Talk:Leave No Trace/Archive 1

Archive 1

Attention tag

this article needs wikified. Rlevse 02:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

done Rlevse 15:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

BSA

Added that the BSA is a formal non-profit partner of the LNT Center for Outdoor Ethics and is placing LNT Master Educators in every council (300+) and LNT Trainers in every Council District. The goal is to reduce the impact of Scouting (>3M member, 300+ councils, 120,000 unit which generate nearly 14 Million User Days per year) on public/private recreational lands. [1] --- Rooneyfamily (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The BSA is adding LNT requirements to the Boy Scouting ranks and is adding Leave No Trace Trainer as ayouth leadership position.[2] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Separating the organization from the philosophy

An anon editor has attempted to create a page leave no trace that is supposed to be about the philosophy, as distinct from the organization. I believe that the two are strongly linked and should be in one article (as it stands right now). I also believe that two similar articles that only differ in capitalization is poor practice. What do other editors think? —hike395 (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks to Hike395 for kicking off this discussion as I had requested during exchanges on our talk pages. I started my edits on the subject when I did a wikisearch for "leave no trace", and found that leave no trace was a redirect to Leave No Trace, an organization that was founded in 1994. If you look around, the philosophy or principle of "Leave No Trace" significantly pre-dates the 1994 organization. It is the philosophy that is usually referenced in the articles, not the organization. And it is not correct to equate the organization with the philosophy. Thanks. 67.100.125.146 (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. I should mention that swarm (talk · contribs) did in one or two minutes a mass reversion of carefully chosen edits that took over an hour to do, e.g.:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terry,_Montana&diff=prev&oldid=437185890
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philmont_Scout_Ranch&diff=prev&oldid=437185380

A few comments:

• The article Leave No Trace contains material both on philosophy and on the history of the philosophy and the organization, dating back to the 1960s. If you want to split the material out, then I suggest proposing a split, rather than creating a new disambiguation page.
• The relevant guideline here is WP:SPINOUT. This article is relatively short (being only 19K): I believe it is too short to split. I believe that readers want to know the details of the philsophy itself, the history of the philosophy and the organization, and details about the organization; all in the same article. We're doing our readers a disservice in making them chase down facts that are better together.
• There is an existing article, Minimal impact code that discusses the generic idea, rather the specific details of LNT. One could argue that the links in the articles that you changed should point there. Again, I think that the authors of the articles meant LNT rather than the generic minimal impact idea: all we have to go on is the link and context of the link.
  • If you want to expand Minimal impact code, that would be a help to our readers: that article is very short. Before we shift (or copy) any material from here to there, let's make sure that we have consensus to do so.

—hike395 (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The principle does significantly predate the organization; however, as it stands in the present day, the two topics are strongly tied together. They are interlinked enough that I think two separate articles would have significant overlap and a duplication of information. I would not suggest a split; however, I do think the article's introduction could be revised to more clearly indicate that "Leave No Trace" refers both to a principle and an organization. This how I've seen similarly closely tied topics handled, and it's how I've dealt with closely related topics before. For a few examples that just come to mind:

• Grandfather Mountain covers the mountain, "Grandfather Mountain State Park" and the "Grandfather Mountain Attraction".
• Yadkin River covers the river and the "Yadkin River State Trail".
• Hemlock Bluffs Nature Preserve covers "Hemlock Bluffs Nature Preserve", the "Stevens Nature Center" and "Hemlock Bluffs State Natural Area".

In each of those examples, one or more of the article topics also significantly predates the others, but now they are all interrelated.

—Sparkgap (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I support Sparkgap's idea to have the lede explain the difference between the organization and the philosophy. —hike395 (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In my attempt to carefully consider whether it was the organization or the philosophy being referenced, I saw some variation in the context within which an editor was wikilinking "LNT" in a given article:

1. In some cases it was very clear that the basic concept behind "LNT" was the intent, as in cases where a wp:Piped link was used for a phrase or term related to "LNT".
2. On the other extreme, there was some cases where it was clear that LNT as specifically defined by the organization was being used.
3. In some cases, an article was enumerating a list of principles, and the LNT reference was just one of those in the list; there was variation in the number and content of those lists
4. In some cases, the editor capitalized all three words to "Leave No Trace"; these cases need care in determining the referent, since in some cases it clearly appeared to be a reference to the general philosophy, while in others it wasn't obvious
5. In some cases, the LNT reference was in a section or paragraph with historical context, and its place in the chronology helped clarify the intent

IMO, cases 1,3,5 clearly establish the need for separation of the philosophy and the organization. Uses fitting case 2 of course refer to the organization, while case 4 uses require careful consideration. I think the best strategy going forward is to work on turning the "Leave no trace" disambiguation page into an article. To improve an editor's ability to choose the right wikilink in the future, I would also suggest that Leave No Trace be moved to Leave No Trace (organization), with WP:Hatnotes clarifying that details about both the philosophy and the organization are available. 67.101.6.146 (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's a possible compromise: how about if we leave the article unsplit (as it is), and we make Leave No Trace (philosophy) redirect to Leave No Trace#Principles, rename the section "Programs" to "Organization", move the infobox and material about the current organization to that section, have Leave No Trace (organization) redirect to Leave No Trace#Organization, and the anon editor can fix all of the links to point to one or the other redirect? —hike395 (talk) 06:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, that sounds like a lot of work for little benefit, but if the anon editor is willing implement the compromise, I support it. I have thought about this issue further, and I still do not support splitting up the article. I've not seen or thought of a strong enough justification to split. Irregardless of what an editor intended a wikilink to refer to (organization or principle), a good article on one "Leave No Trace" would have difficulty addressing that one topic, without significantly addressing the other topic, especially when the history of either is discussed. I also do not see a reason why a good article could not cover both topics well. —Sparkgap (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done except for changing the redirects —hike395 (talk) 04:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting move to Leave No Trace (organization)

