.[2]
  • Camp Fiddlecreek is 83 acres (34 ha) near Gray Summit, Missouri.
  • Camp Tuckaho is 521 acres (211 ha) near Troy, Missouri.

which shows the relationships in metric in a much tidier way. What do people think about switching (or is there a wikipedia policy I'm unaware of)? --Erp (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

In the US, properties of scout camp size, even of Philmont size are usually described in acres. Outside of the US (though being from the US, I'm no expert) it seems to be hectares. My gut feel is that articles on properties in this size range should lean towards these because of this, but that this should be just a recommendation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Acres/hectares is a good choice. In Central Europe, km² is mainly used for districts, which are larger than most Scout camps but much smaller than the average US county. --jergen (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
My gut very rough feel is that in the US, for properties, camps, parks, where the land itself is an "asset":
  • 0 - 2 acres: Both sq. ft and acres are used
  • 2 acres - 500,000 acres: Acres are used
  • 500,000 acres to the largest there is: both acres and sq. miles are used
But where you are talking more about geography (e.g. cities, states, counties) rather than the above items, square miles becomes the common unit all of the way down to about 1/2 of a sq. mile. North8000 (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is much dispute on the English units for camps and similar (acres, I haven't encountered any camp descriptions that use square feet [square feet is more for a developed area such as interior space or a parking lot]); the question is which of the metric units that the rest of the world outside the US use to use (hectares, square meters, square kilometers). Standard practice seems to be to give both English and metric measurements (using the convert template) with which one is first depending on region of the article (e.g., US has English first, most of the rest of the world have metric first). Also if we do decide to standardize, how exactly to change all or at least most of the relevant articles (I know there are ways of automating this but not how to do it). So far the feeling seems to be towards hectares for the metric unit.--Erp (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The problem with the units lies in the - for us Europeans - unbelievable size of the campsites in the US (I don't know about Australia or Asia). The largest German campsite in Westernohe covers 28 hectares, the largest European I know (Vässarö) about 300 hectares. Since European campsites are so "small", the metric unit has to be hectare for them. --jergen (talk) 10:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I note the Gardens of Versailles article use hectares (800 of them) so even quite large places use hectares (US scouting campsites may be larger on average but very few come close much less exceed 800 hectares (2,000 acres)). I think Philmont 137,500 acres (55,600 ha) (between Andorra and the Isle of Man in size) is the largest US Scout camp and nothing else comes close. I will now be proved wrong.--Erp (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You are correct about Philmont. And if you're at Philmont and feel a little "hemmed in" you can go "across the street" to Ted Turner's ~600,000 Acre ranch. (which island would that equal?) Others do not come close, but are not tiny. I think that #2 is Owasippe, which is down to 4,800 acres (reduced from 11,000 acres). I guess this also makes the language a little different here in the US, where "campsite" means the specific small area where you put your tents. North8000 (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright on Scout Association badges

Does anyone know whether the copyright runs out on TSA badges after a number of years. I am trying to persuade someone on a Scouting Usenet group to photograph a series of badges and other stuff. He says "For a few examples: an old Middlesex county badge dating from (I suspect ) the 1930s or even earlier, original 'blackout'[clarification needed] scout belt buckles , a genuine Dinizulu 'bead' (on a 4-bead Gilwell Deputy Camp Chief Wood badge), a 76-year old 'swastika' Medal of Merit, a 65-year old Silver Acorn.". It would be great to have these on Commons. Also are buckles copyrighted by TSA? Is the wood badge? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

POR Rule 14.7, 14.8 and 14.9 are relevant here, Rule 14 here. I strongly advise you to contact the Association direct to discuss the matter. DuncanHill (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Duncan. I will pass that on. POR is claiming copyright, but does not address the question of whether copyright expires after a given period of time. That is a general issue of UK copyright law and not specific to TSA. Does anyone know about the general UK law in this area?--Bduke (Discussion) 23:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Copyright generally is 70 years from the death of the author. I'm not sure how that applies to works created for hire (e.g. by an artist under commission). Also, I'm not sure about copyright for designs. Another thing to remember is that sometimes organisations enjoy extended copyright under specific statutes (as happened with GOSH's copyright on Peter Pan). DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
See Copyright law of the United Kingdom and Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. We should remember that even copyright-free designs may be protected as trademarks.
My impression is that copyright laws in the UK are more strict than in Germany but less strict than in the US. Concerning two of the examples: The genuine Dinizulu 'bead' - as a work of traditional art and being created before 1888 - is certainly free of copyright (like all Wood Badge beads). The Middlesex county badge may be free, if it shows the Middlesex coat of arms which is in the public domain; if another design is shown it may be subject to copyright. --jergen (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting firewalled...

