Talk:Scouting in East of England

Norfolk Camp Directory

I've slightly altered that section. Last year I was told that this directory was out of date, and may soon be deleted as some of the details were out of date. I've highlighted the three main Scout Association owned sites that I know of. DiverScout (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

History

Is ref 6, identical to ref 4, but just older? They look to have similar content at least. I think the pdf file is the latest. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it, same information just in a different location. Good spot! DiverScout (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

County & District Badges

Before anyone gets "delete-happy" on the graphics content of this page, please note that all County and Area badges are referred to directly in the text of the page, and that a selection of District badges are also being explained in detail in the text.
At the moment there are probably too many District badges, and many have yet had their details added - but this page is a work in progress. The number will be reduced to 2 District badges per county as content is added. Please allow me to complete it before making edits that I may be required to revert. DiverScout (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not us at the Scouting Project who are "delete-happy", we've caught flak from others of late and so are trying to self-police. Counties are likely much more valuable than districts, should push come to shove. But I appreciate your hard work on this! Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I recognise that it's not the Scouting Project and know that there'd be a chance for discussion within the Project. The comment was really directed at the vigilante types. DiverScout (talk)

The badges that I could justify and provide a rationale for are now listed. I decided to limit it to 2 District badges per County. Essex also has an old looking badge on the article, but I have no idea what it is. Anyone able to help?
Just time to start adding photographs and extra details now. DiverScout (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We have a minor edit-war on District badges. I personally agree with DiverScout and disagree with Chris (クリス • フィッチ). The version with no galleries is the version with no District badges and no description of them. To me it is not a question of policy. I just do not see that the District badges are notable or that the information provided about the badges is of any relevance to Scouting in the region. Of course any badge can be described. In what sense is the description encyclopedic. I also find the descriptions plus the galleries gives undue weight to the badges. I also do not want this to spread to the other region articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy that another editor feels that he can find a way to keep the images within the scope of Wikipedia policy. I've spent a long while trying to find a way, but the present format is directly against policy on images in galleries. As a revert has been made, I would ask that priority be given to making the change that the editor has in mind. Cheers. DiverScout (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that it's particularly good faith to call my single revert an "edit war", please justify that comment. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did call it "minor", but if you are offended I apologize. However, could you both please address the points I made? Why are Districts badges notable? Why, as a new point, should we limit the galleries to two Districts? Why is the description of the badges relevant to the article. They seem to be to be just added to give justification for adding the images and so are playing the system. Why are these justifications not giving undue weight to the article? I'm sorry, but I get rather fed up trying to keep these articles encyclopedic. We got rid of the clutter of Group lists. Now almost all edits are cluttering up these articles with badges, or lists of Gang Shows, or trivial information about trivial camp sites. Early morning winge. I need more coffee. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the district badges again, leaving the counties. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had more coffee and am in better humour! Thanks, Chris, I think the article is much better with just the County badges, and, as a side issue, these are more defendable. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

article "the"

Gramatically, shouldn't it be Scouting in the East of England? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Possibly...although I think that "East of England" is referring to the administrative region rather than "the east of England" DiverScout (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely referring to the administrative region rather than "the east of England". Let there be no confusion on that. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but gramatically it still should be like "the Gambia", "the Levant", "the Himalaya"... Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not convinced. I would prefer a wider consensus before we do this, particular as we would have to do the same for at least Scouting in West Midlands and Scouting in East Midlands. There are lot of redirects to fix. I'm happy to leave them as they are for now at least. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, shall we ask the Project? I think West and East Midlands can stand alone, as they are derivatives of an earlier designation. One could say "East Gambia" instead of "the East Gambia". Sorry, it's the English teacher in me. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a "The" before the names in the articles on the regions themselves for these three, but perhaps they should be altered. Take a look at the region articles. There are all linked from the first sentence of the scouting articles. I'm off out for several hours now. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge of Tolmers Scout Camp

