Wikipedia

Talk:The Duke of Edinburgh's Award/Archive 1

< Talk:The Duke of Edinburgh's Award
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Archive 1

DEAS

Isn't this the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme? DEAS? Its present in India too. I was a participant for a short time. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 5, 2005 15:12 (UTC)

Well, it calls itself the "Duke of Edinburgh’s Award" but yes, people often call it the "Duke of Edinburgh’s Award Scheme". Add a redirect if you think it would help. -- ALoan (Talk) 5 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)
I've added the necessary redirects. =Nichalp «Talk»= July 6, 2005 06:08 (UTC)

Still a stub?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is this article still a Great-Britain and Award stub, like it says at the bottom of the article? I agree it's not a very extensive article, but compared to other stubs, it's quite a bit bigger. So, I would remove the stub signs. What do you guys think? Goingin 14:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree- without violating NPOV and including personal experiences this article actually contains all relevent information, and is certainly long enough to remove stub status. I have today(!) completed my silver DofE and connot think of anything to add. For those interested my skill was Bridge (card game) my physical recreation was climbing and my service was CCF. My practice expedition was in the Cevennes in the South of France and the real thing was in the Lake district Oli 13:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I removed the stub warnings --Goingin 09:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Scouting?

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Why is this under Wikiproject Scouting? It doesn't really have anything related to scouting. Daniel (‽) 18:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I'm the project director. I'm removing the tag.Rlevse 18:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The Award shares alot in common with the main award sceme in scouting, many of the objectives are the same. Sometimes people also choose to undertake the community section of their awards by helping out with a scout group. It is also becoming common for the award to be done through schools. Would a section on this be appreciated if i wrote something? GoHike 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This award is required in both Scouts and Guides New Zealand to get the top award. The Queen Scout or Queen Guide. It is relevent to the Wikiproject Scouting 203.98.31.34 02:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Similarly the award is integrated into the UK Scout award system, although you can achive the Queens scout award without registering with DofE.Rankersbo (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Subcategory?

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'd just like to ask for some advise, I have written an article for the Cardiff University DofE Society and would like to link it to this article. I feel possibly the best way of doing this would be to make The Duke of Edinburgh's Award a subcatagory and then placing my artical within this. Would that be an aceptable way of doing this? GoHike 14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This would be a merge, if I understand what you are saying, as Fabrictramp (talk · contribs) proposed recently. I support the merge because the article Cardiff University DofE Award Society does not assert Notability or provide references. :: maelgwn - talk 06:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and carried out the merge. alex.muller (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
IMO, the section shouldn't exist at all, Cardiff's DoE branch is in no way more notable than any other. I recommend the section be removed completely. Grunners (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I actually agree with you – I've come across plenty of these kinds of groups, and I'd support you if you were to remove it. If there's no apparent dissent here (and judging by how infrequently the article is edited, there wouldn't be) you should go ahead and make the edit. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Done Grunners (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Time frame

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This section seems rather chatty, perhaps it's lifted from some writing elsewhere, not sure. ++Lar: t/c 14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Have tried to wikify the section as best I can without removing any of the basic content Bleaney (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

File:DofE-Logo-2008.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  An image used in this article, File:DofE-Logo-2008.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This article seems confused as to whether it is talking about:

  • An award
  • A programme
  • An organisation

It is also confused as to whether it is talking about something in 1 country or on a global scale

The entire tone of the article is promotional rather than informative.

Op47 (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the confusion. I don't fully agree about the tone being "promotional rather than informative." Although we must be cautious about conflict of interest, I'm not sure how the description of the requirements for a reward (which I assume is not-for-profit) could be "toned" differently. Perhaps you could elaborate? Thanks. Cresix (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
When I first read the article, I felt that the tone was not quite right, as if I were reading a promotional leaflet. Normally, I would not bother to tag the article and either allow other editors to sort it out or sort it out myself. However I noted that an editor had tried to correct this and was immediately reverted by an employee of the DofE with the edit comment "We prefer the less formal version!". Therefore, I placed the tone tags (and the many other tags) in the hope that other editors would not be disuaded from dealing with the problems. Op47 (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

(Dofedave (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC))The Duke of Edinburgh's Award is both a charity AND an Award that a young person achieves once they have undertaken the training programme. I think it is factual and informative, and is clear that it refers to the DofE in the UK, which influenced the growth of other programmes around the world, and which are linked to on the page. (I am a Scout Leader and my son is doing his Gold DofE Award)

