This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
(this section pasted in from Wikipedia Scouting Project ToDo article discussion section)
An item on the "to do " list is: "Defunct BSA High Adventure bases: National High Adventure bases such as Maine, Land Between the Lakes, Region 7 Canoe Base."
And I wrote in: "I could do most of a Region 7 article (though the base has had 2 names) Or should it be one article for all defunct BSA HA bases?"
There was no response.....I probably wrote it in the wrong place. I have a lot of expertise/knowledge on the Region 7 base. My article would be a little heavy on OR vs. sources, (and I would put it into the main article space that way) but I don't mind taking the risk of dealing with that issue. But, to take it on, I would like some reading on notability from this group before I started, and thus support on notability in the event that I proceed and a notability issue arises. And a reading on advisability and notability of a Region 7 article specifically, vs. a "Defunct BSA High Adventure bases" which I could also start where the initial content would primarily be just on the one base.
What do y'all think? North8000 (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
As you see from the section right above, there is little discussion here. Being from Oz, I have no knowledge of these bases. However, I suggest you add material to some other Scouting article - State, Council, Region or whatever. Then if discussion starts on the talk page you can argue for forking it off into a separate article. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Where in Australia is OZ? We know how to get there from Kansas via a tornado, but that's about it. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree: start it in one of those articles and see how it grows. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine except that I can't find a place for it. Current BSA high adventure bases each have their own article. The main BSA article is overly brief in proportion to it's huge scope (100 year old multimillion person organization) and doesn't even have a high adventure bases section. And the task of a Wikipedian grade summary of other current and past BSA high adventure bases is beyond my time limitations.
Plan A: The best idea I can come up with is a new "BSA High Adventure Bases" article with very brief summaries on the current ones with links to the Wikipedia articles, then a section on past ones, with real coverage of Region 7, and mentions of the other defunct ones. Presumably the summaries of the current ones and the other defunct ones would grow over time at which point the "BSA High Adventure Bases" would become a good article.
End of pasted in protion North8000 ( talk) 14:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The title should be "High adventure bases of the Boy Scouts of America." We don't need to worry about it until it goes live. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Include Mortimer L. Schiff Scout Reservation? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't really a high adventure base. But it was in a very small club (like only 1 or 2 beyond high adventure bases) of "national camps". I lean towards putting it in anyway, but noting that it was not actually a high adventure base. North8000 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC).
At what point is this article "good enough" to be out there amongst the rest of the wikipedia pages? I think it is there or very close to there now, and suggest moving it to its own page. More edits will obviously happen, as that is a goal of wikis, but all the main details are there. - IanCheesman ( talk) 17:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gadget850
Nice fix on the picture
When I took it I was wrestling with what to do with the graphics beinng at a different angle than the patch border. And so I went with aligning it to graphics. You chose the better solution which was the "average" of the two. North8000 ( talk) 14:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm done with my main initial work. (unless there are issues)
I think that the title should be per Gadget850's recommendation.
I thought I'd throw this question out and wait a week for thoughts: Time to go live?
If so, who should put it up?
North8000 ( talk) 12:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The lede is wrong. It should start "BSA High Adventure Bases are .." Perhaps "BSA High Adventure Bases are high adventure facilities operated by the Boy Scouts of America at the national or regional level." I'm not sure about how to explain this is also about past bases. BTW, "Oz" is just an abbreviation for Australia. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I got a lot of additional information and knowledge material from Bruce Richardson's Region 7 Web site. He has put a huge amount of work into it. I want to make sure to credit (reference) his work fully and prominently. I have used / credited his site on one top level reference and one deep (on particular history item) reference. North8000 ( talk) 21:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that I'm about done for now. Not that it can't be expanded / improved over time. How 'bout everybody else?
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of expanding descriptions on the references that I put in, but then thought that maybe this would be wrong, particularly since I know gadget850 has worked on some of them. For example, wherever the reference is a web site or section of a web site to say so, when it's a magazine to say so etc. Or would this be contrary to the norms? North8000 ( talk) 14:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Time to go live? And if so, what's next? No big hurry, but from my end I'm pretty much done for now.
And after that the Main BSA article has zero on high adventure bases. My thought would be a 2-3 sentence section in there on high adventure bases with internal links to this article plus the individual articles on the current high adventure bases.
