User talk:DiverScout

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello DiverScout and Welcome to Wikipedia! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction. If you have not already created a account here, note that you do not have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and there are many benefits of having a username. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page. Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Getting started Wikipedia Tutorial • How to edit a page • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Manual of Style • Be bold in editing • How to write a great article Getting your info out there Cite your sources • Neutral Point of View • Point of View • Verifiability • Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page • Where to ask a question • Help Desk • Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette • Civility • Sign your posts • Wikipedians • Conflict resolution • Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes(~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this. If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you. Bduke (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting and its various sub-pages? --Bduke (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting used to it. I'm hoping to help with the Independent Scouting pages, as I'm non-WOSM so it seems a bit unfair for me to comment on WOSM content. --DiverScout (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is quite OK to work on both provided you are careful to keep to a neutral point of view and avoid a conflict of interest. --Bduke (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I quite agree, but feel that, perhaps, several other people on here might want to take that advice as there is clear POV and COI in several discussions and edits here at the moment. I'll avoid TSA/WOSM, though, as there seems to be plenty of TSA/WOSM editors already. --DiverScout (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with widening the UK Scout Association Counties is that these counties and areas are not equivalent to any other county definition in their boundaries, at least in many cases. Doing what you suggest would force SA boundaries on the traditional scout associations. The solution is to remove the lists of Groups etc and search for sources for material that is encyclopedic. In Scotland I am trying to find time to write articles on the new SA Regions. This would be 11 articles replacing the current 30. In doing so I am trying to make them more encyclopedic. In Northern Ireland there is proposal to merge the articles into one single article. For the Traditional Scout Associations there is a need to expand their articles with some of the material that is in the SA County articles. There is a lot of work here and we need help. Can you help with all this? --Bduke (talk) 01:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Another small point. We need to copy all these articles to Scoutwiki, as they allow articles on individual troops and Groups, so the lists could become a list of links there. That is just something else to do. --Bduke (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. As I have said, and you seem to agree, pages that simply list TSA Groups end up as nothing other than advertising pages. This is, of course, against Wikipedia policy and would result in their deletion.

"The problem with widening the UK Scout Association Counties is that these counties and areas are not equivalent to any other county definition in their boundaries, at least in many cases. Doing what you suggest would force SA boundaries on the traditional scout associations."

This shows the problem of using TSA internal counties on an open encyclopedia. It would not be a problem were accepted regional boundaries to be employed. These are valid outside of TSA, and where a regional county is served by two or more TSA counties, they could be listed - along with those divisions of Independent Scout Associations that also serve the regional county.

I have, outside of the Scout Project, recreated a Scouting in Norfolk encyclopedia page which lists all Scouting in the regional county. It contains web links to the regional districts, where they have web pages, so that those interested in Groups can obtain extra information. I plan to add additional information relating to Scout activity in the County of Norfolk as I find evidence for it on the internet (as per Wikipedia policy against first-hand research). Once I have this, I then plan add additional reference material about specific Groups, such as 1st Dereham who were the first Group to open in Norfolk. This would seem to be a valid way to progress county pages if it is decided to retain them.

I am slowly trying to add material to the independent Group pages, but this will take time, especially as all information needs to be properly sourced via web links. I'm avoiding the ScoutWiki at the moment, as I seem to be being kept a bit busy here! :) -- DiverScout (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. There is no need to reply on both. Just automatically put pages you edit on your watch list, so you notice the replies. Cheers, --Bduke (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)