It has been proposed that Tolmers Scout Camp be merged to this article. There were early concerns about this being a copyright violation from the Camp Site's web pages, but a different editor later removed it saying it was OK. However it still largely covers the material on those web pages. Most sections are not sourced and most are not notable. There may be notable things about a Service Crew for example, but just having one is not notable. Almost all camp sites have them. Similarly most of the material about accommodation and activities is not notable, along with much else. However, there is material that should be added to the region article at Scouting in East of England#Hertfordshire under a sub-heading but it only needs a few sentences. I am not proposing deletion of all material and making it a redirect. It will be a proper redirect to a brief section here, which is all that is needed to be said about this camp site. Note that we do have some articles on the 5 national activity centres, such as Gilwell Park, Downe Scout Activity Centre and Youlbury Scout Activity Centre. We have yet to have one for Hawkhirst Scout Activity Centre. As national centres these are notable, but the many non-national activity centres are not. Please add your comments below:- --Bduke (Discussion) 02:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Suport merge as nom. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support; no demonstrated notability outside the Scout county. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. DiverScout (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Hi, I co-wrote the Tolmers Scout Camp article, which we based on the articles for the National Centres. I take some of your points about notability, but feel that major regional Scout campsites should be treated by the same criterea as the National Centres. All of the points you make above may be valid, but apply equally to the Downe Scout Activity Centre article for instance. Tolmers and a number of other ex-National Scout Camps are probably as busy if not more so than the National Centres. I won't be too upset if you merge it, but please have another look at the National Centres articles and see if they don't deserve similar treatment. Alansplodge (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Other stuff is bad" is not an argument that flies on wikipedia. Downe is a national centre and thus more likely to be noticed, allowing the article to improve. Maybe we should consider merging some of the national centres (not Gilwell and B-P House of course) into Scout Activity Centre (The Scout Association) until the section grows to long with good material. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• OK, understood. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone progressing this or otherwise? DiverScout (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is on my to-do list! Given the comments of Alansplodge, I would first like to sort out Scout Activity Centre (The Scout Association). Is that article even correct in that it actually lists the current national activity centres? The sources I thought a while back were a bit confused. Then there are various articles that link there that need fixing, The next step is to edit Downe Scout Activity Centre and the other activity centres (except Gilwell and B-P House, which are fine) to remove non-notable material. If that gets these articles down to a stub, we might them consider merging them into Scout Activity Centre (The Scout Association) as a separate section, at least until the section grows sufficiently to fork off a separate article again. Then we could come back to consider this one, although I think it too should have non-notable material removed now. Can you help with this process? I'll be a bit pushed for a few days. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to have a look during the week. DiverScout (talk) 09:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I found time to do a first go on the first part of that program. However, it is too late here and I can not face up to cleaning up Tolmers Scout Camp. There are now 6 national centres. I found the TSA source. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Increasingly I am uncertain about this one. While "Other stuff is bad" is not a good argument, it is clear that Downe Scout Activity Centre is on a par with this one for notability. I am tempted to suggest merging that to Scout Activity Centre (The Scout Association), but if we did it would give undue weight to one centre when for two of them we have nothing much at all. I have cleaned this one up a bit and it does have sources and some interesting history. Maybe we should just leave this one and Downe for now. I am going to be largely away from the last week of April to the first week of June, so I am crossing this off my TODO list and leaving it for others to decide. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

General discussion on these region Scouting pages

There has been a discussion at Talk:Scouting in South West England#Not a satisfactory article that could equally apply to this article and all other 11 region articles in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I have moved the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting#Scouting in the regions of England. Please take a look. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Scouting in East of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080619105537/http://groups.msn.com:80/PathfinderScouts to http://groups.msn.com/PathfinderScouts
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080719215647/http://groups.msn.com/RoverExplorerScoutsAssociation/_whatsnew.msnw to http://groups.msn.com/RoverExplorerScoutsAssociation/_whatsnew.msnw

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)