North8000 ( talk) 13:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose that sometime during the last week of April or the first week of May that Gadget850 or me moves this into main article space under the title "High adventure bases of the Boy Scouts of America" North8000 ( talk) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it make more sense to use what is here to improve the various bases' individual articles, create an article for the former bases (or even individual articles for each former base), and create an article for the one other base in development that does not already have its own article (assuming notability can be shown), and then turn this article into a list article with a brief lead explaining the connection between them? It doesn't seem there is much about them as a group that makes discussion of them as a group worthwhile (instead of individually) other than the fact they all happen to be run by BSA at the national level. If there were more to say about them collectively (like, e.g., there is at National Park Service which discusses the collective history of U.S. national parks and the service making that article have content independent from, if complementary to, that of each particular national park), I would lean the other way. But it is not there now and I can't imagine there being much of that sort to add. Novaseminary ( talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we should drop the top level template on this regarding source types, with several thoughts leading to this. First, as far as I can see, the "affiliated with" is template wording and not policy. Most importantly, the provided sources are reliable with respect to the material which uses them. BSA is a decentralized multi-million person organization. I don't think it useful to categorically classify writings from any element of it about any other element of it as being primary to too close too constitute a reliable source, particularly for the nature of material in the article. The material in here is mostly detailed, uncontested facts of the type that outside media is not prone to covering. And certainly within the realm where primary sources are fine. Any issues can be addressed individually, IMHO it does not need or benefit from such a template sitting at the top of the article page forever. What do you think? North8000 ( talk) 11:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, they are not combined. You have to do a separate search on http:\\books.google.com. Here is the one search I referred to above. You can limit it to books/magazines with full text (by selecting it on the left), but even getting hits to sources you can't read in full on google can still give you leads. Novaseminary ( talk) 01:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Glattonfolly, nice additions to the Main High Adventure section.
We should find a place to put that one deleted source back in.
Can you find any sources to add for the new material?
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC) North8000 ( talk) 23:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I originally chose "Region 7" because that was it's name for the majority of it's existence. The one reference that spans it's entire existence also calls it that. An editor changed it to "Norther Wisconsin National Canoe Base" I think that the merits of that would be that that was it's most recent name.
What do y'all think is the best name? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 00:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Northern Wisconsin National High Adventure was the final name, changed for consistency. Similarly, the Northern Tier program is the most current name and is references as-is. However, for the majority of Northern Tier of its existence (until late 70's) was called in some form as Charles L. Sommers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.140.247 ( talk) 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems more consistent use the title of the final or current name of all high adventure bases. Kind of a contrast, if you were to consistently use the longer tenured name this would be confusing for Northern Tier. Most of the current material I have seen references the closed program as Northern Wisconsin National Canoe Base. The SAA in it's FAQ for the Triple Crown has chosen to reference the Northern Wisconsin instead of Region 7. I've met a lot of folks who are still upset over the closing, I'm sure this drives some the conflict over the name. (by 76.199.158.208)
Looks like the Summit is not the high adventure base, it is the Paul R. Christen National High Adventure Base. [1] -- Gadget850 talk 16:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High Adventure Bases of the Boy Scouts of America. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on High Adventure Bases of the Boy Scouts of America. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
(this section pasted in from Wikipedia Scouting Project ToDo article discussion section)
An item on the "to do " list is: "Defunct BSA High Adventure bases: National High Adventure bases such as Maine, Land Between the Lakes, Region 7 Canoe Base."
And I wrote in: "I could do most of a Region 7 article (though the base has had 2 names) Or should it be one article for all defunct BSA HA bases?"
There was no response.....I probably wrote it in the wrong place. I have a lot of expertise/knowledge on the Region 7 base. My article would be a little heavy on OR vs. sources, (and I would put it into the main article space that way) but I don't mind taking the risk of dealing with that issue. But, to take it on, I would like some reading on notability from this group before I started, and thus support on notability in the event that I proceed and a notability issue arises. And a reading on advisability and notability of a Region 7 article specifically, vs. a "Defunct BSA High Adventure bases" which I could also start where the initial content would primarily be just on the one base.
What do y'all think? North8000 (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
As you see from the section right above, there is little discussion here. Being from Oz, I have no knowledge of these bases. However, I suggest you add material to some other Scouting article - State, Council, Region or whatever. Then if discussion starts on the talk page you can argue for forking it off into a separate article. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Where in Australia is OZ? We know how to get there from Kansas via a tornado, but that's about it. North8000 (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Agree: start it in one of those articles and see how it grows. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Fine except that I can't find a place for it. Current BSA high adventure bases each have their own article. The main BSA article is overly brief in proportion to it's huge scope (100 year old multimillion person organization) and doesn't even have a high adventure bases section. And the task of a Wikipedian grade summary of other current and past BSA high adventure bases is beyond my time limitations.
Plan A: The best idea I can come up with is a new "BSA High Adventure Bases" article with very brief summaries on the current ones with links to the Wikipedia articles, then a section on past ones, with real coverage of Region 7, and mentions of the other defunct ones. Presumably the summaries of the current ones and the other defunct ones would grow over time at which point the "BSA High Adventure Bases" would become a good article.
End of pasted in protion North8000 ( talk) 14:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
The title should be "High adventure bases of the Boy Scouts of America." We don't need to worry about it until it goes live. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Include Mortimer L. Schiff Scout Reservation? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't really a high adventure base. But it was in a very small club (like only 1 or 2 beyond high adventure bases) of "national camps". I lean towards putting it in anyway, but noting that it was not actually a high adventure base. North8000 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC).
