This list meets all of the criteria for a featured list. Images used in the article have been checked for the approriate useages. Clearly defined criteria for inclusion on the list is outlined on the
Talk page. This is a self-nomination. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose The main reason being the lack on inline citations for each and every person. Have a look at the other FL of people (and the list of Telecaster players below) for how this can be done. I believe
VegaDark is working on doing a similar transformation to
List of Oregon State University people (currently in his own sandbox) – you might find it helpful to discuss with him due to the similarities of the lists. Other issues:
Images CFJ3.jpg, William Hanna01.jpg, TIME Magazine Dec. 12, 2005.jpg, Ray Suarez.jpg and Samwalton.jpg are copyright and a fair use claim is not supportable for this list. They should be removed or a free alternative found.
Thanks- the images in question have been removed. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)
The Gold Eagle.jpg icon should really be a PNG. Saving it as a JPG has made it fuzzy. Have a look at the Help on images. Its size is a little intrusive. Consider making it smaller or just use some other indicator, perhaps just a coloured text character such as a golden •.
Many of the sources don't count as
reliable. Personal (or local scout troop) web sites might be just about OK for the occasional citation here and there (where they give a bio for somebody for example) but the ones that have huge unsourced lists are not acceptable. NNDB is also not a reliable source, as it is largely reader-sourced. The official scouting web sites (.org addresses) are a better bet. Sorry if this means a lot of your names don't have reliable sources. Wikipedia is only as good as its foundation.
I removed NNDB- this is a known suspect source that I did not notice had creeped back in. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)
The Troop 179 references are compiled from BSA information and are known to be reliable. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)
So- we need a cite for each entry? We have ensured that each of the linked articles have a proper citation. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)
OK- we will work that. Every article has been carefully cited, so it is just a matter of copying those cites to the list. Many are going to be duplicated from one of the canonical lists, so that cuts a bit of work. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)16:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)reply
You need cites for all the incorrect names too. If you can't find some right now, move those to the talk page.
Your Troop & Pack 179 ref is repeated several times. Is it too long that it breaks wiki or do you just think it looks nicer in chunks? Some may think it devious to hide how often this ref is relied on ;-).
The statistics in the lead need citations.
The last sentence in the lead needs backing up with a good source - otherwise it just looks like your opinion.
It is a pretty long list, which makes it less interesting to browse IMO. I wonder if you would consider chopping it into chunks based on profession. E.g. Sports, Politics, Arts, Military, Astronauts, ... Then folk can get a feel for where these scouts ended up. Does anyone else think that's a good idea? It would be a bit of effort, but I think it might be worth it.
Yes, the are so many using the T179 ref that it breaks wiki, so we had to break it up. I built that page from a official hard copy from BSA. I think it's better in alpha order, otherwise, you'd have to look at each topic to find someone whom you weren't familiar with.
Rlevse23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)reply
If you take a look at the reference section in this
older version, you will see that cite.php kinda blows up after the bz tag. Breaking it up was the only way I could figure to fix it- I welcome any other way to do this. The T179 reference is a known good cite, based on a compilation of BSA information. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)reply
The lead cites are complete.
I removed the last sentence as an unsourced opinion.
Splitting by profession... is Bill Bradley more famous as a basketball player or a politician? Most astronauts were/are military, many politicians were military. Many of the folks had multiple careers. I welcome any thoughts on this, but the only way I can see this is to split it into separate articles with a lot of overlap.
Support I think my serious objections have been addressed. Grouping has been done successfully on other people lists. I wouldn't get too worried if there is overlap. Just pick what you think it the natural group for what they were most notable for. Wrt finding someone you weren't familiar with: 1) If you don't know them well enough to know why they were famous, then why on earth would you be interested in whether they were an Eagle Scout and 2) All browsers have a Find feature.
Colin°
Talk16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I highly object to grouping. Alphabetical makes far more sense to me. Colin's item one only makes sense for an educated adult--what about a young Scout just learning of his famous predecessors and goes on wiki to find out and for item two, we shouldn't have to find what group they were put in, just go to their name.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Rlevse (
talk •
contribs) 16:54, 15 November 2006.
Examples are
List of people with epilepsy,
List of HIV-positive people,
List of notable brain tumor patients, and
List of Oregon State University people (not yet featured and being extensively reworked on
User:VegaDark's sandbox). I really don't buy the young Scout story. Nobody finds the telephone book fascinating, but it has a purpose if you already know the name and don't have a Find button. Why would this scout remember someone's name without being told why they are famous. Surely it would be more interesting for young/old to see how many astronauts, sports stars or politicans were once Eagle Scouts. This info is burried in a monolithic list. Grouping encourages research and learning since they will find other names who are famous for similar reasons, click on those links, etc, etc.
Colin°
Talk22:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support pending these three notes being addressed. (1) Make it clearer on the talk page guidelines that an eagle scout notable enough for a Wikipedia article must be included in the list (assuming the fact that they are an Eagle can be sourced). (2) Consider converting it to a table format with name, birth-death dates, profession, date of Eagle award, etc. although this wouldn't jive well with the current picture scheme (this is just a suggestion). (3) Fix the title.
Eagle Scout is a disambiguation page between several awards. Does this list include all Eagle Scouts or (I suspect) only BSA Eagle Scouts?
savidan(talk)(e@)02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)reply
1- Changed may to should.
2- We had long discussions about going to a table format and the consensus was against.
3- Will think on this. Given the project standard, I reckon it should be List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)
Support excellent, well-documented list. Very informative. I vote for keeping it alphabetical and for adding (Boy Scouts of America) to the title.
