Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Ontario

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

Merges[edit]

129th Toronto Scouting Group[edit]

Just to clarify, the discussion below was and is about merging 129th Toronto Scouting Group into this article. With no merge tags on the artcile, it is less than clear what the debate is all about. --Bduke 04:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2:1 many not have been a high number of votes, but it is a majority at double for it compared to the against vote. Rlevse 10:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus Ardenn 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

  • Oppose notable enough, and cited. Ardenn 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting it because of notability. Would you object to me making it a separate chapter within the Ontatio article? Chris 01:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why it says oppose. :p Ardenn 02:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't clear. I mean duplicating the text into the article. -Chris 02:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would defeat the purpose of two articles. Ardenn 02:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. The unit article is about an already defunct unit and will likely never grow past a stub. It should be merged into a parent article to be in line with all the other structure of other regional and local articles. Rlevse 01:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

merge pulled without discussion[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I am replacing the merge tag as there was no discussion as to "concensus" or any sort of deadline for there to be one. 2:1 doesn't mean you can pull the tag. --Chris 03:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually a 7 day period on these things. You don't get to keep that tag on there forever. It's been almost a month. That clearly says no consensus. Ardenn 03:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And you have a history of unilateral deletions. You can't have it both ways. All a month says is that others don't know about the debate. They will. --Chris 04:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the love of God, the debate is well over! Ardenn 04:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really? According to whom else, aside from you? There was no discussion of closing the merge debate, whatsoever. You just went and did it by yourself. Just like you remove graphics and so on. You are not the only arbiter of what goes at the Wikipedia. --Chris 04:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, give it a week or two, and start the request again. Next time I'll have a neutral 3rd party close it. Ardenn
I would trust a neutral party more, but again you do not, by yourself, one guy, have the wherewithal to decide the debate closed without discussion. --Chris 04:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions like this are closed all the time without discussion. Look at AFD for an example. Now stop being so righteous. Ardenn 04:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are closed when there are more than three votes, and without two of the three against your own POV. --Chris 04:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usual procedure is 7 days. You just don't like it because it's 2:1, and thus means no consensus. Ardenn 04:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion discussion[edit]

as posted at Wikipedia:Third opinion as between us two there is no consensus. That's the only thing I can think to do at this point. --Chris 04:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O[edit]

Hi, in response to the 3O request, my opinion is that the articles should be merged. This is because of the relatively small number of articles which link to 129th Toronto Scouting Group (what links here page) There is only one link from another article in that list, from List of LGBT-related organizations, and seeing as the group has been closed now it is no longer an existant organisation (the other liks are from wikipedia projects and from a redirect page). Also, from what I can see, 129th... falls under the umbrella of this article and so they should be merged. --Martinp23 13:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't what was asked for. The current dispute is over weather or not I should have closed the debate on the merge. Ardenn 14:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case the debate should have been closed with a result of Support. This is because Kintetsubuffalo (talk · contribs) and Rlevse (talk · contribs) expressed their support for a merge, and only Ardenn (talk · contribs) didn't support. This is a substantial majority - 66% in favour and 33% in opposition, and therefore there is consensus. Sorry for the original misunderstanding, thanks Martinp23 14:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did it based on AFD's. In the case of so few votes, typically it is either regenerated, or closed as no consensus. To delete, they have to get 75%. Ardenn 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with doing it by AfD standards is that the proposed merge doesn't involve deleting any material from the wikipedia, just moving it, but judging by the fact that this article has only had three contributors, all of whom voted, I think it's fair to say that a consensus was reached. With an article with few contributors, it can be near impossible to get enough votes to reach a 75% majority, but (as far as I know) nowhere in WP policy is there a percentage required for merge requests. It is preferable for the article to be merged in my opinion (which is outside the 3O request, but I thought it say it anyway :P) and it is important to remember that a merge "vote" is not intended to be a vote (under WP policy), but instead a discussion from which it is hoped consensus can be reached. In a blunt answer to the 3O request, yes, it was fully fair for Ardenn to close the discussion, but faced with the clear consensus (remembering that this is not an AfD vote discussion), he should have formed the opinion that the articles be merged and carried the merge out, based on the consensus. Martinp23 20:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I'll be away from today for a week, so may not be able to respond instantly if other comments are posted (sorry for my bad timing :))) Martinp23 20:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Opemikon[edit]

Closed --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 14:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opemikon Rover Crew[edit]

Canadian Jamboree 1976[edit]

Here is a photograph of the 4th Canadian National Jamboree New Brunswick Pentathalon Jamboree It's been so long now I may not have the right name BUT this is a photo of the Toronto group that went in 1976. Myself, Scouter Wayne Ray as Quartermaster and Harry Gatley, 1st Yorkminster Troop, as well as a host of other Toronto scouts and scouters:

File:TorontoScouts1976.jpg
4th Pentathalon Jamboree in Fredericton New Brunswick, 1976 Toronto group photo

See also wikimedia commons for more photos:

WayneRay 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Hilary Saint George Saunders, The Left Handshake, 1948[edit]

Chris 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC) If we can find a way to put some of this information in:[reply]

Channel Islands
Last, but far from least in this account of Scouting in countries in Europe occupied by the Germans or Italians, is the story of the Scouts in the Channel Islands. From across the strip of water separating the islands and France there came to their ears one June day in 1940 the rumble and mutter of gunfire. It continued for some time and then "one day the thunder ceased and for a time the Channel Islands lived in a strange quietness." On July 2nd, 1940, a line of dark-grey ships sailed into the island harbors. Down their gangplanks came Nazi after Nazi, arrogant in their field-grey uniforms, their polished jack-boots shining in the sun. So began the occupation of the first piece of British soil to fall into the hands of the enemy since the Norman Conquest. It endured five years.
The Germans banned Scouting and disbanded the Troops, but Scouting has always been a very live force in the islands, and the Scouts continued their activities, above all preserving the ritual of the camp-fire in little woods and copses where they were unlikely to be detected. Food soon ran short and they discovered that a certain kind of seaweed, when they washed it, could be boiled and made into an excellent jelly. This weed they collected in large quantities.
This Troop was but one of many comprising in all about 400 Scouts, whose President was the Lieutenant-Governor. During the Occupation the numbers were increased by the formation of one Troop who, without guidance from Scoutmasters, taught themselves Scouting by reading Scouting for Boys. Its members persuaded their parents to make shirts and scarves for them, and on the day of liberation appeared wearing full uniform.
The Scouts of Jersey owe a great debt of gratitude to the 10th Toronto Troop of Canada, who in August 1943 adopted them. By May 1945, they had by various means collected 1,200 Canadian dollars, and this sum was used to help the Scouts of the Channel Islands, particularly Jersey, to find their financial feet again.

Merge of Toronto Police Service Rover Crew[edit]

It has been proposed that Toronto Police Service Rover Crew be merged here. Please discuss the merge below. It was not me that proposed it and I have no opinion at this time. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scouting_and_Guiding_in_Ontario&oldid=1199727559"