At what point is this article "good enough" to be out there amongst the rest of the wikipedia pages? I think it is there or very close to there now, and suggest moving it to its own page. More edits will obviously happen, as that is a goal of wikis, but all the main details are there. - IanCheesman ( talk) 17:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gadget850
Nice fix on the picture
When I took it I was wrestling with what to do with the graphics beinng at a different angle than the patch border. And so I went with aligning it to graphics. You chose the better solution which was the "average" of the two. North8000 ( talk) 14:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm done with my main initial work. (unless there are issues)
I think that the title should be per Gadget850's recommendation.
I thought I'd throw this question out and wait a week for thoughts: Time to go live?
If so, who should put it up?
North8000 ( talk) 12:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The lede is wrong. It should start "BSA High Adventure Bases are .." Perhaps "BSA High Adventure Bases are high adventure facilities operated by the Boy Scouts of America at the national or regional level." I'm not sure about how to explain this is also about past bases. BTW, "Oz" is just an abbreviation for Australia. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I got a lot of additional information and knowledge material from Bruce Richardson's Region 7 Web site. He has put a huge amount of work into it. I want to make sure to credit (reference) his work fully and prominently. I have used / credited his site on one top level reference and one deep (on particular history item) reference. North8000 ( talk) 21:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I think that I'm about done for now. Not that it can't be expanded / improved over time. How 'bout everybody else?
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking of expanding descriptions on the references that I put in, but then thought that maybe this would be wrong, particularly since I know gadget850 has worked on some of them. For example, wherever the reference is a web site or section of a web site to say so, when it's a magazine to say so etc. Or would this be contrary to the norms? North8000 ( talk) 14:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Time to go live? And if so, what's next? No big hurry, but from my end I'm pretty much done for now.
And after that the Main BSA article has zero on high adventure bases. My thought would be a 2-3 sentence section in there on high adventure bases with internal links to this article plus the individual articles on the current high adventure bases.
North8000 ( talk) 13:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I propose that sometime during the last week of April or the first week of May that Gadget850 or me moves this into main article space under the title "High adventure bases of the Boy Scouts of America" North8000 ( talk) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Would it make more sense to use what is here to improve the various bases' individual articles, create an article for the former bases (or even individual articles for each former base), and create an article for the one other base in development that does not already have its own article (assuming notability can be shown), and then turn this article into a list article with a brief lead explaining the connection between them? It doesn't seem there is much about them as a group that makes discussion of them as a group worthwhile (instead of individually) other than the fact they all happen to be run by BSA at the national level. If there were more to say about them collectively (like, e.g., there is at National Park Service which discusses the collective history of U.S. national parks and the service making that article have content independent from, if complementary to, that of each particular national park), I would lean the other way. But it is not there now and I can't imagine there being much of that sort to add. Novaseminary ( talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we should drop the top level template on this regarding source types, with several thoughts leading to this. First, as far as I can see, the "affiliated with" is template wording and not policy. Most importantly, the provided sources are reliable with respect to the material which uses them. BSA is a decentralized multi-million person organization. I don't think it useful to categorically classify writings from any element of it about any other element of it as being primary to too close too constitute a reliable source, particularly for the nature of material in the article. The material in here is mostly detailed, uncontested facts of the type that outside media is not prone to covering. And certainly within the realm where primary sources are fine. Any issues can be addressed individually, IMHO it does not need or benefit from such a template sitting at the top of the article page forever. What do you think? North8000 ( talk) 11:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, they are not combined. You have to do a separate search on http:\\books.google.com. Here is the one search I referred to above. You can limit it to books/magazines with full text (by selecting it on the left), but even getting hits to sources you can't read in full on google can still give you leads. Novaseminary ( talk) 01:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Glattonfolly, nice additions to the Main High Adventure section.
We should find a place to put that one deleted source back in.
Can you find any sources to add for the new material?
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC) North8000 ( talk) 23:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I originally chose "Region 7" because that was it's name for the majority of it's existence. The one reference that spans it's entire existence also calls it that. An editor changed it to "Norther Wisconsin National Canoe Base" I think that the merits of that would be that that was it's most recent name.
What do y'all think is the best name? Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 00:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Northern Wisconsin National High Adventure was the final name, changed for consistency. Similarly, the Northern Tier program is the most current name and is references as-is. However, for the majority of Northern Tier of its existence (until late 70's) was called in some form as Charles L. Sommers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.140.247 ( talk) 02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems more consistent use the title of the final or current name of all high adventure bases. Kind of a contrast, if you were to consistently use the longer tenured name this would be confusing for Northern Tier. Most of the current material I have seen references the closed program as Northern Wisconsin National Canoe Base. The SAA in it's FAQ for the Triple Crown has chosen to reference the Northern Wisconsin instead of Region 7. I've met a lot of folks who are still upset over the closing, I'm sure this drives some the conflict over the name. (by 76.199.158.208)
Looks like the Summit is not the high adventure base, it is the Paul R. Christen National High Adventure Base. [1] -- Gadget850 talk 16:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High Adventure Bases of the Boy Scouts of America. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on High Adventure Bases of the Boy Scouts of America. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)