Talk:National Capital Area Council

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

Goshen Scout Reservation[edit]

Merge: camps exist to serve the council and are rarely notable outside the context of the council. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 01:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal take is that when NCAC was part of the the Scouting in MD/DC categories it made sense to have a separate article, otherwise having every scout camp in MD/DC on that page was to large. Now that each council is getting its own page, having the scout camps on the NCAC page with a redirect makes sense. Marauder40 (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Olmsted Beating"[edit]

Copied from the former talk page, now buried on the redirect page. -OberRanks (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bring up unfortunate things about this camp (it is a very impressive complex) but when I was there in 1987 I was a first hand witness to a scout being badly beaten in his tent by four to five other scouts. The scout in question went to the hospital and very nearly died and several of the scouts involved were arrested. The matter was kept very quiet and I have not been able to find anything offical today about this and the camp management often denies that it happened when questioned by parents who have also heard this rumor. I am wondering if anyone else remembers this happening and if there would be someway to get a copy of the original police report. -OberRanks (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your note. Goshen belong to NCAC, but is physically located within the Stonewall Jackson Area Council, which happens to be my home council. I was in Germany when this happened, but I was home sometime when it hit the newspapers; I don't recall any details. It was not long after this that the BSA introduced the Youth Protection program and banned hazing. You would have to go back and find newspaper hard copies, as I have never found it on the web. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing Camp[edit]

I remember very well that Goshen had a sailing camp that people could go to. I recall one of the counselors getting on a newly arrived bus and (in a VERY heavy British accent), stating "Are any of you blokes going to Olmstead Sailing Camp?? . Might be wroth mentioning (the Sailing Camp, not the guy. -OberRanks (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ober, you are indeed correct, Goshen did feature Sail Camp. It was actually a part of Camp Olmstead. When I worked there in 1990, our sailmaster was from Holland. Me being a Sea Explorer Boatswain, I took a couple of opportunities to storm the beaches of our neighboring camps and claim them for Olmstead! Great memory, sir! Cheers! RobHoitt (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USVI Council[edit]

I was having login issues earlier, but I added what information I have so far about the USVI Council's now being a part of NCAC. I am unsure of districts, although I know USVI will have them, and I am unsure how the lodge is going to work. Sorry for not having all the data, but I'll try to update as I learn more. RobHoitt (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VIC was the last council to not have a web site, so information has always been spotty. I expect NCAC will update their site in the coming months. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, no website, there have to have been councils that have had official websites for a decade.Naraht (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a list about five years ago and Cayuga County Council was the other without a web site. It failed financially and had pretty much a forced merger. Anyways, I am sure NCAC with give us more info soon. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm active with council, so I know a few other details, but I am loathe to include them without having a source to site. Specifically I know that USVI will be considered a service area with two districts, but I'll wait for the official data to be posted online before throwing that all in. Cheers! RobHoitt (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Goshen Scout Reservation[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Per discussion over at WP:SCOUT on Manual of Style updates for camps (prompted by this discussion and others), I withdraw my merger proposal on this article. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 19:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goshen Scout Reservation does not appear notable on its own and I think it would be better to have it within the National Capital Area Council article. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 21:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability:

  1. no original research is needed to extract the content = yes
  2. secondary sources covering the subject = yes
  3. independent of the subject = yes
  4. creates assumption of inclusion = yes