The Duke of Edinburgh's Award is both a charity AND an Award that a young person achieves once they have undertaken the training programme. Fine, then perhaps that ought to be in the article as well as to indicate how one is to distinguish between the award and the charity.
I think it is factual and informative. I am not disputing this, I am disputing the tone with which the article has been delivered. Take as an example the point answered above. "The Duke of Edinburgh's Award is both a charity AND an Award" would have done. The rest of the answer is half as long again and appears to promote your agenda and ultimately hides the required answer. Another example would be the mini biography of John Hunt.
and is clear that it refers to the DofE in the UK. I am just a passing reader and did not understand this. I am just giving feedback that this is not the case.
which influenced the growth of other programmes around the world. Fine.
and which are linked to on the page. What are you referring to here? The UK DofE has copious links. The other countries just have links to articles on that country (apart from Canada and Israel).
(I am a Scout Leader and my son is doing his Gold DofE Award). I am happy for you, but I am not sure what this has to do with the matter at hand.
The kind of thing that I would be interested in seeing in this article from you would be:
  • Who's idea was it?
  • Why did they do it?
  • What did the Duke of Edinburgh have to do with it?
  • i.e. some of the history before the award became notable? Op47 (talk) 09:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Op47, I continue to agree that the article requires a lot of cleanup, but I still don't think the "tone" is inappropriate, and I especially don't agree with tagging the section with a "tone" tag simply because one COI editor made a change. There are a number of eyes on this article who do not have a COI. What specifically, beyond an edit by an employee of DofE, makes you think the tone is inappropriate? I understand the suggestions for content change above, but I want to know what you consider an inappropriate tone. Cresix (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The list

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding the list of award associations what does everyone think about stating the specific name of the organisation in that country (wherien it differs from the standard one anyway? Threadnecromancer (talk) 02:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer p.s. what is an independent operator? I think the article is somewhat unclear as to whether the Award's program exists in those countries or not.

International confusion:

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Two recent additions have erroneously appeared on this page, which is about the DofE in the UK. the two items relate strictly to the Award in australia and have therefore been moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Award_Association 15 Jan 2014

I made the additions but have no objections to this move. Thanks. BlueSalix (talk) 15:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sri Sathya Sai

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

a Reference has been added to show that the above organisation is not currently Licensed by The Duke of Edinburgh's Award in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.239.176 (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be original research so I've undone it, however, I'd be happy to discuss reinserting it. BlueSalix

I have re-inserted it as it is incorrect. Link added to published Trustees' Report which lists all current licensed organisations (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC) http://www.dofe.org/media/viewfile.ashx?FilePath=About%20us/DofE%20_Annual_Review_2012.pdf&filetype=4

Link added to the organisation's Annual review which shows the above is not a licensed organisation of the DofE, as the entry originally stated in error. User:DofEDave —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The link you've added says there are 675 licensed organizations, but does not include a list of all 675 organizations. Therefore, it fails establish Sri Sathya Sai is not currently a licensed organization of the DofE. While I, ultimately, think it's pretty safe to assume it's no longer licensed, it's unencyclopedic to make concrete statements without RS to back them up. BlueSalix (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I found a link on their website which has a list of DofE organisation operators - I haven't counted them though. http://www.dofe.org/go/lo/.94.195.239.176 (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to MERGE. BlueSalix (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
>

This is a very short entry and the award program is closely linked to the DofE International Awards which is even shorter and currently has virtually no references (a citation tag has been active on the page for more than a year). I propose merging these two pages. BlueSalix (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

