Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Style advice

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconScouting Project‑class
WikiProject iconWikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Style advice is part of the Scouting WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Scouting and Guiding on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to boy and girl organizations, WAGGGS and WOSM organizations as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to Scouting. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ScoutingWikipedia:WikiProject ScoutingTemplate:WikiProject ScoutingScouting articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

References vs external links[edit]

I like the references, or footnotes at the bottom of the page. I disagree with the way we've laid out the article format here. --evrik (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? Per Wikipedia:Guide to layout, Footnotes go before External links.
The redirect from merge is listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article maintenance, as this is not a style guide issue.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide to layout is a guideline and not a policy. If your read the talk portion of the page you will see that there is disagreement on the point. Also, WP:CITE#Footnotes says,

A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page of a document to comment on a part of the main text, or to provide a reference for it, or both. The connection between the relevant text and its footnote is indicated by a number or symbol which appears both after the relevant text and before the footnote.

  1. Place a <ref> ... </ref> where you want a footnote reference number to appear in an article—type the text of the note between the ref tags.
  2. Place the <references/> tag in a "Notes" or "References" section near the end of the article—the list of notes will be generated here.

So, there is no real consensus. If you want to add a line saying that it is optional where the references go, i'm okay with that. --evrik (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like "The given order of sections is also encouraged but may be varied"? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modify reflist format[edit]

Could we please allow use of two-column reflists in Scouting articles? A lot of empty space is created by using only one column, and the prudent formatting should be determined on a case-by-case basis. --Eustress (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of fighting this battle. I can demonstrate that there is no saving of space, and in some instances it actually creates more whitespace, but no one believes that. It only works for the 30% or so who use FireFox, and that is slightly broken. There is no consensus to fix {{reflist}} in an intelligent manner. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:23, 19 January 2009
There is no consensus on the matter, which is why I don't understand why this WikiProject can enforce it one way or another. Almost every Featured Article uses multi-column reflists, so at least with regards to precedent I think it should be allowed and the Scouting MOS modified accordingly. --Eustress (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that is no interest in the matter (only two editors participating in this discussion), and since no consensus can be established, policy should probably revert to official WP:MOS—i.e., that multicolumn reflists are permitted. --Eustress (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple columns for the 30% of the masses. As long as it meets the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Stability of articles. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting in 'state' (USA) articles[edit]

(Not sure this is the place for this)

I've noticed a great deal of variation on how the various US "Scouting in *state*" handle layout. The section titles vary

From Scouting in Maryland
1 Early history (1910-1950)
2 Recent history (1950-1990)
3 Scouting in Maryland today
4 Girl Scouting in Maryland
5 International Scouting in Maryland
6 See also

From Scouting in Ohio
1 Early history (1910-1950)
2 Recent history (1950-1990)
3 Scouting in Ohio today
4 Girl Scouts of the USA in Ohio
5 Scouting museums in Ohio
6 International Scouting units in Ohio
7 See also
8 External links

From Scouting in Virginia
1 Boy Scouts of America
1.1 Early history (1910-1950)
1.2 Recent history (1950-1990)
1.3 Today
2 Girl Scouts of the USA
3 Scouting museums in Virginia
4 See also
5 External links

and there may be more variation. Note in particular the different wording for title for the Girl Scouts section