I oppose the recent move of Leave No Trace to Leave No Trace (organization). I believe that the move contradicted the consensus reached, above. I don't think there is a compelling reason to have separate articles on Leave No Trace (organization), Leave No Trace (philosophy), or Leave no trace. I propose that we revert the move. I'll contact WP:RM, but I want to have a full discussion here, first. Comments? —hike395 (talk) 01:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What? First, there is no article on Leave no trace (philosophy). Second, "leave no trace" may refer to the organization, and it may also refer to any of the other things on the disambig page, hence the disambiguation. Third, I performed the move to rectify a mass rollback I did. An IP disambiguated leave no trace originally, and made dozens of edits changing every single link to lowercase. My actions simply restored their work without having to change back every link. Why did I restore their work? Because it was perfectly reasonable due to the second point. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Thanks! Swarm ^X 16:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have two points. First: the article title is incorrect, because this article is about both the organization and the philosophy. The current title is incorrect, because it implies that it is only about the organization. To make it correct, we either have to split the article (which I think is unwise, due to the arguments given, above), or move the article back to its original title.

Second, I don't believe that the article title that the IP editor chose is reasonable. This article should be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the disambiguation page, because it covers both the philosophy and the organization. If we follow WP:D, then this article should be titled Leave No Trace and the new dab should be titled Leave No Trace (disambiguation), and we need to add a hatnote on this article.

Thanks for listening! —hike395 (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have several points, which I've opted to break down:

• I was surprised to see a move Leave No Trace to Leave No Trace (organization), after the discussion that had occurred above (Separating the organization from the philosophy).
• After this move, Leave No Trace (organization) is now about the organization and the philosophy/principles. This does not make much sense.
• I still do not see a persuasive reason to split the overall all topic of leave no trace into two separate items on the principles and organization.
• On a lesser note towards Swarm, there is in fact a Leave No Trace (philosophy), but it it currently a redirect. Leave no trace (philosophy) is nonexistent.
• This whole discussion is starting verge on being a confusing mess of who is referring to what. Therefore I'm going to list each title and what I currently think it should be for:

1. Leave No Trace: Should be the primary article dealing with the principles and organization. It should have a hat-note to 4: Leave no trace (disambiguation).
2. Leave no trace: Should be a redirect to 1: Leave No Trace.
3. Leave No Trace (disambiguation): Should be a redirect to 4: Leave no trace (disambiguation).
4. Leave no trace (disambiguation): Should be a disambiguation page.
5. Leave No Trace (organization): Should be a redirect to Leave No Trace#Organization.
6. Leave no trace (organization): Does not exist, and it perhaps should be a redirect to Leave No Trace#Organization, if anything.
7. Leave No Trace (philosophy): Should be a redirect to Leave No Trace#Principles.
8. Leave no trace (philosophy): Should be a redirect to Leave No Trace#Principles.

• I can also see naming the primary article as 2: Leave no trace instead of 1: Leave No Trace.

–Sparkgap (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I contributed to the confusion, and now I regret creating the redirects. I fully support Sparkgap's precise suggestions 1-8. —hike395 (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I like these suggestions - IanCheesman (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

"Leave No Trace" is an organization. That organization is based on principles. However, the expression "leave no trace" does not necessarily refer to the organization, and can apply to principles other than those that fall under the organization. For that reason, "leave no trace" (which can refer to multiple things) should not redirect to "Leave No Trace" (which only refers to one thing, the organization). And to be clear, the "leave no trace philosophy" is not equivalent to the "principles of Leave No Trace" (which again, are an organizations principles and not a general concept. Swarm ^X 21:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Swarm. What evidence do you have that Leave No Trace, as a capitalized phrase, refers only to an organization? When I read books about hiking, the capitalized phrase generally refers to the philosophy. For example, see Chapter 7 of Mountaineering: The Freedom of the Hills, 8th edition, where the capitalized phrase is used extensively to refer to the principles. Do you see evidence of the use of the lower case phrase as a general concept, distinct from the organization's principles? I haven't: I've seen use of the term "minimum impact" (e.g., in the 6th edition of Mountaineering:TFotH) or "low impact".

I would accept moving this article to Leave no trace, to obey the Wikipedia style of eschewing capitalization, but I still think we should not separate the philosophy from the organization. —hike395 (talk) 05:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should separate the philosophy from the organization. I'm just saying, probably due to the organization's influence, that the term "leave no trace" can sometimes informally refer to the general concept of "leaving no trace", i.e. it can refer to minimum impact, and it can refer to pack it in, pack it out, etc. Yes, the organization's name refers to a certain set of principles, but the same phrase can refer to other things. So, just to be clear, is it your viewpoint that "leave no trace" cannot refer to anything other than the organization and its principles, and it's never used in a general sense whatsoever? It would be great if you could just clear that up, thanks. Swarm 05:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

i'm saying that the combination of philosophy and principle is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Leave No Trace" (however capitalized). To follow WP:D, this article needs to be moved to Leave No Trace or Leave no trace. All other meanings should be at Leave no trace (disambiguation). That is exactly what User:Sparkgap is proposing in 1-8, above. If you don't want to split the organization, and you agree that this article is the primary topic, then I would think that you would support Sparkgap's proposal. What do you think? —hike395 (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough point with a moderate solution, so in the interest of resolving this, I really have no objections and have filed the paperwork (i.e. made the changes in the proposal). Swarm 06:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done I moved this article and fixed some redirects. Thanks, everyone, for being reasonable and reaching consensus! —hike395 (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)