Talk:The Scout Association/Archive 1

The Outlander Promise

There is a section in the Wikipedia article "Scout Promise" that states:

"The Outlander Promise

On my honour, I promise that I will do my best,
To render service to my country;
To help other people,
And to keep the Scout Law.

Baden-Powell wrote this alternative oath called the 'Outlander Promise' for Scouts who could not, for reasons of conscience, recognize a duty to a King, for individuals or members of religions that do not worship a deity, and for members of orthodox religions that do not use the name of God in secular settings.[citation needed] The World Organization of the Scout Movement (WOSM), however, would not accept a Scout Association whose promise did not acknowledge a higher power:[3] No member of WOSM uses the Outlander Promise." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Promise#The_Outlander_Promise

Is this accurate? Did Baden-Powell write it or is it a legend? Are those the reasons why it was written? Are there any citations?--Jagz 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

See my comment in Talk:Scout Promise. There is a reference that it is in the 1912 edition of "Scouting for Boys", but I have no way of checking that. --Bduke 23:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Modify that. I think there is a copy in the Scout Heritage Centre here in Melbourne but it will have to be a few weeks before I can get there as I'm off to a Conference in Sydney. --Bduke 20:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Let us know what you find out.--Jagz 06:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This has taken me longer than I thought. It turns out that my information that the Scout Heritage Centre here in Melbourne has copies of all editions of Scouting for Boys is wrong. They have many but they do not have 1912. I am told it is in some Scouting archive in London. Can anyone in London help? --Bduke 00:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge Sun Run

Before we do, could someone explain the sport of bikini grinding? --Bduke 07:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I am tempted to merge "Sun Run" into "Explorer Scouts" while we make up our mind on the latter and also remove the reference to "bikini grinding" and "alcohol consumption" (even though I learnt to drink beer in the Senior Scouts!). Actually the latter reference is to a scout event and it perhaps should go as not notable. It does not fit in an Explorers article. Does anyone object? If not I'll do it tomorrow. --Bduke 00:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have done this. It removes one merge tag off the top of The Scout Association page. If it is decided to not move Explorer Scouts then it would surely go there. I have a copy of the last sentence about a Scout event which I deleted. If anyone has a place for it, let me know. --Bduke 05:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sun Run is for older members of the Guide Association and members of The Scout Network as well as for Explorer Scouts. Therefore, I don't think that it fits exclusively into the Explorer Scout entry. Also - there are for more activities for Explorer Scouts than just the Sun Run (e.g. Gilwell 24, Chase Walk, Wintercamp, etc.) Baynesa 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Where do you suggest it goes? The original article was too much a stub that would not be expanded. It also said it was for Explorers, not Guides and Scout Network. If Explorer Scouts is merged into The Scout Association as proposed, the problem might be solved, but there has been little comment on that proposal. --Bduke 21:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The Sun Run should be a seperate article - otherwise, we'd have to include any number of other activities/events that Explorer Scouts (and Scouts in general) participate in - Gilwell 24 and Bisley Scout Air Rifle Competition come to mind straight away -- Horus Kol 16:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so I added the other two events in summary in the Explorer Scouts article - but it should not be more than a summary in these articles -- Horus Kol 18:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article on the Sun Run was merged because it clearly will not survive on its own. It just is not notable enough. The same goes for articles on individual groups and similar. I think the current article on Explorer Scouts gets it right. --Bduke 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - the Sun Run section on the SA article is out of place now, though. Horus Kol 09:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Student Scout and Guide Association page

