Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting/Archive 2013

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

Stephen Breyer

Stephen Breyer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ton of new scouting images

Commons recently received a ton of new scouting images from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library that are free to use in Wikipedia. See commons.wikimedia.org scouting Ford. Please peruse these and add to Wikipedia articles. Thanks! If you have any questions, User:Bdcousineau works at the Ford library and can help with requests. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hourly roto-tilling of Scouting sex abuse related articles and sections

Each hour we seem to get new articles created, renamed and or existing articles gutted. The discussion is also scattered but there's more at the main BSA article than anywhere else. Can we find a way get this organized, and start having the discussion before the major changes instead of after the major changes. A good start would be deleting all of the new ones and then deciding what to do, if anything. North8000 (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

North8000 (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Anniversary

WikiProject Scouting is seven years old today! Please update your membership at WP:S-MEM. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Millionth article

Yesterday I translated Scouting and Guiding in Portugal into Italian. It became the millionth article on it.wiki

It is being mentioned in the press, too. Some spotlight for the scout movement, and scouts on Wiki :-)

Yours in Scouting

--Lou Crazy (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And there was much rejoicing! Thanks! --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata

Wikidata will be enabled for the English Wikipedia soon. Think of it as Commons for data. The first implementation will replace the interwiki links to other language versions of an article. Currently, each set of links are stored on each version page, thus there is opportunity to miss or to erroneously include a link. With Wikidata, the links are stored on one page and retrieved when you load a page. For example, Scouting has the Wikidata interwiki links at d:Q872181. See d:Wikidata:Introduction.

I am going to look into what we need to do for Scouting pages.

The next phase will allow data to be shared for infoboxes, then lists. This means that we can include data such as membership numbers in one place and share across all languages. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

This is brilliant. I had a look at it and it is exactly what is needed. However, I do not think I have the time to get my head around it all at the present time, so I hope you can and that others will help you. Please press on with it. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases#Rename, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you clarify? It just ended and I see nothing else. North8000 (talk) 23:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Someone elected to go ahead and close the discussion after I relisted it. Disregard this notice. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Last Council Split?

With all of these Council Mergers (All of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan, *really*?) does anyone know the last time that BSA *split* a council or otherwise created a new council that wasn't a merger?Naraht (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The latest that I have come across is Appalachian Council #673 which was founded 1946 (now part of Buckskin Council #617 in West Virginia). ZybthRanger (talk) (contribs) 18:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Far East Council was founded in 1953, but if the answer is different for within the USA and without, I'm curious as to both.Naraht (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
While it's not a Council, on a similar note Puvunga Lodge from Long Beach Area Council in California is the first brand new Order of the Arrow lodge in 30 years. They were formed in 2012. Here's the article on them. Deflagro (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I can't think of any. The way that Michigan Crossroads Council created field service councils makes them very easy to spin off if they grow again. I have been tracking merges at Template talk:Scoutorg BSA. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Several Sri Lanka articles that have been deleted or are at AfD

I have listed them at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Deletions. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

File:Lietuvos Skautija 1918.png

File:Lietuvos Skautija 1918.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Renewal

I think that it is healthy to "reopen" leadership position considerations from time to time and make acknowledgements. With this in mind, I would like to consider our lead coordinator position to be reopened and re-nominate Gadget850 for this position. Gadget does an immense amount for the project, and has immense expertise. They deal with the even the most complex and difficult situations in a calm, thorough and expert manner. They are also obviously a thorough and active researcher on Scouting matters, providing knowledgeable and sourced answers to issues that arise. And they also make a whole lotta other stuff work. They also provide excellent leadership in a low key way, not telling us where to go, but helping to take us where we want to go. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support --Guerillero | My Talk 04:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I fully support this also. In the past it fell to me as the project mediator to "reopen" the coordinator position, but over the last couple of years or maybe more, I just have not got around to it. So, thanks, North, for doing this and thanks to Ed for a great job as project coordinator. Ed, do you accept the re-nomination? --Bduke (Discussion) 19:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Hi Bduke, sorry if I stole your job. I didn't know. Also, I didn't understand the other roles. You have been a cornerstone of the project here and I would like to propose renewal for you in whatever role you wish (except Gadget's :-) ) and leave anything else to you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • OK it's been open for 2 weeks and it's unanimous. Barring any objections, lets declare Gadget Ed to be our fearless leader/coordinator, (a conscript) and Bduke to be our project mediator, and the other positions to be open. Any objections? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Support -- Sounds good. ZybthRanger (talk) (contribs) 12:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Fuller Miller Sr.