These are two entirely separate Charities so they should remain distinct to avoid confusion. User:DofEDave 15 Jan 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The article is about the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards, which both organizations grant. The separation of the two organizations appears to be a legal convenience only in the same way many international corporations maintain two distinct statuses of incorporation (i.e. we have a single entry for Royal Dutch Shell, not separate entries for Royal Dutch Shell Portugal, Royal Dutch Shell Canada, etc.); they are two organizations founded by the Duke of Edinburgh, they both grant awards called "Duke of Edinburgh" awards, and they are both headlined at events by Prince Edward. I'm sure the nuances of their legal status can be explained in the merged article. BlueSalix (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
They are, however, two distinctly separate charities. The International Award (IA) is run in 140+ countries, which all operate separately, and have different names - such as the President's Award. The IA is the body above all of these national operators. If the IA page and the DofE (UK) page were combined, this would be inconsistent with all other national operators in the 140 other countries - to combine all these into one article would seem unnecessary and not easy for readers to find the article for the country or Award they were looking for. There are many charities who have Prince Philip or Prince Edward as their heads (NB: PE does not head the DofE in the UK), and these charities would obviously not be merged. Dofedave (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be WP precedent for having international awards programs grouped into a single article, instead of a separate article for each and every nation, most notably the Rhodes Scholarship. I think you're overstating how scandalized readers will be in having to search for the information they need; we're not talking about thousands of words of text here. These are two fairly concise entries. Anyway, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. BlueSalix (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's much of a problem. It only took you 20 words to explain it to the point that I understood the situation perfectly. I'm sure a single, robust, well-sectioned and appropriately sourced article would be able to account for this and be more beneficial than several disparate skeleton articles. BlueSalix (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge to create a new article about the various youth schemes around the world associated with the Duke of Edinburgh. The current article seems to attract some interest but the International Award Association one looks very quiet. By creating a generic article we could also discuss any D of E associations that are not notable enough to have their own articles. (The award is massive in the UK - I'm surprised the current article isn't better developed.) --Northernhenge (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Merge. I can't see anything in the IAA article at present that merits a standalone article. Maybe one of the two controversies is more directly relevant to the association than the award, but that's precious little to base a separate article on. Daniel Case (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inbetweeners

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The quote BlueSalix is using is irrelevant and is just one quote pulled at random for no apparent reason. There are plenty of other memorable quotes and plot synopsis elements which could also be used and which had indeed been added by a contributor and deleted by BlueSalix. The important element here is that this episode revolved around The Duke of Edinburgh's Award and any further description of the episode's content, and quotes, is surely best left to the episode's entry on Wikipedia. User:DofEDave Dofedave (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

The quote is not "at random for no apparent reason." The quote is directly in reference to the namesake of the DofE awards so is an important reflection on how they are characterized in popular culture; it offers a succinct and concise encapsulation of the way the scheme was referenced in the episode and is known among fans of the show as an iconic line. It's quite normal to include an encapsulating quote in an "in popular culture"/"cultural references" section of a WP article. For instance: Washington Generals cultural references. Also, I should like to note that the original way this was written - prior to my edit - is extremely promotional and makes it sound like this episode of the Inbetweeners was a somber documentary on the DofE awards, to wit: "Episode 5 of series 2 of The Inbetweeners is titled "The Duke of Edinburgh Awards." In it, Will McKenzie is picked by the headmaster to oversee the school's participation in the awards, with the team undertaking voluntery work in an old people's home." BlueSalix (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete Controversy Section / Add Notable Recipients

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Since the other two points of controversy have been, correctly, moved to the IA page, there is no longer a wide body of "controversy" attached to the awards and I would like to suggest, in keeping with WP:CRITS, the entire controversy section be deleted. If necessary, the content can be incorporated into the History section. Also, would anyone support adding a "notable recipients" section? It seems there are enough reasonably well-known recipients of DofE awards to make this a useful addition. BlueSalix (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense to incorporate it into the 'history' area as you suggest, as it was obviously a key moment in the organisation's history. I also agree that adding a 'notable recipients' section would be good... assuming the entries could be backed up of course!94.195.239.176 (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I am unhappy with the controversry section as it stands (and looking back at how it was a few days ago doesn't make me any happier). So: agree. Also, I'm not sure whether there's any relevance to the "Popular Culture" section: this is about a TV program and nothing at all about the DoE. Nick Levine (talk) 12:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps a new talk section can be started vis a vis the popular culture portion of the page - or at least this can be continued in the above section - so we can keep this discussion sorted neatly? BlueSalix (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
New section created. Nick Levine (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
While it's only been one day, given the low attention this page seems to receive, I think three persons in favor after 24 hours is reasonable to establish a consensus; unless anyone objects I think the changes should be made now. BlueSalix (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with combining controversy into history now... I also agree with NickLevine that the popular culture entry doesn't really fit well on this article.94.195.239.176 (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given its contents, I'm not sure whether there's any relevance to the "Popular Culture" section: this is about a TV program and nothing at all about the DoE. Nick Levine (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Including, when available, an "in popular culture" section is fundamental to Wikipedia articles. Per WP:POPCULTURE: such sections can positively distinguish Wikipedia from more traditional encyclopedias. See, for example: Royal Navy ("in popular culture" section), Antonio Vivaldi ("in popular culture" section), New York Public Library ("in popular culture" section), Harlem Globetrotters ("in popular culture" section), etc., etc. This article isn't supposed to be a publicity pamphlet for the DofE awards, it's intended to be an accurate and comprehensive (though not exhaustive) summary of what it is, and how it's perceived and reflected in the zeitgeist. To expunge a one-sentence acknowledgment that the awards scheme was the entire name and plotline of an episode of one of the highest-rated TV shows in recent history would be extremely bizarre and break WP precedent. BlueSalix (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger Redux