Can someone see if http://libyanboyscout.com/ works?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Works for me (though alas I do not read Arabic). DuncanHill (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried http://www.scoutsarena.com ? As that is the current address for the site. DuncanHill (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Works for me too. Found better version of File:Kuwait Girl Guides Association.png. --Egel Reaction? 19:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I found several new versions, and some we're missing, thanks guys!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Google translate

Go to http://translate.google.com/translate_buttons and drag your language to your browser toolbar. When you click on the bookmarklet, it will translate the page into that language. Understand that machine translations have a lot of limitations and should not be used as a source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

New BSA Robotics merit badge

Haven't checked around to see if others are miles ahead of me on this (which they probably are) but I recently heard a news story and also read an article in Scouting magazine that BSA has a brand new Robotics merit badge. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Already at Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America). ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

royal wedding

I'm half the world away, and got diabetes just hearing of the thing, but should we add http://scouts.org.uk/news/378/scouts-join-in-royal-wedding-celebrations to the article?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Which article? The Wedding article or TSA article or ..? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You pick. Not 2011 Libyan civil war.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Loved your diabetes phrase, I've been repeating it. As soon as I learn how to pronounce your user name I'll be able to properly attribute it when I do. North8000 (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Scouts Canada Wiki

Scouts Canada has introduced a new program helper called Scouts Canada Wiki http://wiki.scouts.ca/en/Main_Page . Scouters are encouraged to sign up, get an account on the Scouts Canada Wiki site, and upload information that all members can share and use.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

New Scout Generation

This really does not have anything much to do with us, but perhaps we should keep an eye on it. It is at AfD and looks as if it will be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

4th Halifax Highland Scout Troop / Scots Highland Company

Should we AfD this? A nearly unsourced article on a former Scouts Canada troop, which brook away from SC some years ago and was disbanded shortly after. Has also NPOV issues. --jergen (talk) 08:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

After a quick glance I'm on the fence on that one, limited by my limited knowledge of their RW notability. If they had enough notability where a certain amount of people might come here to learn about them, the WP would be a good place to cover them. But I'm guessing not. North8000 (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I just proposed a merger to Scouting and Guiding in Nova Scotia, after a severe tone deflation.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If you want a merge, it needs to be cut down to a single section of 2–3 paragraphs. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course, hence my "deflation", vide alta.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have started off the discussion on Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Nova Scotia and listed it on the Project merge page. the discussion should move to that talk page. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Today's Featured List

Per the Signpost, Featured Lists will now appear on the main page on Mondays.

Currently we have only one Featured List— List of Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). I am going to propose that list for September 3, 2012 to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the Eagle Scout Award, first presented on September 2, 1912.

We have a number of other lists that can be worked up to featured status. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

World Jamboree

Up at camp this week there was a story flying around that the USA and Japan have traded jambo spots. Is there any truth to this?

Is anyone else in this project going to go to Sweden this summer for the jamboree? cheers--Guerillero | My Talk 05:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

  1. It's only a rumor. But my Scouts discussed this as well last weekend, not knowing that Fukushima is about 700 miles (1,100 km) away.
  2. I'll be in Sweden as IST. --jergen (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


Featured Article status of History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) is being reviewed

I have nominated History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Note - that's the boilerplate. It was actually another editor who made the nomination. I'm just making the notification.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The admin/ person handling this is seeking feedback on the next stage. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Gadget going on extended break

The message on his talk page doesn't sound good. North8000 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC).