• Strongly disagree. The Scout Association is Scouts. SSAGO folk come from Scouts and Guides. I am not disaggreeing with your feeling that lots of articles need to be merged into larger articles. I agree in general. Not this one however. --Bduke 08:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not realise you were suggesting it be merged into both the Scout association and Guiding UK page. I still disagree. Also as a former member of SSAGO, or actually a looser body that existed before SSAGO was formed, I know there is plenty to add to this article. It could get quite large. --Bduke 08:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

willing to withdraw if can be expanded Thanks, Bduke, I am just trying to pound down those stubs any way I can to a reasonable number. When I got here there were maybe 15. Chris 08:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - the SSAGO is an independent body and not part of the Scouting and Guiding programs. It is also not a member of either WOSM or WAGGGS. --jergen 10:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

withdraw okay, I'm sold on the idea. Just like to tidy those pesky stubs. Chris 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The merge tag is now removed from both pages. Just a brief response to Jergen. I think SSAGO may be quite independant now, but back in the 1960s there was a Headquarters Commissioner for University Scouting/Guiding in both organisations in London and at least a Scout one in Edinburgh. Although the formal link may have gone, I doubt the relationship is any different. However, I note that one club in a theological college also had a Rover Crew that was linked to the B-P Scouts after the Scout Association had stopped Rovers. --Bduke 00:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Well as a recent former chairperson of SSAGO, im somewhat mixed as to merging it or not. SSAGO is an independent organisation which operates to its own constitution, but which is fully supported by both TSA and GGUK. There is much more to say about SSAGO on wikipedia than currently exists, and indeed a lot more to say about its preceding bodies. So on balance it is best to not merge SSAGO with TSA or GGUK pages, and to keep it as a well linked seperate entity that is referneced from both.

West Yorkshire Scouts merge

Why? I see people are developing articles for each state in the USA for BSA. Why should not the UK have articles for each Scout County? I would really like to know what people in the UK think. We seem to have nobody from the UK. I used to live there but it is some time ago. --Bduke 11:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's a great idea, except nobody's doing it. Those Scout articles-by-state have had seeds since 2002, and we're just now codifying and improving them. If you're game, then I have a template in the works for the UK. Problem is, do I use ceremonial counties, administrative, royal...? Or go by Eng/Scot/Wales/NI/Guernsey/Jersey/Isle of Man...? Help me out here. I just thought a single Scout County stub out of dozens of Scout Counties was out of place. Chris 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I'm in no position to really help out here. However, in response to your query re what counties, the answer is clear. If there are going to be such articles, they should be about Scout Counties - the grouping headed by a County Commissioner. Let the Scout Association decide whether these go with administrative counties, ceremonial counties or whatever. I used to belong to the Scout County of South Yorkshire when it was neither administrative or ceremonial, although it became administrative for a while later. I'll look again at the West Yorks page. --Bduke 21:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I've looked at the article. It is quite unclear. It is not clear whether West Yorkshire is one scout County or two. It was created by an anon. The rest is minor edits by the regulars. I would suggest putting it up for deletion. If someone wants to write a proper article on the West Yorksire Scout County, they can do so. The current article is not saying anything notable. Try replacing the merge tag with one that says something like - this is not notable, make it so or we will delete it. I think there is such a tag - better worded of course. --Bduke 21:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I came up with a crude start for the UK (not everything included, but it's midnight), but as I say I do not know where the Scout Counties borders fall in the UK. Take a look at Template:Scouts UK Counties. Chris 06:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Altered template link above to where it now is in Template space. Can anyone tell me why this template shows a spurious '{'? --Bduke 00:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Chris, it seems that there are a real lot of Scout Counties. There is a map at here. The number of counties is 114 according to this and under them is a total of 1000 Districts and 10,000 Groups. I guess the last two numbers are approx. I'm not sure whether 114 articles on Scout Counties is possible. It would clearly need a UK Scout with a mass of enthusiam to add them. I see Scotland has "Areas" not "Counties", so that 114 may be just England and Wales. 109 are listed here and this list does give Scotish ones. Maybe the difference between 109 and 114 is Jersey, Sark, etc. I also note that there are "North Yorkshire", "Central Yorkshire" and "South Yorkshre" (my old one) Scout Counties, but not "West Yorkshire" or "East Yorkshire" (the old East Riding of Yorkshire in mainly in Humberside now). I'm not sure where this gets us. Regards, --Bduke 07:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Overnight, I had a new thought. UK Scouting has professional Field Commissioners. We might have a page for the Counties they each cover. I can not find a list of them unfortunately, but I discovered one covers North and Central Wales. Since there are 12 Counties (or maybe they are called "Areas") in Wales, it looks as if there are 2 Field Commissions covering Wales and that each FC covers around 6 Counties. That is my recollection from years ago. That would be about 20 articles which from a membership level is about equivalent to an article per State in the USA. --Bduke 21:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Some of this disscussion has moved over to Talk:Scout Counties in the UK. --Bduke 20:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have completed Template:Scouts UK Counties - a template for all the Scout Counties in UK. Since this may encourage people to write articles for these counties and improve the Scouting in West Yorkshire one, I am taking off the merge tags to allow them to do this. --Bduke 08:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