Latest comment: 10 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to NOT TO MERGE. BlueSalix (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
>

I propose Gaisce – The President's Award be merged with this article. BlueSalix (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose, as per BlueSalixs' point above "The article is about the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards, which both organizations grant", Gaisce only give the Presidents Award. Gaisce maybe an associate member of the IAA, they where formed three years prior to joining - I have corrected the entry on that page. As I pointed out above those participents in Northern Ireland can choose between the three awards. Murry1975 (talk) 10:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment First, to clarify, per the previous merge, all awards programs titled or modeled after the Duke of Edinburgh's Awards - operating under a variety of nation-specific names - have been merged into this article with the shuttering of the separate stub entry "International Awards Association." While this entry was previously about the organization "Duke of Edinburgh's Award," it is now about the actual award called "Duke of Edinburgh's Award," which operates under a variety of names in different nations and is granted by a multitude of sponsors. If these two articles are not merged, then the largest such program - that of the UK - will be one in a list of awards in this article, while tiny little Ireland will have its entirely own article, which would be a bizarre state-of-affairs.
Second, it bears noting that the entire DoE program in every country is almost totally absent any secondary RS. Both of these articles rely almost exclusively on primary sources to the awards websites themselves and I have had great difficulty finding any secondary sources outside celebrity gossip mags reporting on the appearance of various tertiary members of the Fam at awards events. Common sense would dictate the awards are notable, however, it's a very unusual and problematic situation since, if we were to judge it solely on the breadth of RS (which I'm not suggesting we do), the awards essentially don't exist, or are at most a PR vehicle for jobless princes like Phil, Andy, and Ed. I've done my best to legitimize this article by uploading several (CC BY) images but we're really rolling a boulder uphill on this one. BlueSalix (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
But its not a DOE award, you cant do the DOE award in Ireland- you can do the DOE in the other IAA countries. Also "tiny little Ireland will have its entirely own article", BlueSalix, "tiny little Ireland" has its own articles on here in many comparitive feilds, so thats not an encyclopedic problem. Murry1975 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
And I now see you have done some research and added "all awards programs titled or modeled after", but you contradict yourself in your second amendment "it bears noting that the entire DoE program in every country". Gaisce is not a DOE programme. I agree its weakly sourced, that itself is not a point for merger to a relative field- that by the way will not improve references for the section merged in. And most of your second point bears nothing to the merger- which confusses me as why you added it here. And leave comments in correct time line on this discussion. Murry1975 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Not true; like Ireland, you can't do the DofE award in India, Argentina, etc. Those Duke of Edinburgh International Award Association programs also operate under indigenous naming schemes. Anyway, it seems like the easier solution is just to nominate the Gaisce article for deletion for lack of GNG due to absence of RS if it's not part of the DofE IAA. BlueSalix (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Stop moving comments. Murry1975 (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm moving my comments back to where they were originally before you moved them - as shown in this diff. I was responding to my own nomination, not your comment. You moved it. If you move my posts again so it appears I'm responding to your comment, or if you persist in using foul language in your edits, you will be reported disruptive editing. You're creating an extreme amount of confusion in this Talk section, with the apparent intent of derailing the discussion to avoid this merger. BlueSalix (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose for now. Whilst there are source issues, there is enough information in the Gaisce article for it to merit its own article especially when compared to the DoEA article. "with the apparent intent of derailing the discussion to avoid this merger." - not the first time in the past week that BlueSalix has come out with accusative nonsense based on nothing but wrong assumptions. Mabuska (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Also looking at the comment placement thing, BlueSalix your method adds to the confusion, though yes Murry1975 shouldn't have moved them. Mabuska (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Moving forward, please limit this discussion to the topic of merger. I would rather you and Murry1975 not use this thread to re-fight your differences as to the last 800 years of Irish history. We're here to discuss a simple Wikipedia two-article merger. I appreciate the support with respect to the movement of quotes, but it's not necessary. Let's stick to topic. (Also, please indent your comment so it's correctly threaded.) Thanks, Mabuska! BlueSalix (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll indent my comment how I see fit and I don't want your thanks. On topic - as already stated I oppose.