On that same note, should we be doing something about those 23 scout-related images that are on their talk page that are about to get deleted for non-use? North8000 (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I added the Eagle medal and patch images back into the Eagle Scout article. I double checked their use rationale and made sure, to the best of my knowledge, that they were correctly documented. EricSerge (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks like Kintetsubuffalo (talk) put them back in the/a article I also have a list and thumbnails at User:North8000/Workspace01 North8000 (talk)
I will see what I can do when I am home from staff --Guerillero | My Talk 05:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
One of his edit summaries is "deny bots so I don't have to see all the deleted images coming down"-what is going on with the cascade of image deletions recently?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


It would appear that a conflict started here: Talk:History_of_merit_badges_(Boy_Scouts_of_America)#Non-free_images, concerning the usage of non-free images. After that it would appear that he deleted any non-free images he had uploaded to Scouting related articles. I can't say that I don't understand his frustration. If you look here: [3] you see where another WP:NFCC crusader removed images out of an article, just leaving blank spaces where they once were. I have always been one to fix the rationale, versus deleting the image. We all have bad days, and none of these changes are permanent by any means. This should serve as a lesson to all of us who use non-free images that to avoid frustration one must follow the guidelines, and it helps to know them cold so you can apply common sense and not get wikilawyered. EricSerge (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm back now. Personal issues and frustrations here led me to take a needed break. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
SO NICE TO HAVE YOU BACK ! ! ! ! ! North8000 (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah! +1! Me too! Hope all is okay! --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan

I just removed an unnecessary swipe at us here. Please monitor.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I just looked for a few minutes and didn't understand. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I had asked the GGGS taskforce if they took umbrage at the image I had commissioned. Two responded, one no, one yes. Since I don't want to be responsible for chasing away any potential (and sadly rare) female member, I took the image down. A non-involved non-member butted in unasked. I asked him to refrain, when he didn't, I made a point that he did. That dreck was then posted on Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Why in the world do that page and those images even exist? Some of them are entirely too suggestive. --B (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
That is a discussion that has been raging for months, hence the mudslinging when I took ours down. Mine was not suggestive, but we don't need any hassle.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Noticed its back up. How 'bout we discuss our opinion here, and if we think it should come down then go there and request that it be taken down? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My "motion" is that the project express that it's no big issue but that we prefer that it be taken down. North8000 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

As an attack section, our reply should be more strongly worded, but I'll go with you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
BTW I don't have any strong opinion, nor a thorough understanding of this. I was just putting forth an idea. Happy to change or withdraw it in favor of a different one. North8000 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am totally lost. There is not a single link above that points to what is being discussed.Please add such links. Chris, you first sentence - where is here? --Bduke (Discussion) 12:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

This is easy, the 100th Anniversary celebration is over. Why leave an old logo up? I am a bit dumbfounded as to why an editor would take umbrage with a project taking the image down, especially if they are not part of that project. EricSerge (talk) 13:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Because they're upset that they were disinvited from the discussion as not being a project member. So yes please, let's do something about this.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Girl scout Wikipe-tan image addition on another project bit. Perhaps Kintetsubuffalo should stay out of this discussion, as it would seem that you now have a target on you. EricSerge (talk) 15:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

