User talk:Jergen/workshop/Poll

Option 3: Exclusion of expatriate organizations[edit]

I'd like to exclude expatriate from the necessary survey, since these organizations are generally very small compared to the national organizations. If we would include them, we would not need a distinction between options 2 and 3.

Examples:

In the US, there are several expatriate organizations using Guide.
Girlguiding UK has virtually a worldwide presence [1].
Even in Saudi Arabia, there are Indian and Bengali Guide units active; they are confined to the walled schoolgrounds.

National organizations with an official mandate for establishing/serving Scouting/Guiding within a country do not count as expatriate organizations (eg Australia, New Zealand and the US for most of the Pacific nations). --jergen (talk) 09:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this makes sense. Kingbird (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 - Category[edit]

Surely the category name should follow the article. If the article in is S in X, then the category should be Cat:S in X; if the article in is S & G in X, then the category should be Cat:S & G in X. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The naming of the articles are semantic but do not change the basic functions of the organizations. Then we would have a Cat:Orgs that call themselves Pfadfinders, Cat:Orgs that call themselves eclaireurs. One catch-all category holding all disambigs should be enough. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced. The question that comes to mind is this: If the consensus is for option 3, will the USA folks be happy with having Category:Scouting in the United States moved to Category:Scouting and Guiding in the United States. Option 1 talks of Category:Scouting by country, but the general category is not the question. That would indeed by best renamed to Category:Scouting and Guiding by country if option 2 or 3 is adopted. We are really talking about all the separate country categories for which the articles "Scouting in XXX" are the prime articles. These country categories are often well populated, particularly where region and state articles are not specific to one association. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand, we're not talking about renaming categories for individual nations, just the "Scouting in XXX" articles and the category they're grouped in, Category:Scouting and Guiding by country as above. Individual national categories remain as they are. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have got the intent of this poll wrong, but if I have it should be changed. Scouting in Australia is in Category: Scouting in Australia. If the name of the article is changed to Scouting and Guiding in Australia then the name of the category should be changed to Category: Scouting and Guiding in Australia. I see that as a no-brainer. Do you want to vote on the article name first and then have another vote on the category? --Bduke (Discussion) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaigh! Not the country cats, just the parent cat that holds them. Just one cat, not the child cats. I don't want to vote on renaming individual country categories at all, that is unnecessary. All we're talking about is the title of the disambig "Scouting in X" articles and which should redirect to what. No discussion of categories outside of the parent Category:Scouting and Guiding by country .Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We will only start discussing it as soon as this poll is over. It makes no sense to not rename Category: Scouting in Australia if we rename Scouting in Australia, as we should. Also you will then have a whole list of Category: Scouting in XXX in a category called Category:Scouting and Guiding by country. I am going to take this point back to the Project talk page. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for adding "and Guiding"[edit]

I would like to see the point that I have repeatedly made on this question which is that while the Project assumes that Scouting includes Guiding, in many countries nobody would understand the word "Scouting" to cover "Guiding". It is a question on usage of the word, not just of the names of the organisations. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to cover this. --jergen (talk) 10:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]