Off topic: so you can chastise Murry for cursing and moving comments to a proper chronology, yet demand we move forward and discuss just the topic when your actions are questioned? I can see why Murry cursed in his edit summary, I feel like cursing at you too considering the absolute bullshit you are coming out with. How am I and Murry re-fighting differences in regards to 800 years of Irish history here? How often do me and Murry even fight? I agree with his objection to your proposal! I seriously suggest you stop making false accusations and trying to ignore your own arrogant and presumptive behaviour. Mabuska (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stick to discussing the merger. Second request. Also, "I feel like cursing at you too considering the absolute bullshit you are coming out with" is just not the style of discourse I'm looking for in this - or any - discussion. Please make the choice to engage other editors in a restrained and professional manner. Thanks, Mabuska! BlueSalix (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Still no explanation or apology for your off-topic false accusation and yet you patronise about engaging with "other editors in a restrained and professional manner."? If you don't like the style of discourse I came out with, well I don't like yours and see it as quite antagonising. All because you don't want to acknowledge your guilt and apologise! Mabuska (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose As the Gaisce website says, "similar Award programme exists in 135 countries worldwide." Not all of these are Duke of Edinburgh Awards but they are all co-ordinated by the Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award Association:

    "These Award programmes take their standards from and are coordinated by the Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award Association (IAA) in London. The IAA has a triennial conference known as a World Forum which governs the Award worldwide and is administered between forums on an annual basis by the International Council. Gaisce is a fully accredited and highly thought of member of the IAA and is a member of the International Council at present."


    The President's Award (Gaisce) has a closer relationship to the Duke of Edinburgh Award than most because, through joint initiate, the President's Award and/or the Duke of Edinburgh Award is given in Northern Ireland (or the recipient can opt to receive neither). However, the two are not the same award.
    Possibly a more appropriate solution would be to break this article up between the Duke of Edinburgh's Award and the Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award Association. Also mention here how in Northern Ireland, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award and/or the President's Award (or neither) can be accepted in place of one another would not go astray. --Tóraí (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose Though affiliated to it, the Gaisce award is a separate and distinct from a DofE award. I fail to see the logic behind this request. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

You really should give it a bit longer than 2 days before you close. Sometimes a week is better so more people can see and leave an opinion. Mabuska (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I felt this was a pretty technical/routine merger to accommodate the fact we'd just - the day before - merged all DofE IAA affiliated programs (the IY Award, the Prince Mohato Award, the Canadian DofE award), etc. - into this single master article. Since there was a rapidly emerging consensus Ireland was not a DofE program, the merely technical nature of this merger no longer seemed applicable and I made a bold decision to end the discussion and withdraw my merge proposal. If this was premature, then I apologize and I have no issue if someone would like to reopen the merger. BlueSalix (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
@BlueSalix and Mabuska: On that merge, I don't think the decision to merge was appropriate. Aside from yourself, there were four participants, evenly split. I see you both proposed the merge and decided consensus was to merge? I think an undo is appropriate. How would you be about that? --Tóraí (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Five people participated, of those five: 3 supported a merge, 1 had no opinion, and 1 (a COI editor) opposed the merge. The discussion was open for two weeks, which is less than 30 days, however, this was also an extremely lightly trafficked article. I'm confident, all things considered, this represented a consensus (75% of those expressing an opinion supported a merger after thorough discussion, the 25% opposed represented COI editors only). I'm unclear on what grounds we would unilaterally undo it, however, if there is a case I'm certainly open to hear it. BlueSalix (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm now totally confused. Firstly at Torai, I never proposed the merge never mind the fact I opposed it from the onset. Secondly, what consensus is being discussed here? I see a proposal for a merge by BlueSalix to which all who responded opposed it. So what are you two talking about? Mabuska (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2014