(sorry, just getting home Japan-time, late response, you've got it controlled, thank you!) Yeah, I saw that, trolls don't scare me, but good thing I have a full night's sleep and a day's work between that nonsense and me.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
New caption: "Wikipetan celebrating 100 years of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides, used in 2010 for the centennial celebration on wikipedia." EricSerge (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
(sorry, just getting home Japan-time, late response, you've got it controlled, thank you!) That's better, I just objected to the slam wording and subsequent trolling, the image itself is not inherently offensive, I think, but it's better that we retired it-better to gain new users than chase any off.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. Should we say / do something like my "motion" above? North8000 (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I suppose we could still press the issue of removing the image from the page, but we will likely meet opposition, as there seems to be an implied consensus for keeping the image, along with all Wikipe-tan images. I thought the content in question was the paragraph about the history of the image's removal, and the caption of the image. The paragraph was removed, and the caption made NPOV. A cogent argument for removing the image beyond we don't like it would be hard to frame. I do hope that the members of the project do not object to my engaging on the issue and trying to find an amenable solution. EricSerge (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
(sorry, just getting home Japan-time, late response, you've got it controlled, thank you!) It's fine now, you eloquently addressed it!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
We wouldn't have to argue the case. Just put in a request and let the chips fall where they may. North8000 (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I may be being dim, as I am travelling in UK, but I still have no idea what this is about. What case are we having to argue? Are we trying to remove the Guide Wiki-tan image? If so, from where? It is not, I think, now on any of our project pages. Are we wanting to delete the image itself. Would someone please give me real links and details. My opinion in general (not actually understanding what is being proposed) - delete the lot of them totally from all WMF projects as they are sexist and deter female editors by supporting the blokey image of wikipedia. Sadly even some female wikipedians, such as those who are shown dressing up as wiki-tan, do not undertand this. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the other issue is that to some Wikipe-tan might be considered a bit Lolita-ish, and with youth Scouting programs, we want to stay 100 miles away from anything that might even be perceived as that. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, but what are we actually talking about? I am still unclear. North, I am sure you can explain it. What is the request you suggest should be put in? And where to? I really do not know. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm also confused, but here's my take on the specific question at hand. The Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan page shows the Wikipe-tan images. A while back Kintetsubuffalo put the Girl Scout one on there but now wants to take it off. Someone else does not want it taken off. If it were taken off that page, it would still exist, but in obscurity.
(sorry, just getting home Japan-time, late response, you've got it controlled, thank you!) No, I just removed it from our project-space, even if innocuous, we shouldn't push it. I don't care what they do with that page, so long as the image is not here. Image was created in good faith, but as a male I only saw from my perspective, I thought a special centenary image would be nice. I had no thought of it being creepy. Bduke was the one who tuned me in and we brought it to the GGGS taskforce. Didn't have to be consensus, any member said yuck, it's gone. One did, I took it down, simple as that.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Only to try to crystallize something out of all of this, here is my proposal:
My proposal is to post the following in the talk page of the Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan page: "On behalf of WikiProject Scouting, we wish to request that the listing and image for File:WikiProject Scouting Guiding 2010 Centenary Wikipe-tan.svg be removed from the Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan page." No other action is proposed.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
(sorry, just getting home Japan-time, late response, you've got it controlled, thank you!) I think we're good unless one of the two trolls puts it back. I'll be monitoring. Keep the idea handy, better coming from you than me, as Eric says.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it IS back in there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
One of the trolls put it back, it has now been amended to the agreed non POV wording from the discussion there.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
(copied with minimal editing from Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan#Girl scout Wikipe-tan image addition on another project bit)
For the record, I never intended offense or anything of the sort when I expanded and sourced the paragraph in question; if I had known where the removal discussion was, I would (at the very least) have added a link to it (and, potentially, it would have led to me rewording the whole paragraph). As should be evident from my other edits to Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan, my main interest on the topic is exploring and filling out the history of Wikipe-tan on Wikipedia and Wikimedia in general, and I would have gladly rewritten that paragraph in response to a non-confrontational message or edit summary. I certainly have no ill feelings towards Kintetsubuffalo, though they could definitely have been somewhat more graceful about the whole thing. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 16:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I already read it at the other forum, and based on the wording that was removed, I don't buy it for a minute.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You'll have to forgive me for not knowing what removed wording you're referring to; while I did make some cosmetic changes to my comment to remove ambiguity which was previously resolved in the context of being posted on WT:TAN, I didn't remove any wording or make any changes that altered its overall meaning. I am also rather disappointed that what changes I did make were apparently enough to cause you not to trust me, but actions speak louder than words, and we've simply never worked together on anything, nor even extensively participated in the same discussions (to the best of my knowledge, at least; there may have been some WT:ANIME discussions that we both commented in, but we've certainly never had any back-and-forth before this that I recall). I'd love to be able to prove my sincerity, but anything more I say or do at this point would probably just ring hollow to just about anyone following along, not just you. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if anybody is following. Dazed and confused is more like it. North8000 (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have a serious problem in being unnecessarily circuitous, particularly when defending myself (this is at least partly due to me trying to use very specific shades of meaning, as well as trying to avoid coming across as unnecessarily rude or crass). If I may, let me try (try =P ) to state it simply:
  1. I don't know what removed wording Kintetsubuffalo was referring to; the only changes I made to my comment between WT:TAN and here were to make sure it still makes sense.
  2. I don't get how the changes I did make to my comment are enough for Kintetsubuffalo to doubt my sincerity. At the same time, Kintetsubuffalo has little to no prior experience with me and, thus, little reason to believe what I say.
  3. At this point, I think, nothing more that I can say or do will help my case; further unsolicited efforts on my part would probably just hurt it.
  4. To reiterate, I am very bad about simply and concisely saying what I want to say; this also hurts my case and definitely doesn't help anyone else. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
The image exists and Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan shows the intended use. Either have the image deleted or add a note to Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan that the image use was rescinded. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Scouting in Russia