A deletion discussion that may be of interest to members of this project. J04n(talk page) 13:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Newly recreated article Camp Agawam at AfD

Not a scout-related camp, but an American summer camp for which there seems no more appropriate project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Agawam. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:Non-free content review#Scouting Articles

The picture police are banging on the door again. It would seem that all of the pictures would need to go away from Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America, etc. I guess it is time to crank out articles about individual awards? EricSerge (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree. --evrik (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

please weigh in on image

Please visit Talk:Scouts Canada#image, again and weigh in. The svg was speedily deleted by an "admin" before full open debate could take place. I got it restored, and want your thoughts, either way. I'll abide by you folks, because you're in this day-to-day as I am.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a look but can only guess what this is about. Looks like a tiny piece of a conversation which has occurred elsewhere which after 5 minutes of searching I still didn't find. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Terry Grant

Scouts Canada has changed the position of Chief Scout to that similar to The Scout Association. The Governor General has traditionally been the Chief Scout, but has been moved to Patron Scout. Terry Grant of Mantracker is now the Chief Scout. The page is a disambiguation— anyone want to take a stab at a new article? --  Gadget850 talk 13:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

AHG

About this edit. We don't included the AHG, or other orgs like the BPSA on any other pages. WHy here. On our template, they are "scout-like." --evrik (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • We do note the BPSA: Scouting_in_texas#Other_scouting_associations_for_boys_in_Texas# (although that unit is probably defunct). Our article on American Heritage Girls and their site identifies them as Scouts, so we should probably update the navbox. They have only one unit in Nebraska, so inclusion there can certainly be questioned. The AHG is developing areas (similar to councils) where they have concentrations of units- Louisville and Cincinnati are the first areas, so the related state articles should be updated.

    On the BPSA— looks like they now have 24 groups in the US.[1] --  Gadget850 talk 17:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

    • i think we're giving them way too much importance.--evrik (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
  • If you want to remove mention of AHG, BPSA, FNE, ZHP, Homenetmen, Külföldi Magyar Cserkészszövetség and the rest from the state articles, then go ahead. --  Gadget850 talk 02:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't want to act unilaterally on all those groups. I don't think we should be including a group with 24 groups in the U.S. Especially since they just broke it off with the BSA [2]. --evrik (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

BSA Jamboree

Is anyone going to be at the jamboree next week? --  Gadget850 talk 23:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

False orphaned images

Bots are tagging images as orphaned where they are actually in use. The issue is not with the bots, but in the file pages not showing the image is in use. I don't know what is causing this, but to fix it, do a null edit on the article where the image is used. --  Gadget850 talk 11:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Burma!

Whoo-hoo! http://www.scout.org/en/around_the_world/asia_pacific/information_events/news/exciting_developments_of_scouting_in_myanmar --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll add the additional possible references that I've found over at Talk:Scouting_and_Guiding_in_Burma. Naraht (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Additional Information also now on talk page above, from Scouts Australia baggyintas (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox WorldScouting TfD

{{Infobox WorldScouting}} is up for deletion.

My advice is to ignore this for a few days and see how other editors comment. --  Gadget850 talk 13:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Girl Scouts of the USA no longer meets Featured article status

This article was promoted to FA status in 2006. Since then, the substantial editing it has undergone has resulted in a number of problems, including redlinks, citation needed tags, scattershot information included in the Issues and 100th Anniversary sections, and inconsistent citation formatting, including bare URLs. Some of the material added in that time may also be a bit promotional (e.g., paragraphs 2 & 4 of the lede). Please help improve this article once again to Featured article status.