As is most likely the case you are both referring to a different discussion I was not part of, which seems to be the case. Mabuska (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem, it's a confusing situation ... I can try to explain. At one time there was an article called "Duke of Edinburgh's Award" which was an article about the crown charter corporation "Duke of Edinburgh's Award" which organizes the "Duke of Edinburgh's Awards." There was a separate article called "International Awards Association" which organizes "Canadian Duke of Edinburgh's Awards," and "International Youth Awards [India]" and "Prince Mohato Awards [Lesotho]" etc., all based on the original four-part criteria created by the original UK-based DofE program in 1956. Earlier this month a discussion was had and it was determined that, while the awards these two non-profit companies offered were notable, the companies themselves were not, therefore, a single master article encompassing the "awards" be created, to reside on this page (ergo, the DofE infobox was changed from the organization infobox to the Awards infobox). BlueSalix (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to propose it be slit again. --Tóraí (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem! I don't mind alerting the editors from the previous discussion, if you want? I'm not sure how many of them actively watch this page. BlueSalix (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaisce Deletion

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I made, what I felt, should be a routine deletion of Gaisce from the list of programs operating under the DofE scheme as consensus above ("Merger Redux") was that Gaisce was not a DofE/Duke of Edinburgh International Awards Association program like the Prince Mohato Award and other DofE programs in other countries operating under different names, which is the reason we'd decided not to merge it here like we have done with the other 120 DofE IAA programs. Wee Curry Monster came out of semi-retirement to delete my edit with the comment "find something useful to do." I'd now like to bring this to talk to discuss if there is a consensus. My feeling is that this article - titled "Duke of Edinburgh's Award" - should deal with the Duke of Edinburgh's Award as it operates under its various names (International Youth Award, Prince Mohato Award, etc.). Awards that are not DofE awards, such as Gaisce, or the Oscars, or the French Legion of Merit, etc., should not be contained in this article (but certainly we can put any of those in "See Also"). Thoughts/opinions? BlueSalix (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware it is affiliated with the DoEA unlike the Oscars etc. Mabuska (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
"...consensus above ("Merger Redux") was that Gaisce was not a DofE/Duke of Edinburgh International Awards Association program..." Eh, no. Consensus was that it was an IAA program. But that the Duke of Edinburgh's Award and the IAA are two separate things. The Duke of Edinburgh's Award AND the President's Award (along with 130 odd other awards) are separate awards but both IAA programs.
Like above, I think the best approach is to re-instated the IAA article. --Tóraí (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's a very odd state-of-affairs we now have -- all DofE IAA programs are lumped into one article except for one: Gaisce (which gets its own). That was the reason I proposed the merge and, frankly, thought it would be a cut-and-dry no-brainer because of the strange arrangement that would result were it not approve. However, to my surprise, that merger was rejected and I accept that. Now we have to try to make this arrangement as sensible as possible, realizing it's a little non-sensible right out of the gate. However, simply undoing a merger (to merge DofE IAA programs into the DofE program) that was decided after several weeks of discussion and consensus is really not fair to the editors who stuck it out and helped with the original issue. I'm certainly open to an immediate appeal to RfC, though, which might help us sort through it. What do you think? Alternatively, perhaps this entire article should just be renamed "International Awards Programs?" (Keep in mind all of these programs are virtually entirely devoid of RS except when scandals occur; my original impetus was to avoid the inevitable multiple AfDs by corralling all DofE IAA programs into a single master article - if we start splitting stuff apart again we'll end up with a situation in which all these unsourced stubs are ripe for the picking of GNG AfDs, which I don't think any of us want to see happen. That was one reason I went to all the effort to track down and upload historic awards photos from Canada, Australia, etc. At least those could help bulk this up a bit in the absence of any RS.) BlueSalix (talk) 23:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments on the lack of merit on the merger proposal were not Carte Blanche to delete that section of the article. As an affiliate of the DofE scheme it merits a brief mention here and its own article (emphasis added). By all means suggest a reasonable restructuring of the article but I have to comment given the merger discussion above you have a tendency to comment on editors not content. Please stop doing so, its dull and interesting - like I said find something better to do. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with, but appreciate and respect, your first two and a half sentences of comment. I'm not sure why you felt you needed to get a couple kicks in with the last two and a half sentences, though. Calling editors "dull and uninteresting" and telling them to "find something better to do" is going to have the effect, whether intended or not, of provoking reactions and should be avoided. I didn't say anything in my comment to which you replied that made me deserve the treatment you chose to mete out to me. Anyway, water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned; let's get back to the topic. BlueSalix (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger reversal

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

We've had two merger proposals this month. One was to merge the article on the International Award Association in here. The other was to do the same with the article on The President's Award.