I have begun a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review concerning the gallery of emblems towards the bottom of the article and invite interested editors to comment. CIreland (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Rescue needed - "History of merit badges"

History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) became a Featured Article five years ago, when standards were lower. I doubt it'd survive an FA review today because it's sourced mainly to a single, self-published book written by a private collector. The topic is rated as "high-importance" by this project, so I assume that there are more sources available and that it's worth the effort to bring it up to current FA standards. Can editors here help? Are there any high quality sources on the history of BSA merit badges?   Will Beback  talk  09:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

With authors in this project having gone on the record that self-published work does not count as reliable sources this may need urgent attention. Sadly I have no sources to help. DiverScout (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It appears to be an actually reliable source on the topic. I know that wp:rs is unrelated to actual reliability of a source, but that ought to count for something. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, but some editors seem to have a sliding rule of standards when it comes to such sources! DiverScout (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that one needs to take a close look to see what is actually going on over there. North8000 (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Image issues

There are some images up for deletion and some up for non-free review; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Image issues. All of these are images I had previously tagged and are in Category:Non-free Scout logos with no related content. These non-free images are in galleries or stuffed into articles with no related text to tie the image to the article.

We need to fix these. We have discussed this many times with no results. We need to fix these now. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Could we post an item in the talk pages of the articles, trying to get the editors involved? I'd be happy to work on that. It looks like a vast majority of these are where we posted the notice that there is not related text. How much of an issue is that particular aspect? North8000 (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria:
Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
If any of these images are deleted, there is no detriment to the content of the article, as there is none that ties the image to the article text.
Example: The first tagged image is File:10th World Scout Jamboree (Scouts of China).png, tagged in December 2009 and used in Scouts of China. The image is just stuffed into the article with no other mention of a World Scout Jamboree. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that one could argue that the image itself often conveys such information, but I think that it better and safer to follow your guidance.
What we're talking about is editing a whole lot of articles. I might try the example that you gave as a one-article example of my idea. North8000 (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I put a note on that one as an example / test. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The B-PSA Tenderfoot is shown immediately next to the text that lists the awards. If someone can show what may be an appropriate example of referencing I'll see if I can sort it and a few others from the list. DiverScout (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The text accompanying the Tenderfoot image is one sentence that simply lists the ranks. See Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America where there is content on the emblems and their meaning as well as content on the awards. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Gadget, please correct me, but I think that the main thing that most of these need is text in the article more directly related to the image. North8000 (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
See above. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldest camp west of the Mississippi?

So I realized that several different camps claim the title of "Oldest operating camp west of the Mississippi." So therefore we have several Wikipedia pages contradicting each other. I made a list of all the pages and their years.
Camp Parsons 1919
Camp Royaneh 1925 (Their council opened a camp in 1917, but they didn't own land so it moved around every few years. Camp Royaneh didn't open until 25)
Camp Arrowhead 1924
Kia Kima Scout Reservation 1916

Now Kia Kima is my home camp so I can't really be impartial about this so that's why I'm putting this here. The Kia Kima article doesn't have their claim in the article, but it is commonly said at the camp. So should we make a decision on which is oldest and edit the other articles or let all the articles say they are oldest? Also, curious thing to note is that 3 out of those 4 camps use the Thunderbird as their totem. Deflagro C/T 05:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Us making a decision would be based on original research, so we should not do that. --Egel Reaction? 14:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Only if we put our result into an article. We could sort out which claims are sourced and unsourced. Could also decide which non-credible statements to leave out.North8000 (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
See America's Oldest Boy Scout Camps at the U.S. Scouting Service Project. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Gang Shows

The article Gang Show contains a massive list of individual shows and a growing list of signature tunes. These are not acceptable as they are making the article into a directory. There is agreement on Talk:Gang Show that these should be removed. See the discussion at Talk:Gang Show#List of Gangshows. I have now made sure that all individual shows listed at Gang Show are listed elsewhere. The large UK list for example is now broken between the region articles on UK Scouting. There is a minor problem with the few US examples. See the discussion on the BSA talk page. If nobody raises any problems I will remove the lists from Gang Show and cleanup that article in a couple of days. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sponsorship of BSA units