I have also placed a request on the article's talk page to help improve the article. Thanks for your help with this. 71.139.148.214 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Girl Scouts of the USA for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKiernan (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert Campbell (1993) Origins of the Scouts, Sydney, Australia

This edit here to Baden-Powell (book) is interesting but the reference is not detailed enough although I have not yet searched for it. It needs a publisher. I have asked the IP editor but he may not respond. Does anyone know about this book? The edit may be a copyvio from the book as it very much reads like one, so I would like to check it. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There are similar links, with no publisher, in Scouting and Guiding in New Zealand and Scouting and Guiding in Canada, but Google only found the three WP articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Old Rajans Scouts Association and 1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group

Old Rajans Scouts Association was created back in January, along with a several other related articles. It was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Rajans Scouts Association with the result that the other articles, except for Lake View Park International Scout Centre, were merged into Old Rajans Scouts Association. It now seems that back in January we also had, at articles for creation, 1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group, which has now been moved into article space. It has a large overlap with Old Rajans Scouts Association So we now have an article on a Scout Group, plus an article on a camp site owned by that Scout Scout, and an article on the old members association of that Scout Group. There may be some notability here, but three articles seems WP:UNDUE. What is the best way forward. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I have proposed that Old Rajans Scouts Association be merged to 1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group as the former depends on the latter. Lake View Park International Scout Centre could also be merged to the group article as it is owned by the Group, but it seems to have a wider role in the nation, so I am leaving it alone. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyright paranoiac at it again