I also note that without exception "Scouting in XXX today" section title refers to the Boy Scouts of America which seems slighting to the Girl Scouts. Also whether "Early History" includes both groups or whether early history for the Girl Scouts goes under the Girl Scout section varies from article to article. I think we need to have a standard format and some guidelines. In addition how should we handle links to council websites? In a separate single "External Links" section or that and recommend they also be included in the footnotes (especially since those are usually the webpages we mine for info on the councils). --Erp (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why Virginia is different, as this is the state article I have fiddled with the most. The early and recent history sections are really bogus, as it presumes that the BSA or GSUSA operates as a state entity. I propose:
  • Boy Scouts of America
  • Girl Scouts of the USA
  • other organizations
  • Museums
  • See also
  • External links
We could do a simple council level template that would contain the council name, council website, camps and websites, OA lodge and website. Would the GSUSA need anything else? In the BSA council sections, I think the district links should go away— they are all listed through the council website. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would drop the American Heritage Girls subsection. It is a relatively small organization not in all states and is not really a Scouting organization (or if it is then Campfire USA is far more deserving of inclusion under a separate heading, having also a scouting ancestry and being far larger). I agree on the history. We do sometimes have overkill on councils, a few article seem to list every single council ever but don't always detail how they fit together in history and isn't always interesting. Any ideas on maps and maps standards? It looks like some people are interested in doing maps for the BSA (see Scouting in Alabama) and the Girl Scouts have a a fair number of maps already. --Erp (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AHG is growing, but can be added in later as we get more info on them. They do consider themselves a Scouting organization. History needs to be under each council. It does seem like the BSA articles sit on their laurels— they give ancient history, but don't tell what the council is doing today. You seem to have a nice start on a map standard— we can integratge that into a process page. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I created these almost 4 years ago, they were standardized, and have been modified based on need. I changed them from old lists because we had 50-70 deletions the week before and I had to think fast of a way to save good info. Not the best solution, maybe, but the one that came to me at the time. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a initial stab at Scouting in West Virginia at a reorg (and it needs serious work especially in the BSA side). One obvious thing needed for a style guide is suggestions on what should go in the introductory paragraph(s) that ties everything together. The GSUSA breaks down membership by state, does the BSA also so I can say something like "West Virginia has over 13,400 youth in Girl Scouts and xxxx youth in Boy Scouts" or "West Virginia has xxxx youth in either Girl Scouts of the USA or Boy Scouts of America" with footnotes detailing how those figures were gotten and wiki links for GSUSA and BSA. Also perhaps one or two interesting facts (e.g., for New York that the GSUSA headquarters is there, for Wyoming that Philmont is there, for Georgia that Girl Scouts started there). The expansion of those facts, if needed, (unless it applies to both groups) goes in the appropriate subsection. Thoughts?--Erp (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen a by state report on the BSA. Councils are generally organized across counties or school zones and many cross state lines. The next higher are areas then regions, again not organized by state. BTW: Philmont is in New Mexico.
Another thing that bugs me is why every southern BSA council has this statement about the colored troops. It implies that this was only a southern issue, whereas it was prevalent across the U.S. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GSUSA councils follow the same policy and many also cross state lines (the reorg has tried to limit state line crossing) though they don't seem to do regions. My guess is that the girl scouts by state is done by the girl's home addresses from their registration forms. As to why I suspect several reasons but one might be political (either when lobbying to point out that WV has 13,461 girl scouts who might be upset [along with their voting parents] if a new road is built through the middle of a GS camp or by politicians wanting a shiny fact for a speech [the Senator from WV can reel off the number of Girl Scouts in his state but can he reel off the number of Boy Scouts]). Apologies on Philmont. As for segregation, overall history should be in the main BSA or GSUSA articles and only state/council specific info in the State articles (e.g., that Camp X was given to council Y as a 'colored only' camp and desegregated in 19??). Mentioning "Old Hickory Council" except in the main article and in the state(s) which it existed isn't relevant. However the history shouldn't be covered over. That segregation (or even not serving certain populations) was enforced by many councils because of laws and/or cultural reasons is a blot on US scouting history.--Erp (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
History of the Boy Scouts of America#Early controversies (needs expansion), Boy Scouts of America#Membership controversies (which oddly is not in the main article Boy Scouts of America membership controversies). The statement about William D. Boyce is disingenuous, given the history of his Lone Scouts of America. So— I don't think it is hidden. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it is hidden now (given that most state's articles have barely any history at all) but some significant state specific stuff might be overlooked if and when we get more depth. I think the membership controversy article concentrates on current not historical controversies hence nothing on discrimination via race (but we should check for appropriate cross-refs). BTW did the BSA also have segregated Asian-American troops in places like California?--Erp (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
McLeod has nothing on that. Probably only during the WWII internment. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did a bit of hunting. Seems legally they weren't segregated; however, de facto segregation did exist probably because schools were often segregated (e.g., San Francisco) as was housing. Did find a bit about San Francisco Troop 3 (which probably should be Troop 1 except numbers were handed out after the San Francisco council was established a few years later) founded by Chinese Americans in 1914 before any other troop existed in the city. It is still in existence. I added some info on the Scouting in California page with ref.--Erp (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very slight modification to the wording in the MOS[edit]

I modified the wording in the MOS regarding capitalization based on this conversation over on the main WP:MOS talk page. Ping me here if you have any questions. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there has been a flurry of other changes, too, though they are only clarifying the wording. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization[edit]