Have to disagree with the does not appear designation. Abel (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for more camps having their own pages, but I'm still not sure if Goshen has enough notability to be considered something independent. I dropped a comment over at Wikiproject: Scouting so hopefully we'll be get some more opinions on this. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 14:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As was already stated, the notability policy requires four criteria. This article meets all four criteria. Abel (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with you. It seems to me that a majority of the references simply state that it exists or reference it when discussing the geography. Unfortunately I don't have access to most of the sources, but from what I can tell that is what they are doing. I think this falls under WP:PAGEDECIDE where it states "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page." I think since the camp is a program and property of the Council, it'd fit better as being within the Council article. I'm not saying delete the content, but merely make it part of this article. And thank you for all the work you've put into the page today and yesterday by adding sources and fleshing it out more! Deflagro Contribs/Talk 15:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you commented here @Deflagro:, would you please be so kind as to comment on the discussion currently going on, on the Talk:Goshen Scout Reservation page. I think this discussion needs additional eyes. Thank you. Marauder40 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Personally I think it should be merged. I know before he retired Gadget850 merged a lot of council pages with their scout camp pages. Almost every council has a scout camp. For the most part the scout camps are not distinct from the council itself except for things like the High Adventure Bases. I personally don't think the Scout Camp has enough notability separate from the council to warrant its own page.Marauder40 (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why even have a policy if all you need to overrule the policy is people voting based on whatever they think feels right? Abel (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because changes to a page required consensus, just because you feel the page meets standalone notability, doesn't mean other people that monitor the page think it does. Most of the sources for the page are self referenced sources or from one book. Most of the references in the one book are just physical facts (i.e. where it is located and things like that.) Needs more secondary sources to establish notability. You can see from above that the pages were merged, but an IP editor in 2013 undid the merge without gaining consensus first. Marauder40 (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per nom, and in need of sever tone problem trimming-highly promotional.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you commented here @Kintetsubuffalo:, would you please be so kind as to comment on the discussion currently going on, on the Talk:Goshen Scout Reservation page. I think this discussion needs additional eyes. Thank you. Marauder40 (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion to propose new (laxer) standards on Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Scouting#Manual of Style: Standalone Camp Articles because of this discussion and a few other mergers I proposed. @Id4abel: and @Marauder40:, you two might be interested in commenting in that. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 13:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merger. Camp articles of notable camps can stand alone. --evrik (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. This particular property has 6 separate camps and it is approaching 50 years of camping. Sure tenure is not relevant, but the end user searching through a web engine should be able to find the desired information quickly and direct, without having to surf the whole page about the council.Sweet68camaro (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. Article meets all notability criteria. Abel (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. no original research is needed to extract the content
  2. secondary sources covering the subject
  3. independent of the subject
  4. creates assumption of inclusion
@Sweet68camaro: I don't think that is relevant as a search engine (or someone going to the Goshen page if it was merged) would be redirected to the specific section of the Council page and not have to search for the information. That argument is bordering on using Wikipedia as advertising material. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 21:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
what sweet camaro is saying: too much information on a page junks it up. --evrik (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet68camaro has a point. Say you know little Wikipedia and nothing of Goshen Scout Reservation. You google "Goshen scout" and expect to get something about the camps, yet instead get some nonsense about some council. Most are going to assume some kind of error occurred, close it, and try other links. Exactly the opposite of what the article is supposed to be doing. Abel (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think that is an appropriate argument as a Google search would still bring you to the camp's subheader instead of the top of the Council article. Ah well, it's going to be a moot point with this following comment... Deflagro Contribs/Talk 19:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Request withdrawn Per discussion over at WP:SCOUT on Manual of Style updates for camps (prompted by this discussion and others), I'm going to withdraw my merger proposal on this article. While we are still hammering out the details for the updates, this article would still most meet the so-far agreed upon requirements of not being a stub. If there's any more discussions regarding sources, let's continue those outside of this merger section. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 19:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image/Template Clutter[edit]

This article now suffers from major template/image clutter. I have tried twice to remove templates and maps from a camp that no longer exists to make it not so bad. Personally I feel most of the maps should disappear. As of right now there are 6 maps and templates for 3 short sections. Way to much overkill.Marauder40 (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easiest solutions are to expand the text of each short section, or move the short sections into their own articles. As opposed to continuing to delete information about the topics, because that will totally help people who are interested in those topics, oh wait … Abel (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A summer camp that is now a subdivision doesn't need anything more then is currently in the article. If you feel you can expand the article do it, but until then, the number of pictures/templates in that section and in the entire article is overkill. Honestly, none of the camps in the article (beside MAYBE Goshen) are notable enough for more then is currently in the article. You also may want to re familiarize yourself with the assume good faith and no personal attacks policies. Marauder40 (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You keep repeating how you are a Wikipedia policy expert, yet continue to insist that topics within articles are somehow affected by the notability criteria for articles. A policy which has nothing to do with topic coverage within articles. Given that you have decided what people "need" as you put it, I guess that does make some kind of sense, given that assumed gatekeeper authority. Abel (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Address content not editors. I again repeat "You also may want to re familiarize yourself with the assume good faith and no personal attacks policies."Marauder40 (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Says the editor with perpetual empty accusations. Abel (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the infoboxes would be okay if we could consolidate the maps. Instead of individual maps for each camp, how about one single map that had the camps on it? I changed the Infobox template from Infobox Campground to Infobox WorldScouting Camp so that it'll look more uniform with the rest of the article/other camp articles. I think that template is also a little more consolidated, but it kept all the same info. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 14:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One single map that had the camps on it is an excellent idea. That would likely work perfectly for most all Council camps as Councils are geographically based. The National Capital Area Council is mostly geographically "close" except for the US Virgin Islands. Howard M. Wall is several hours flying away from the other camps. A map that includes all camps would force all the other camps into a cluster that would appear on top of each other. Abel (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox WorldScouting includes chiefscouttitle and chiefscout one though five as the infobox is designed to describe an organization. Infobox Campground includes: elevation, type, land, campus size, campsites, facilities, water, fee, fires, and season. So by changing from Infobox Campground to Infobox WorldScouting information was inadvertently deleted and the addition of more information is prevented. Abel (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox WorldScouting is intended to be used with Scout Camps. The Scout titles are unnecessary for camps, however there is other information in there that is unique to scout camps such as totem. If you think we can improve the Infobox, then let's improve the infobox instead of ditching it for another one. I started a request to add Camp Size to the infobox. I think elevation, land, campsites, facilities, water, fee, fires, and season are all irrelevant to a Scout Camp and could just go in the article if they are actually needed. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 15:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Adding parameters to Infobox WorldScouting that Infobox Campground includes yet Infobox WorldScouting lacks would absolutely solve that problem. How does someone add parameters to an Infobox? Abel (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a protected template since it's a "high visibility template" so you have to add a request for a template editor to do it. When you View Source there is a button for it that will add it to the talk page. Here's the link. I requested acreage here. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 16:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation and the links. While I would expect that process to take considerable time, that seems like an ideal solution. Abel (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your opinion, I agree with you. Consolidating the maps to one would be a great compromise. Whatever can be done to reduce the number of templates/images in that section. Please also comment on the separate discussion happening at the Goshen page.Marauder40 (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I reorganized it. The maps are unnecessary, but I used them in place of images. The article could stand some bulking up. --evrik (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity of the "Stores" section[edit]