The first proposal has acted upon but the second proposal, I believe, exposed problems with the thinking behind the that initial merger. Consequently, I propose the initial merger be reversed (or be done the other way around).

The International Award Association (IAA, website) is an umbrella organisation for these kinds of awards. The Duke of Edinburgh's Award (UK, website, aka DoE), which this article is about, was the founding award of the IAA. But other awards exist also under the IAA umbrella. The President's Award (Ireland, website, aka Gaisce), which was founded independently, being another one.

The appropriate structure would be to have an article on the overall umbrella organisation and its award giving. Then either have (a) no articles on individual awards (such as the DoE award or Gaisce) or (b) articles on notable individual awards (e.g. DoE and Gaisce).

I expect option (b) would be more favourable, so I propose that this article deal with the UK award only and that the International Award Association article be re-created dealing with the overall umbrella organisation, it's awards giving and list the various national awards it governs (including the DoE and Gaisce). --Tóraí (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Support Sensible approach for the articles to reflect the way it operates. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment/Questions If this un-merger were approved, based on what you've outlined, it sounds like like all IAA award articles (such as Gaisce) would be compiled into a single "master" article called "International Awards Association?" In other words, we would no longer have an independent Gaisce article? Or would we have 120 separate articles for each of the IAA affiliated awards (India's International Youth Award, Ireland's President's Award, Lesotho's Prince Mohato Award, Swaziland's Prince Makhosini Award, etc.)? BlueSalix (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
    Option (b) — which I am proposing — would have one IAA article and whatever number of individual articles on sufficiently notable IAA-affiliated awards (such as Gaisce and DoE). --Tóraí (talk) 19:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the clarification! BlueSalix (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose The original merger occurred due to none of these topics having sufficient RS to survive possible AfDs, and all of them dealing with the same program simply recreated in different countries: (a) youth awards based on the 4-part Kurt Hahn methodology, (b) the three-part award modus (bronze, silver, gold), (c) affiliated with the same master sponsoring organization (the International Award Association). All other differences are very minor and historic and can be addressed in national sub-sections of this master article. We have one article for Royal Dutch Shell, but not separate articles for Shell Brazil and Shell USA and Shell Germany, even though these all have distinct legal personalities. To compare this to other awards, we have a single article for Rhodes Scholarships, not one for Rhodes Scholars Hong Kong, Rhodes Scholars U.S., etc. Having said this, I would be open to changing the name of this article from "Duke of Edinburgh's Awards" to the generic international name it uses "International Awards for Youth," which would probably be far more accurate and, I feel, would assuage some of the reasonable issues people have with seeing their local awards grouped under the DofE banner. Within that article you could have sections "Prince Mohato Award [Lestohtho]," "Gaisce [Ireland]," "Duke of Edinburgh's Award [UK]", etc. BlueSalix (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
    The difference between Rhodes Scholarships or subsidiaries of Royal Dutch Shell and these awards is that the IAA-affiliated awards aren't the same award, local instances of the same award, or subsidiaries of some over-arching corporation. They are all individual and independent awards. They exist in their own right irrespective of their affiliation with the IAA.
    A more appropriate comparison would be for you to say that we cannot have an article on the UK's The Scout Association or Ireland's Scouting Ireland because we already have an article on the World Organization of the Scout Movement to which they are both affiliated.
    With respect to RS, if there is no RS to support material, it doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Whether the material exists in an article of its own or a compendium doesn't change this. All material added to the encyclopedia must be verifiable. --Tóraí (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support the outline of option B and Torai's explanation of what it would mean. Mabuska (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I like the article as it stands now.Dofedave (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
    • NOTE Dofedave is the "Website & Publications Manager at The Duke of Edinburgh's Award" and has been blocked according to policy. Murry1975 (talk) 11:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"The Duke of Edinburgh Awards"

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The usage of The Duke of Edinburgh Awards is under discussion, see talk:The Duke of Edinburgh Awards -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to make clear that it's a television episode being referred to here, not this article. I was stumped for awhile, thinking the previous post linked backed here. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Duke of Edinburgh's Award. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, later snapshots not being retrieved. Will re-work, pointing to earlier. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Duke of Edinburgh's Award. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Duke of Edinburgh's Award. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Duke_of_Edinburgh%27s_Award/Archive_1&oldid=1137232006"