While a military or other scout is sometimes lowercase a Scouting Scout is always uppercase. This rule does not just cover Scout and Scouting but also: Boy Scout, Girl Scout, Guide, all forms of Venture, Cub Scout, Varsity Scout, Scoutcraft, and Scouting-related award names (like Firem'n Chit or Totin' Chip), progression levels, age sections, other language equivalents (i.e. Second Class, Varsity Scout, Eagle Scout, Gold Award, Bronze Wolf). The problem is that there is no list of Official Scouting Words anywhere on Wikipedia that will tell someone which words to always and forever capitalize and which words to treat like any other English word. Off the top of my head I can think of more words that may or may not be Scouting Words:

  • pioneering,
  • high adventure,
  • Scout essentials or Scout Essentials?

Obviously other people will be able to think of more words that might be or might not be Scouting Words. Without a list all anyone has is their “gut feeling” or “common sense” about which words are Scouting Words and which words are to be treated like any other English word. That is a terrible policy on the face of it, for what should be obvious reasons. I might decide that a word is or is not a Scouting Word and you might think differently. Without a list we can both be correct or both incorrect at the same time. So please, with tears in my eyes, contribute to the list by adding more Scouting Words below (starting with pioneering, high adventure, and whichever is the correct form of Scout essentials or Scout Essentials if you like). Abel (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are from actual articles so while this may seem perfectly clear to you, it is not remotely clear to anyone else. Most of these example are from Boy Scouts of America. If no one can even get that article right, the rule is not at all clear.Abel (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're misphrasing. You should have written "it is not remotely clear to me". We went through this discussion already, and no one but you was in the least bit confused by things. You are the only one who seems to be confused about it. You seem to be the only one who thinks that the WP:SCOUTING MOS applies to anything other than Scouting-related articles (that's the only reason I can figure for your questions about words like "Congressman").
Whether that is because you really don't understand, or whether you're being deliberately obtuse and refusing to understand, I don't know. You seem to be the only one who thinks that the WP:SCOUTING MOS applies to anything other than Scouting-related articles. Please stop with beating this dead horse. There is no need to continue with this line of discussion. If you really want further input, you're welcome to open an RfC to bring more of the community here. I can pretty much guarantee you will be the only one who is misunderstanding. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this rule were in fact clear, there would not be a plethora of articles that do not follow this rule. Insult my intelligence all you like, will not change how this rule is not being followed. I do not think anyone is intentionally not understanding, what you see as perfectly clear is not at all clear to others, as evidenced by actual articles, most embarrassingly, Boy Scouts of America. Abel (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go bring it up at WT:SCOUTING then, or—heaven forbid—fix it yourself. Whether it's being followed has nothing directly to do with whether people understand it. Not everyone who edits is aware of WP:MOS or any of the specific MOSs. The SCOUTMOS, however, is perfectly clear. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be far simpler and much less effort to link to The Language of Scouting and be done with it. I would have included the Girl Scout Glossary, The Scout Association's Style Guide, and the Order of the Arrow: Branding and Style Guide but those each link to nothing.Abel (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Id4abel is being contentious and deliberately obtuse by bloating and tagbombing Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/MOS. I have reverted to the last clean edit and will be monitoring the situation.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing obtuse, deliberate or otherwise, about it. The rule is enforced whimsically. The current wording is far superior to what was the rule in the past. All of this could be instantly solved by using the The Language of Scouting, which in fact does list each and every Scouting Word and is “able to satisfy particular standards for completeness.” Abel (talk) 16:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only one who seems to have a problem with the rule, and have accused six other editors of all being wrong, as though you alone have a grasp on the English language, so that several editors could not dissuade you
Further you have made unfounded accusations of sexism [1] and racism, red herrings all.
Your examples you tried to shoehorn in are poor, and have their bias in that they are all US-centric. Scouting exists in all but 4 countries, and they do not all have the same names for their programs. Your specious claim "The Language of Scouting, which in fact does list each and every Scouting Word" is bollocks, as there are many variants of English and of Scouting, and "word" should not be capitalized at all. You are a troll.
I call into question your judgment as an editor due to edits such as this-I defy you to explain the notability of Ricardo “Danny” Nieves and Ryan Patrick McCormack. You are a disruptive editor who needs to be severely monitored. Stop wasting everyone's time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with MOS:DOCTCAPS, MOS:JOBTITLE[edit]

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Scouting conflict with MOS:DOCTCAPS, MOS:JOBTITLE.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Style_advice&oldid=1137366036"