The local rabid deletionist has tried to gut all images out of Ranks in the Scout Association of Japan, without concern for the usefulness of the images or an attempt to please anyone at all, save for the "rules" in his mind. Ranks in the Boy Scouts of America has a unitary file File:Boy Scouting ranks (Boy Scouts of America).png, is that the solution, to combine them into a single, or single-by-level image?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I created a composite image for the BSA article because it was neater. The difference is that the BSA article has content connected to each emblem, including the symbolism. The Japan article has a simple list of ranks with the images in a gallery.
The key here is Wikipedia:Non-free content #8:
Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
Images are not content. Their purpose is to amplify the textual content in the article.
And please, lets be civil. A Scout is courteous, even when there is conflict. --  Gadget850 talk 21:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Got it on content, will hit it today. As to civility, it doesn't say a Scout has an endless supply of cheeks to turn, this is a problematic user who does not extend the courtesy of discussion first in _any_ of his removals, ever, and has been a thorn for a long, long time. Noted and not applicable.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I added the content, and he keeps on violating WP:POINT, demanding "sourced critical commentary" for the images, when in fact there is no "sourced critical commentary" rule in the NFCC for images-I just checked it. What next? I can source it from my handbook tomorrow, but it won't be "critical commentary".--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I think User:Werieth is correct. There is a clear consensus that galleries of images are not generally acceptable. I also think that he is referring to "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I really do not think that seeing the actual badge adds anything significant and I am certain that the omission of a badge is not detrimental to an understanding of a topic. The important stuff is what the Scouting member does to be awarded a badge, not the form of the badge. I see nothing in the text that is made clearer by seeing the badge. User:Werieth is also correct that Scouting articles are overusing non-free images. Non-free images of badges should be removed from Scouting articles unless there is an absolute clear reason why they should be included. The Scouting Project needs to develop its own tight criteria for including such images, otherwise this argument will go on for ever. We could perhaps call it "Wikipedia is not a Campfire Blanket"!. Kintetsubuffalo, why do you think these images are useful? To me, they add nothing and are in conflict with the ethos of wikipedia. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Then we completely disagree. If I describe for you the Mona Lisa, saying it is a painting of a woman in middle ages dress, with brunette hair parted down the middle, and a peculiar smile on her face, is it enough for you, or would you like to see the painting for yourself? Your argument makes no more sense than that. I agree we need to have our own criteria for Scout images, but I do not at all agree that it needs to be "tight" so much as "relevant". We could perhaps call it "The Scouting Project is about Scouting, not about copyright paranoia". If you cannot see how having images of the rank insignia, in an article about the ranks themselves, is useful, then there is no talking to you as there is no way I could ever get through to that sort of mentality. Ps-Bduke for the record, being snide to me (i.e. "We could perhaps call it "Wikipedia is not a Campfire Blanket"!") is a surprise coming from you and something I thought was beneath you. I am sad to see it is not.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, if you were describing the Mona Lisa, you would want to see it. However, we are not really describing the actual badge - the piece of cloth. We are describing the knowledge and activities that lead to gaining the rank. The piece of cloth is not important. I admit to being frustrated that you keep going on about copyright paranoia. You are not really understanding Wikipedia. It is the open copyright license that makes wikipedia what it is. The Scouting Project is about producing a part of an encyclopedia about Scouting within the constraints of the way wikipedia works. We have to live with that. So trying to have galleries of masses of non-free images of badges in articles is just not on. I stand by the slogan "Wikipedia is not a Campfire Blanket". We can not slap images of badges all over our articles like some members of the movement slap badges all over a campfire blanket. You should be addressing the real problems with that article on Ranks in the Scout Association of Japan. It does not assert notability. It has no independent sources. In fact it should be deleted, with just part of the content moved into a wider article about the Scout Association of Japan. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Listen, I keep addressing the issues as they come up, and you keep shifting the mark. I was told "put content in". So I have put a significant amount of content in. I asked if it would be better to have the images combined so there are 4 instead of 12, and have put in a request at the Graphics Lab to do just that. It needs sourcing, I am working on that this evening. Go and be frustrated all you want. Scouting and its uniform are intrinsic to each other. Every Scout association has a distinct insignia that represents them, for which they have pride and which bespeaks their history. I am not pulling out WP:OTHERSTUFF, but it makes perfect sense for the article on QANTAS to have the progression of their logos. Likewise it makes sense for the article on any Scout association to have their membership badge, and when there is an article on their ranks (four articles exist for 500+ associations, so nowhere near excessive), those likewise rightly show those ranks. As to the campfire blanket slur, I do not and have never randomly slopped up insignia just for the sake of having them there. There have been instances where others disagreed with their use, and that has kind of worked its way out over time. I have also never put up an image that is an event badge or other temporary badge, which is exactly what a campfire blanket is. I have put up images, and over time worked to get the images refined and improved so they show each national organization in its best possible light, especially the less-wealthy organizations in Africa, the Caribbean and Pacific, where good quality images exist nowhere else on the Internet because they don't have homepages. Does that make them less notable? Not if you are a member of that organization. I have tagged other images for deletion or for copyright problems, so I am not a total inclusionist. Nor am I a luddite who thinks that words are enough in an encyclopedia that supports images.
And if you've a mind to put it up for deletion, do it, but we're done talking after that. The Wikipedia I started at 8 years ago was open to all opinions, from the "let's include all minutiae" people to the "nothing is notable under national level" people, and from diehard "my organization wrong or right" folks to those who would open the doors to all. I stand on what I said about copyright paranoia-if there is no place for everyone's points of view to be listened to, then you and I have reached the end our soujourn. You're not going to convince me and I am not going to convince you, but in the old days we would have looked for some middle ground, and had an actual discussion without bright lines being drawn and slurs being thrown. And I mean about you and me, because until now you've always been gentlemanly, and I have tried likewise to be supportive of what you have tried to do. I don't believe (at least I hope not and if I have, my apologies) that until now I ever said a cross word to you. I don't know why you feel you have to throw slurs at me, and I do take the campfire blanket throwaway as a slur.
I know I am prickly. I know I get defensive when I am slighted. Early on I had it out with Evrik, that seems to have healed over time and I am glad for that. We lost our original fearless leader, and I am glad he has come back, even though in a diminished role. I have worked every bit as hard as anyone on this Project since Day 1, and I deserve better than to be smeared with such a tenth-rate pejorative.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Bduke, I don't understand the be-ugly-here then e-mail-me-offline-and-be-cordial bit, but if you sincerely don't have it out for me, go see the article as it is now, see that it is improved and that I have worked damn hard to save it, and do something to help save it, even if that means just leaving constructive criticism at the talkpage (not just "it should be deleted").--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not being ugly. I am just defending wikipedia as it is, not how you believe it should be. However, since I am clearly causing some strife, I have resigned as the Scouting Project mediator. I would not know where to start finding appropriate sources. It needs someone who understands Japanese. The main problem with the article is that it does not assert notability and there are no independent sources that are needed to satisfy the general notability guideline. That starts with "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". There is no such significant coverage. I am amazed that the article has lasted 5 years. It is a text book case of an article that should be merged to a more broader article that does meet the general notability guideline. You should be doing that rather than struggling to keep it as a separate article. You have indeed worked damn hard on it, but none of that work addresses the notability issue. Internal Japanese Scouting links are not sufficient. A lesser problem, but still important, is the issue of images, which to say the least stretches our commitment to built an open source encyclopedia. There are far too many non-free images. If the content was merged you could use just a few images. I am not going to flag it for deletion. I am giving you the opportunity to address these issues, but I would not be surprised if another editor jumps in and flags it. Finally, as a general issue for the Project, this is not the only article that does not meet the general notability guideline. Wikipedia has tightened up on this over the years, but people give us on Scouting articles a lot of slack. We need to address these issues before they stop doing so. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the current policy is an unfortunate conflation of protecting ownership rights and holding articles hostage to force people to give up their ownership rights. Even Kintetsubuffalo has fallen prey to this by stating that it is a copyvio situation rather than the latter. I think that images add a lot to articles even when they don't meet the overly high "essential" standard. That said this is just a "drive by" comment and I haven't learned the particular situation well enough to have a considered opinion on it. North8000 (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I get all that, but thanks for weighing in North8000, and trying to see what I am trying to save.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Bduke, what's with this resigning stuff? I haven't seen it. I don't know about any particular titles, but you are a core part of this project and I hope that you remain so. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I removed my name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Coordinators with an edit summary explaining why. Clearly I am upsetting Kintetsubuffalo, so I am not doing a good job. However, in truth, I have not actually done any Project mediation for years. As part of that it was once my job to call for nominations every two years for our coordinator, but I have not even done that for a very long time. Do we need a Project mediation person? --Bduke (Discussion) 00:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Bduke, I wouldn't let this latest tension moment faze you. So maybe Kintetsubuffalo's and yours rough 10% created a few sparks. That's minor. Answering your other question, my idea of a perfect and realistic structure for the project is a calm low key Gadget at the top, and 2-4 of the most active & committed persons (including YOU) in a "one level down" role whatever we want to call it (maybe asst. coordinators or guidance council) Sincerely, 01:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Up for deletion