Sumoeagle17902:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)reply
This list meets all of the criteria for a featured list. Images used in the article have been checked for the approriate useages. Clearly defined criteria for inclusion on the list is outlined on the
Talk page. This is a self-nomination. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)18:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose The main reason being the lack on inline citations for each and every person. Have a look at the other FL of people (and the list of Telecaster players below) for how this can be done. I believe
VegaDark is working on doing a similar transformation to
List of Oregon State University people (currently in his own sandbox) – you might find it helpful to discuss with him due to the similarities of the lists. Other issues:
Images CFJ3.jpg, William Hanna01.jpg, TIME Magazine Dec. 12, 2005.jpg, Ray Suarez.jpg and Samwalton.jpg are copyright and a fair use claim is not supportable for this list. They should be removed or a free alternative found.
Thanks- the images in question have been removed. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)
The Gold Eagle.jpg icon should really be a PNG. Saving it as a JPG has made it fuzzy. Have a look at the Help on images. Its size is a little intrusive. Consider making it smaller or just use some other indicator, perhaps just a coloured text character such as a golden •.
Many of the sources don't count as
reliable. Personal (or local scout troop) web sites might be just about OK for the occasional citation here and there (where they give a bio for somebody for example) but the ones that have huge unsourced lists are not acceptable. NNDB is also not a reliable source, as it is largely reader-sourced. The official scouting web sites (.org addresses) are a better bet. Sorry if this means a lot of your names don't have reliable sources. Wikipedia is only as good as its foundation.
I removed NNDB- this is a known suspect source that I did not notice had creeped back in. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)
The Troop 179 references are compiled from BSA information and are known to be reliable. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)
So- we need a cite for each entry? We have ensured that each of the linked articles have a proper citation. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)
OK- we will work that. Every article has been carefully cited, so it is just a matter of copying those cites to the list. Many are going to be duplicated from one of the canonical lists, so that cuts a bit of work. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)16:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)reply
You need cites for all the incorrect names too. If you can't find some right now, move those to the talk page.
Your Troop & Pack 179 ref is repeated several times. Is it too long that it breaks wiki or do you just think it looks nicer in chunks? Some may think it devious to hide how often this ref is relied on ;-).
The statistics in the lead need citations.
The last sentence in the lead needs backing up with a good source - otherwise it just looks like your opinion.
It is a pretty long list, which makes it less interesting to browse IMO. I wonder if you would consider chopping it into chunks based on profession. E.g. Sports, Politics, Arts, Military, Astronauts, ... Then folk can get a feel for where these scouts ended up. Does anyone else think that's a good idea? It would be a bit of effort, but I think it might be worth it.
Yes, the are so many using the T179 ref that it breaks wiki, so we had to break it up. I built that page from a official hard copy from BSA. I think it's better in alpha order, otherwise, you'd have to look at each topic to find someone whom you weren't familiar with.
Rlevse23:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)reply
If you take a look at the reference section in this
older version, you will see that cite.php kinda blows up after the bz tag. Breaking it up was the only way I could figure to fix it- I welcome any other way to do this. The T179 reference is a known good cite, based on a compilation of BSA information. --
Gadget850 ( Ed)23:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)reply
The lead cites are complete.
I removed the last sentence as an unsourced opinion.
Splitting by profession... is Bill Bradley more famous as a basketball player or a politician? Most astronauts were/are military, many politicians were military. Many of the folks had multiple careers. I welcome any thoughts on this, but the only way I can see this is to split it into separate articles with a lot of overlap.
Support I think my serious objections have been addressed. Grouping has been done successfully on other people lists. I wouldn't get too worried if there is overlap. Just pick what you think it the natural group for what they were most notable for. Wrt finding someone you weren't familiar with: 1) If you don't know them well enough to know why they were famous, then why on earth would you be interested in whether they were an Eagle Scout and 2) All browsers have a Find feature.
Colin°
Talk16:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)reply
I highly object to grouping. Alphabetical makes far more sense to me. Colin's item one only makes sense for an educated adult--what about a young Scout just learning of his famous predecessors and goes on wiki to find out and for item two, we shouldn't have to find what group they were put in, just go to their name.—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Rlevse (
talk •
contribs) 16:54, 15 November 2006.
Examples are
List of people with epilepsy,
List of HIV-positive people,
List of notable brain tumor patients, and
List of Oregon State University people (not yet featured and being extensively reworked on
User:VegaDark's sandbox). I really don't buy the young Scout story. Nobody finds the telephone book fascinating, but it has a purpose if you already know the name and don't have a Find button. Why would this scout remember someone's name without being told why they are famous. Surely it would be more interesting for young/old to see how many astronauts, sports stars or politicans were once Eagle Scouts. This info is burried in a monolithic list. Grouping encourages research and learning since they will find other names who are famous for similar reasons, click on those links, etc, etc.
Colin°
Talk22:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Conditional Support pending these three notes being addressed. (1) Make it clearer on the talk page guidelines that an eagle scout notable enough for a Wikipedia article must be included in the list (assuming the fact that they are an Eagle can be sourced). (2) Consider converting it to a table format with name, birth-death dates, profession, date of Eagle award, etc. although this wouldn't jive well with the current picture scheme (this is just a suggestion). (3) Fix the title.
Eagle Scout is a disambiguation page between several awards. Does this list include all Eagle Scouts or (I suspect) only BSA Eagle Scouts?
savidan(talk)(e@)02:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)reply
1- Changed may to should.
2- We had long discussions about going to a table format and the consensus was against.
3- Will think on this. Given the project standard, I reckon it should be List of notable Eagle Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)
Support excellent, well-documented list. Very informative. I vote for keeping it alphabetical and for adding (Boy Scouts of America) to the title.
Sumoeagle17902:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)reply