3rd Old Colwyn Scout Group

• MERGE or Delete, pure vanity article. Rlevse 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• I suggest that someone writes an article on the Scout County that this Group is in and then merges this article there. --Bduke 08:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

An article Scouting in Clwyd has been started, so I'll remove the merge tag. The article needs to be more than a redirect from 3rd Old Colwyn Scout Group. --Bduke 06:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Explorer Scouts

Strongly Disagree. Explorer Scouts are not specific to the UK. The Explorer article needs to be expanded to include other countries' associations, such as the BSA, in which Explorers were a big part. Rlevse 14:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Randy, this particular Explorers article refers specifically to the UK, there is a separate BSA Exploring article. Take a look. YiS, Chris 16:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merger - each section should be covered in seperate articles detailing history and so forth - but a mention of the sections and structure of Scouting should be included in the main UK Scout Association page. Horus Kol 23:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Horus Kol. A separate page for each section, as well as The Scout Association, which should cover the business of HQ as well as a brief resume of each section. Jack 12:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a merge should not take place. Nobody has justified it. I'm doing to be bold and take the tags off. --Bduke 22:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea - especially as the article on Explorer Scouts has grown (I have more detail to add when I have time) Horus Kol 09:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Scouts UK Counties

The template of UK Scout Counties is now completed as Template:Scouts UK Counties. It is at the bottom of The Scout Association page and should be placed on any Scout County article which are linked as Scouting in West Yorkshire to give the one example that already exists although it needs improving. Please add the template by typing {{Scouts UK Counties}} at the bottom of any County pages created. However, having said that as I had finished off the template that was incomplete yet in place, I am not convinced that articles for each County are a good idea. As you can see, there are a very large number of Counties. Perhaps some grouping of Counties would be a better idea. I leave that to UK editors of Scouting pages. If you do go that road, I suggest leaving this template and producing another for the Groupings you decide. --Bduke 08:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• There is a bit of a problem here and on several other pages. Scotland, for historical reasons, does not have Scout Counties but Scout Areas (or is this going to change?!). The reference to 'ceremonial counties of Great Britain' actually directs browsers to 'ceremonial counties of England' (not even England and Wales). We do not want to make the pages too cumbersome or confusing, but they should be accurate. Tithon 02:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is. The template is called Scouts UK Counties but it does not actually display the word "County". The header is "Scouting in the United Kingdom". Where is the reference to "ceremonial counties"? The list of Counties/Areas on the template is from Scout Counties in the UK which does describe the list of Scotland "entities" as Counties. Is that list wrong? In detail? I agree they are areas and not counties. I think they are areas in Wales also. Let me know what needs fixing in the template. I do not see any problem with it. --Bduke 06:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles on Scout Counties

A number of articles are now appearing but they are brief and not terribly good. So far there are articles for West Yorkshire, Clwyd, Leicestershire and Isle of Man. Here are some suggested guidelines for such articles:-

1. Call then "Scouting in X" as this name is in the template discussed in the section above.
2. Use that template at the bottom.
3. Add a link to "Category:Scouting in the UK|X, Scouting in" at the bottom.
4. Do not make separate articles, at least at this stage when the County article is likely to be short, for camp sites and groups.
5. Do not just have a list of Scout Districts and/or Groups.
6. Try to write something about the history of Scouting in X.
7. Give details about Scout Camp sites, Scout Shops, County or District Scout HQs, etc if they exist.

