Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Victoria

• agree. Chris 17:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Agree. A single event is not sufficiently notable for an article on its own. --Bduke 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Bduke 02:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this page was better at Scouting in Victoria because this is a more general title that allows for history of scouting prior to Scouts Australia and of other sections. The title is also easier to understand for non scouters ...maelgwntalk 09:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. Scouting in Victoria in similar to articles the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting is concerned with throughout the world. It is also compatable with the other States and Territories. I have reverting the change. It was also not a proper move as the talk page remained here. If the editor who did this wants to pursue it, please discuss it on the talk page here. It would have to be a move not just a copy and edit to give a redirect. I've copied this over to the talk page of Scouting in Victoria here and made Talk:Scouts Australia - Victoria Branch a redirect. --Bduke 12:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Note: The above is related to the copy of the article to Scouts Australia - Victoria Branch which was improper as it was not a move but just a copy and replacing the content with a redirect. Everything is back here now and any change should be discussed here first. --Bduke 12:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

• This crew is obviously notable outside Scouting as founding the world sport of Rogaining. I am unconvinced that a merge to the State Scouting article is appropriate, but of course I am willing to be convinced. The article does however need to be cleaned up. The straight Rovering stuff is completely unsourced and there does not even appear to be a web site for the crew to check information. I asked for sources for that paragraph. --Bduke 04:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Bduke also - the crew seems to be notable in the rogaining world ...maelgwntalk 06:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• This merge has not been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/Article watchlist so I have put it there. If this does not add further comment, one of us should close this as keep. --Bduke 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• keep :: maelgwn :: talk 08:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• I see you have removed the merge tages to keep it. Note my point above added only a few hours ago. The Project did not know about it. Nevertheless, let us leave them off, but delay a while to cross out the merge on the Project page. --Bduke 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops sorry - i really should read date tags ... continue as normal :: maelgwn :: talk 10:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep

• No one seems to interested so i'll remove the tags ... there are still other merges open for discussion though. :: maelgwn :: talk 04:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tagged all three of these articles for merge to Scouting in Victoria, although it is possible that some material should be added to Rovers (Australia). I think all three can be treated together. They are all for small sections of the Scouting movement that are much smaller than is considered notable by the the standards of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards. This excludes articles on Districts, Groups, Troops, individual events, camp sites in all but rather exceptional circumstances. I have no doubt that if they were proposed to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, they would be deleted. Let us save some good material here and merge the content. It is also clear that none of them have good independent sources. All three should be merged. --Bduke 13:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• I see a few options -

1. Mafeking Rover Park - from my limited understanding its a fairly big area and seems to have a few independent sources written about it. One option would be to merge the three articles into Mafeking Rover Park. I dont know of any other campgrounds with article eg Cataract Scout Park, Woodhouse, South Australia, Elmore, Victoria so maybe Mafeking should go as well.
2. Merge into Rovers (Australia) under a section on rover motorsport that could then cover Mudbash, Sandblast, Banana bash and whatever other events there are.
3. As Bduke suggests - maybe the best spot for the content but is related only to a specific scouting section in an article about a more general topic. Treatment to this level of each section would then lead to this article being split up anyway. But hey - its not at that level so maybe it doesnt matter

Im all confused now ... :: maelgwn :: talk 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• The only Australia camp article I know is Gilwell Park (Victoria). On further reflection I think these articles should be all merged into Rovers (Australia), with perhaps a brief cross link to Scouting in Victoria. What do others think? --Bduke 00:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• I am going to change the merge tags to propose the merge to Rovers (Australia), but I will suggest the debate continues here for a while. --Bduke 00:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Does the scouting wikiproject have guidelines on campground articles? :: maelgwn :: talk 03:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting/RulesStandards#Local articles (Councils and smaller entities) is really all there is. In UK most camp site articles have been merged into Scout County articles except the four national activity centres are kept. I removed merge tags off one of them only this morning. Gilwell of course is one of the four. I really do not think that Mafeking Rover Park is notable enough for a separate article, even if the other two are merged there. The other two are certainly not notable. I really do think we have to merge them into the Rovers article or the State artcile. I wish someone else would comment. --Bduke 08:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • A Council, council camp/reservation, or OA Lodge may have its own article if it meets standard wikipedia criteria for having its own article. Seems to fit the bill here and we are certainly lacking independent sources on these events ... So should we put Gilwell Park up for merge as well
  • Do you mean Gilwell Park (Victoria)? If so, I think we should merge that one too. --Bduke 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I have merged Rover Motorsport and Mudbash into Mafeking Rover Park as the first stage of this merge process. This brings together all the motorsport stuff into one place. It is probably a good idea to clean this up further before completing the merge. --Bduke 00:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed Mafeking Rover Park a little to try and include all states but now I see that I've dwindled off topic a bit. Unless anyone has any problems I think the merge should go ahead into Rovers (Australia) with a change of emphasis away from Victoria a little. :: maelgwn :: talk 03:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Your changes were just what I wanted - another pair of eyes on these articles - before the final merge. Do you have any references for Rover Motor Sports anywhere in Australia? I certainly do not. Do you want to do the final merge? I'm going to be less active on WP for the rest of the day, after I good go at this morning, but I could do it tomorrow. --Bduke 03:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in a quick search that I can see. I'll try and have a better look around. Unless there are some newspaper articles or non rovering reports written about it, im a bit pessimistic about finding stuff. I have no doubt the information is correct eg [1] but as for notability I'm not quite sure were to look. We might have to shorten it right down ... :: maelgwn :: talk 03:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So i decided to move the Mafeking Rover Park article here because of its Victorian Bias - the Rover Motorsport content stayed tho. :: maelgwn :: talk 09:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Propose merge because content lacks sufficient notability for it's own article. While there is significant possible content there is a lack of references to avoid WP:OR :: maelgwn :: talk 08:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. This material is mostly OR. There are no sources and it does not appear that notable although a mention in the State article is a good idea. --Bduke 09:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Agree, the rovering topic is too narrow for its own article.Rlevse 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge' completed. --Bduke 00:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Propose merge according to above discussion and due to lack of notability. :: maelgwn :: talk 13:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support Rlevse 17:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support not sufficiently notable for a separate article. --Bduke 00:19, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Done :: maelgwn :: talk 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