Data added at the main BSA article has questions, including being too big for that top level article. But I think that this is a pretty big and important / informative topic. What do y'all think of adding that potential article to our "To Do" list? Or is it already in Wikipedia somewhere? North8000 (talk) 13:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is referring to recent changes in the Boy Scouts of America article; discussed at Talk:Boy Scouts of America#New table with chartering numbers. Chartered organizations own Scouting units, not sponsors. I am prodding Boy Scouts of America religious distribution, as it is a unwarranted fork. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you think about merging/redirecting/morphing the prodded article a more generic sponsorship article, move all 48 there, and the cut the list in the main BSA article down to the top 15? North8000 (talk) 14:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Chartered organizations of the Boy Scouts America. If we split the article, then we don't need the table in the BSA article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no real opinion, just throwing ideas out/brainstorming. Do you mean the red link as the proposed title? Also, I don't understand what you mean by "split the article". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
You are saying that Chartered organizations and units has outgrown or will outgrow the artciel, thus it should be split to a new article per Wikipedia:Splitting. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I understand. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
As the person behind the recent upheaval, I cut the list of CO's down to the top ten and moved the full table to Chartered Organizations of the Boy Scouts of America. Banaticus (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Cool. North8000 (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

http://www.scoutface.com/

I just found this, it seems like a Scout version of Facebook. FYI.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I was a member for some time but left after receiving lots of spam. --jergen (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Batoning

We need an image!!! Who out there has a knife, a stick, and a camera. Please, pretty please, give us a simple image. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

See File:Schindelerzeugung.jpg. --jergen (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Cool pictures!....but those look a little different. The closest image there one is a bigger version of the concept with different tools. If nobody finds one after a few days I'll take one. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
If you don't get around to it, I will try to. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Whoever does it first just put a note here. North8000 (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you folks. Interesting photo. Now, while you're out there, we also need a picture of a Jonnycake. Did you ever make one of those while camping? Let me remind you: Bits of black stuff in it. Usually filthy. Smells like smoke. Falls out of the pan when you prop it up. Partly black. Partly uncooked. Sits in your stomach like a stone. Ah, the memories. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Eurasia(n) and Europe(an)

An editor changed all of the "Eurasian" in the Region article to "Eurasia", I checked the WOSM site, maybe he's right, same with Europe. It seems the old adjectives have recently been replaced with place names, what do you think? Should we follow or is it right both ways?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

If WOSM has changed terminology, then we need to follow in article titles and content and in templates. But let's be sure of this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, how do we verify?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
You stated that you checked the WOSM site. Links? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/europe http://scout.org/en/around_the_world/region_interamericana both terms are used, could be interchangeable? http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/eurasia

By itself, doesn't make it official, could just be someone's style, we know the site has mistakes and is not updated in everything. --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The Eurasian region looks like it covers the former Soviet Union --Guerillero | My Talk 15:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WOSM is using the terms Europe Region and European Region at the same time. In WOSM Circular 14/2011[4] Europe is used and also on another place also in connection with the 2nd Europe-Eurasia meeting the Term Europe is used [5]. In the same context in the same document European is used. The Website europak-online provided by WOSM-European Region and Europe region-WAGGGS [6] but according on People targeted for documents it is stated "International Commissioners in the WOSM Europe Region". So I think both terms are used but European Scout Region is used more often I think [7]. The Europe Region and Eurasia Region are two different Regions within the framework of WOSM. The NSOs of Austria, Germany and Switzerland i.e. are part of the Europe Region. The NSOs of Russia and Ukraine i.e are members of the Eurasia Region. They are both independent Regions but working together. In autumn the the 2nd Europe-Eurasia meeting took place in Prague. There are also partnerships between NSOs of both Regions. More informations on the 2nd Europe-Eurasia meeting: http://world-scouts.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=643:wosm-the-second-meeting-of-the-qeurope-eurasiaq&catid=94:news&Itemid=84 http://scout.org/en/around_the_world/europe/information_events/events/events_2004_2011/2011/europe_eurasia_meeting -Phips (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Archive_2011&oldid=1210876411"