Where are "Counties" called "Areas", if you see what I mean? Scout Counties in the UK may need correction. Is that list correct? The template is constructed from it. --Bduke 07:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have removed from the template the automatic inclusion in Category:Scouting in the UK. This allows you to have the County listed in the category under the name of the County, not under S for Scouting. This is as in No 3 above. --Bduke 07:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that "Areas" are used in Scotland and Wales - I am not sure of the usage in Northern Ireland. Also, Jersey is allowed to be named a "Bailiwick" when referenced within UK Scouting. Horus Kol 15:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What are people's views on listing the groups in each county? I, like point 7 believe that we need more descriptions, rather than just lists. However this is hard as I still know little about my county (GLN) as I seem to remain to be district based. Thus should we not have paragraphs for each district detailing number of groups, explorer units, DC. However to collect the details and write this on the thousands of Districts will take too long, and is not worth doing for the short to medium term. What are people opinions? Jt spratt 16:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Scout Network

I do not agree. I think the various sections in the UK should have their own articles. --Bduke 01:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the merge tags as nobody has supported the merge. --Bduke 21:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Principles of Scouting

I really think that some mention of the principles and methods of Scouting should be made in a clear section. Horus Kol 15:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

There is something of this in the international page Scouting, in part through a link to Scout method. There certainly should be a link to the latter. If that is not enough, then "be bold" and go for it. --Bduke 21:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

well - i've been looking at the "overview" - there's a lot of duplication at the top of the article and that section. Plus, I think we need to cover more about the history of Scouting - the creation of Wolf Cubs and Rovers - the change from Rovers to Ventures. Scouting in the UK (and the world) is a really dynamic organisation which adapts - although too many people think that we are the same as we were 50 years ago (DYB-DYB-DYB?) - i'll see what i can do this evening... Horus Kol 09:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. One caution. There really was no change of Rovers to Venturers. I was there and I had been a Rover Scout Leader. It was a change from Senior Scouts (15 - 18) to Venturers (15 - 19) with Rovers abolished (a change I never understood or approved of). I'm out of it now, but I see Scout Network as a re-invention of Rovers. The creation of Cubs is covered, if I recall, in Scouting because they started in UK. Anyway, as I said, go for it. I have been embarrassed for some time as being the only participant of the Wikiproject Scouting that mentioned UK or Australia. --Bduke 09:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Correction. I think Venturers were 16 - 19 initially. The Scouts wanted an extra year and some people wanted to get rid of Rovers. This is of course the 1968(?) Advance Party report. --Bduke 10:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The distinction of Rovers/Ventures/Senior Scouts is noted... Ventures may have been 16-19 initially - I am pretty sure they expanded up to 21's at some point, but I can't quite remember... that said - i will make sure to research dates and facts like that first Horus Kol 10:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Scouting sections

This is one merge that I think should go ahead. There is virtually nothing about sections in this article and all the material in the sections article could be incorporated. Should I go ahead and do it? --Bduke 21:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd put in under the new "organisation" section i wrote - would seem the logical place for it. Horus Kol 09:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added a list of the junior sections - i think the information in the "organisation" section is now sufficient to replace the "Scouting Sections" article. Horus Kol 12:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, so I have done the merge. A question remains about Section (Scouting) which had been propsed for merge into Scouting sections. However that is inappropriate as it is an international page, not a UK Scout Association page. I'll draw attention to it on the WikiProcect Scouting page. --Bduke 22:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Detailed Articles on Sections

I want to start doing for the other sections what I did for Explorer Scouts - are there already articles for Scouts like this - because Scouts just directs you to the generic Scouting article. Maybe something like Scout Troop (UK)? Horus Kol 10:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Scout section (UK) would be better. The Cubs link is to a general article also, and there is need for one on Beavers. The situation here in Australia is much the same - nothing on Joeys. Cubs or scouts, but something on Venturers and Rovers. --Bduke 11:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I have created the Scout Section (UK) article. It needs more work on the actual activities, I don't know what major events they participate in, but will revisit as and when. Horus Kol 12:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Cub Scouts