have been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Task forces

We have two task forces:

Neither coordinator has been active in a long time. None of the GGGS editors have been active and only two of the Philmont editors. Do we want to keep these going or retire the task forces? --  Gadget850 talk 21:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Those are important topics but maybe don't need a task force, especially the stigma of a dead task force. North8000 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
WPMILHIST redirects its task force talk pages to the main talk page, while leaving the taskforce face page in place. That could be done here for GGGSTF; and a parallel page for boy scouts could be created. It'd also allow for clerical housekeeping by tagging articles as Girl or Boy topics. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
This misunderstands the current situation. Many Scout organisations admit girls as well as boys, and a few Guide organisations admit boys as well as girls. The real issue here is that there is no point in having these task forces if they are inactive. I suggest marking them as historic, asking readers to return to the main Project page, but have links from the main project to the task force pages but again indicating that they are historic. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
If no one want to take over a task force, that is my intent. I would also remove them from the talk page banner by removing them from the template. (I retired from Answers.com after I proposed to reorganize the Scouting topics to recognize that many questions were on subjects outside the US and the response was two categories: Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.) --  Gadget850 talk 12:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Scout Ranger

Is this worth an article?

--evrik (talk) 04:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Are there any sources outside the primary? --  Gadget850 talk 13:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, check out this search. --evrik (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

deleted images

This edit caused a number of deletions found in this log --evrik (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

How can we get them restored as a batch?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Revert the edit he made and ask a non-involved admin to restore the images. We may also want to be ready with commentary for each image. --evrik (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/Archive_2013&oldid=1090644162"