@Id4abel: Per WP:BRD, I made an edit, you reverted it, and I am now attempting to start discussion. Can you please explain to me why the same exact reference needs to be placed after each sentence in that paragraph, why a reference to a 152-page document is required to support "within the DC area," and why you returned the WP:SEAOFBLUE? Please read that paragraph very carefully, and compare it to what I had written. We are attempting to build an encyclopedia, but what you reverted to is very clunky and difficult to read. Citations are not required at the end of every sentence that contains new information; if all of the information is contained in a single source, then it only needs to be cited once. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 18:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then make it less clunky. Deleting, so that the article explains even less is not an improvement. Abel (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Id4abel: I'm not sure how you think I stated less information. There are three Scout Stores in the DC area - at council HQ in Bethesda, in the shopping mall at the intersection of Braddock and Port Royal in Springfield, and at Camp Snyder. One doesn't need to state "Specific internal name of first Store Company store is in Footown. Specific internal name of second Store Company store is in Fooville. Specific internal name of third Store Company store is in Foosburg. Store Company also plans to open a store in Fooburn." when all three stores are the same chain; one only needs to say that "Store Company has stores in three locations–Footown, Fooville, and Foosburg–with plans to open a fourth in Fooburn." You also addressed neither your restoration of the WP:SEAOFBLUE nor my question about the citations. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 20:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Id4abel: You did not respond in over 48 hours, so I was under the impression that you had finished the discussion and reintroduced my version (which is cleaner and easier to read without losing any information). Please explain why you think your version is better. If you do not respond within 48 hours, I will consider this discussion over. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Explained it with, "Deleting, so that the article explains even less is not an improvement.[1]" which was ignored. Abel (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How did it explain even less? You have yet to explain that. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You also have yet to respond to my initial questions regarding the WP:SEAOFBLUE and citations. 14:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
The version with more wording explains more. Abel (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It adds unnecessary information; explain why the public needs to know the specific name of each Scout Store in the NCR. Please also respond to my question regarding the SEAOFBLUE and why every sentence requires a citation if all the information is from the same source. If you were writing a thesis, would you place a citation after every sentence, or only after the section from which the information was obtained is complete? — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing that the public has you to decide what they do not need to know. Abel (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious we are going to continue to disagree on this. I will seek a third opinion on this matter. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

A third opinion has been requested. Since the above exchange is lengthy, can one of the two editors please state, in one or two sentences, what the question is? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the two revisions convey essentially the same information. I do not have a strong opinion on which is better or more encyclopedic; this looks like a tempest in a teapot. I will leave the Third Opinion up in case someone offers a clearer opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: My opinion is that this edit by User:Id4abel is clearly making the article worse. In addition to introducing the erroneous duplicate of "Caroline county" (and breaking the alphabetization of the list), it took a simple paragraph and made it much more ponderous (all that repetition of "is located in", ugh!). It's also not necessary to separately footnote each store location. The one footnote at the end of the paragraph is obviously the source for all of it. (It's not like the location of Scout stores is a controversial statement requiring hyper-specific citation.)

So my opinion is that User:Jkudlick's version is superior. It conveys the same information, but "flows better", being both more concise and easier to read.

I also agree with the WP:SEAOFBLUE issue and that the removed wikilinks (to pamphlets and embroidered patch) were well-chosen as not necessary to link. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Abel at 19:21 on 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Amangamek-Wipit Lodge #470 - Order of the Arrow[edit]

With the entire section Amangamek-Wipit Lodge #470 - Order of the Arrow copy and pasted (90% Copyvio Detector) from Lodge Operating Procedures, I rewrote the section.

I've moved the rewrite to the main article. Hut 8.5 22:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Sweet68camaro (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weeding out dead sources[edit]

Hi all I've notice, but did not remove, some dead links for the NCACBSA website since they have recently updated it and have redone most of the sitemap. So an example is the link to the district overview page is dead as there is not one that is currently available as a dedicated page (only as a drop down menu) on the new website. I'm not sure the procedure on links that are dead and don't have new link to replace it with. thanks for your help. BigMPerez (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I went and cleaned up the references a bit, and I added an archive url in place of the dead one. Theoretically, archivebot will tag the dead links, and add archives where it can. There is a not a good answer here, except to maybe leave dead links as they are for now. You can also look at the wayback machine to see what has been archived. You can try contacting the Deputy Scout Executive at NCAC and express to him that people (volunteers) are less than happy with the new website, especially all the things lost in the migration. Also, having a district overview page would be a good thing. This page could use professional copy-editing. There is a lot of cruft. That said, it is better than most of the other council articles. --evrik (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Capital_Area_Council&oldid=1208994425"