I believe that we need to create a Cub Scout, along with the Scout & Explorers already in existance. Should we choose Cub Section (UK), to keep in line with the Scouts? I have also had a go at creating a Beaver Scouts page, although I know very little about the section being a ASL. Jt_spratt 16:59, 05 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent title for the Cub page. Go for it. --Bduke 22:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Works for me - i'll try and gen something up on it... the Beaver Scouts page looks okay, but I'll see if I can get someone to pad it out a bit... Horus Kol 09:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I have started a Cubs page Cub Section (UK), please help to expand it!! Jt spratt 19:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JT - I don't know why I hadn't done it... I've added a couple of images on there, and made some small expansions... Horus Kol 09:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Links to Scout Groups

Discussion point: is it right to have Scout Groups place links to their sites here? There are thousands of them across the UK, and this could get messy.... I know that we have Scout Counties/Areas, and a structure for articles on individual counties, but is there are finer detail to this structure (County -> District -> Group?) Horus Kol 14:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite wrong to have links to Scout Groups here. As you say there are thousands and many have web sites. The place at this stage is surely the County article and we need more of them. Note that where articles on Groups have appeared they have been merged into County articles either before or after they have been nominated for deletion. Group articles will not survive AfD. Note it is just about possible for every Group in a County with a web site to have a link to it on the County article. It is not possible on this page, so doing it here is not NPOV. --Bduke 21:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Gimmie 5 to the Scout Association

Agree. It should not be a separate article. Is Gimmie 5 what used to be called "Bob a Job Week", when Scouts did jobs for their neighbours who then paid them a Shilling (a Bob)? If so, that fact should be mentioned. --Bduke 23:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Disagree: the Bob a Job or Gimmie 5 (or Heitje voor een Karweitje in Dutch) are typical actions with an own identity. That that are part of Scouting is of course notable and should indee be mentioned (wikilinked) in the main articles on Scouting. But the longstanding, worldwide fundraising actions of Scouting warrants an article of its own. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC).

Maybe, but Gimmie 5 is'nt it as it is entirely a UK article. Are you suggesting Scouting fundraising and merge Gimmie 5 there? --Bduke 00:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe: Gimmie 5 is probably not big enough to have a whole article to itself, but if it applies to more than just the UKSA then it doesn't really belong there either... A general Scouting Fundraising/Community Participation could be worthwhile, describing various efforts by Scouting in a global context Horus Kol 11:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Scout ideals and names in other Brittanic languages

Can anyone get the names of local sections and mottoes in Scotch, Welsh, Irish, Manx... For instance, Welsh Scouting is entitled Sgowtiaid Cymru, even on their uniforms. I think that would be an interesting section or parts of others. Chris 19:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

This could be an interesting sub-section of the SA article... Horus Kol 11:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Scouting staff

• Yes. This is obvious and the article is a poor one. Let's do it. --Bduke 02:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree. It only makes sense.

I have done the merge. The section on organisation could still do with some work. --Bduke 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

What about...

Are there Scouts in

• British Indian Ocean Territory
• Pitcairn Island
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Chris 02:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• BIOT - Do not know.
• Pitcairn - pretty sure not
• South Georgia - I think there are only research stations there, so No.

--Bduke 07:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

UK Groups "Will Have To" Accept...

Sorry, I meant to say in my edit comment that it is NPOV... UK Scout Groups have been told by Headquarters that they will have to make provision for both sexes in their Sections. Horus Kol 16:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Scout Counties

Can someone look at Scout Counties? I don't know if you all think that there should be a list like this, but I'm not too convinced it's encyclopedic. If you do feel it should stay, it definitely needs some cleaning up, references, and other TLC. Metros232 03:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We have the template listing all of the Scout Counties in the UK, and that is probably enough as far as a list goes... we could have an article giving more information on the organisation and history of the County system, perhaps? Horus Kol 10:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Is my memory going or was there a similar list that actually linked to the articles on Scout Counties. I think that list was deleted in favour of only having the template. This list should be put up for deletion. --Bduke 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1st Glasgow

I'm not sure that any group can claim to be "first" - I've always been told that it was not possible for The Scout Association to provide a clear picture of what was actually happened then... since this is an anonymous contribution, it isn't easy to find out a way to verify the information... what's everyone else's thoughts on this? Horus Kol 09:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As a 'Firstie', there are still quite a few individuals alive who were acquaintances with the 1st Glasgow founder Capt Young who can verify the facts - 1907 is still recent history. There were undoubtably various scout-like outdoors clubs around Edwardian times. The 1st's claim is to be the first registered group. No group can claim to be an official scout group prior to 16th Jan 1907 as this is the publication date of the magazine 'Scouting for Boys'. I don't think that there was a location for boys to write and register that they would be setting up a Scout Troop. The boys in Capt. Young's Winter Recreational Club bought the magazine on the 16th January, met at the next meeting, decided they would be a scout group and wrote a letter to the scout H.Q. The membership date was based as far as I know on the date within the letter but may have been based on the post office frank on the front of the letter. The First's certificate has been around for over 100 years and this has surely been sufficient time for earlier certificates to have been found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.40 (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is that the Association was not formed until 1910, which is probably part of the reason why so much early Scout history is so complex to research. If the claim by 1st Glasgow was rock-solid I'm sure that TSA would have used this fact for publicity in 2007. They did not, as several other groups contest this - presumably with equal weight of evidence as no official statement has been made to confirm any individual claim. DiverScout (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The 1st Glasgow's origins are without question - there is actually a Troop history '1907-1957' with charming 1908 photos of both Boy and Girl Scouts. As I wrote, the Edwardian era is not ancient history and the certificate was signed by J.A. Kyle who was a 1908 assistant to B.P. The fact is simply that the sheer effort to identify the origins of early Troops across the British Isles is too much for a single historian and this is clear in caveats of listings of the early Troops. There were over 60,000 scouts in the British Isles before the end of 1908! Though the subject is obviously of great interest to TSA, I'm not aware of any efforts by the TSA historians to approach early Troops to create a genealogy of Troops for 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.40 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Which basically explains why 1st Glasgow cannot claim with certainty to be the first. Other Troops, some of which will no longer exist, but some of which that still do, have equal claim and until and unless someone is able to look at all the evidence no certain claim can be made. DiverScout (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Again as I wrote, the claim is not for the first (though it's a serious contender), but the first registered - so let's focus on that. A 100+ year wait, and growing, for an earlier registration certificate to appear would in most eyes be comfortable grounds for its claim! Recent social history of this kind is neither secret, nor hidden away, nor written in another language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.40 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

But you cannot claim that it was the first registered unless all other claims have been checked, which you agree has not taken place. I'd be delighted to help with that research topic, as I'm sure others would, but the research needs to be completed before the claim can be made. As you imply that such research would be easy it ought not to take too long for you to complete it. DiverScout (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I leave the research to you as you are clearly the expert. End of conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.40 (talk) 09:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Famous former members

I was thinking whether it is worth starting a page List of famous UK scouts or starting a category inside Category:Scouting in the United Kingdom for famous members? What do others think? Jt spratt 14:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah, we could tag all those people's articles with the "Famous UK Scout" category, and only have the most notable ones in a short list (like Tony Blair and David Beckham) on the article... good idea Horus Kol 14:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

after looking at what the BSA articles already do, I think we should stick to a list. Horus Kol 14:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

sorted Horus Kol 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Horus Kol thats much better! Jt spratt 16:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Organisation

This section needs to be shortened and made more concise so that users can visit the relevent page to get the information they need. Does anyone else? agree Jt spratt 15:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to ensure that the information in these sections is present in the relevant articles before moving, but I agree that we do not need as much detail in this article on District or County operations - just a bit about their function... Horus Kol 15:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)