A great job. I agree with what you have done. A few small points. Is the order right? Perhaps Gilwell is more important than Mafeking and should come first. The campsite infoboxes are fine on separate articles but seem to clutter the page here. Should they be removed? --Bduke 01:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

OK yes - probably Gilwell, then Mafeking, then Alpine Rovering? As for infoboxes - i dont mind a bit of clutter and like the way information is presented in infoboxes. Could we put in a mini-version? I posted on Template talk:Infobox WorldScouting if your interested. :: maelgwn :: talk 06:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a go. I like your order but putting Alpine Rovering between the camp sites I think spaces out the infoboxes better. Could we use the infoboxes without an image? --Bduke 07:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats what the post on Template talk:Infobox WorldScouting is about. My understanding of the proprietary (grr ...) parser functions in templates is not enough to change it myself. :: maelgwn :: talk 07:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you need to merge them because wikipedia is running out of space?

If so, why not get rid of all these unnecessary Ferrari pages:Results 1-20 of 55071 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next » Ferrari 412Relevance: 100.0% - - Ferrari 225Relevance: 100.0% - - FerraryRelevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 430Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 612Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 575Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 159Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 195Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 212Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 375Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 156Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 310Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 126Relevance: 98.2% - - Ferrari 125Relevance: 96.5% - - FerrarisRelevance: 95.3% - - Ferrari 166Relevance: 94.9% - - Ferrari 308Relevance: 94.3% - - Ferrari 328Relevance: 93.8% - - Ferrari 625Relevance: 93.8% - - Ferrari 400Relevance: 93.7% - -

I mean, they are all just cars, so they should be merged with the article Automobile.--210.50.228.5 08:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not running out of space. It is a question of quality and this is related to whether the topics are notable and the information is verifiable and referenced. Material that is not notable enough for an article can be OK to be part of a more general and notable article. There is also the point that too many small articles (stubs) are difficult to maintain. You will also find that pointing to other articles as being bad does not go down well on Wikipedia. If you want to delete or merge those articles on cars go and try and do it. It is not an argument about these Scouting articles.

Are you the editor who started these articles? If so, what do you think should happen do them? And do you think they would survive being nominated for deletion at WP:AFD? Which of the above merges are you most concerned with? A merge could keep everything that is encyclopedic. For Scouting articles we try to follow these standards and other conventions developed by the Scouting WikiProject. Take care and try to understand the Wikipedia project. It is not for everything. --Bduke 09:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mafeking Rover Park was merged here over a year ago, but recently the merge was reversed and an edit war has started. So let us discuss it here and get consensus.

• Support merge. When it was reinstated, the article was lengthened, but there is absolutely no claim to it being notable, and there are no references. This article should be made into a redirect. There is essentially nothing more to merge than was done a years ago. The coverage of this camp site in Scouting in Victoria is quite adequate. Camp sites are rarely notable. This site is no more notable than Gilwell Park, Victoria or the Bogong Rover Chalet, both of which are also adequately covered here. In fact it is less notable than Gilwell. --Bduke (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support merge (obviously) - Agree with Bduke that there is nothing from the Mafeking Rover Park article that needs adding here. -- maelgwn - talk 12:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have done the merge by just reverting back to the last redirect page. There seems nothing further to add here. This discussion has been open for nearly a month with no objection to the merge. --Bduke (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, the trail system is inherently notable. Ottre (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the merge has been done, after a second discussion. Nothing is really "inherently notable". The article did not assert notability for the trail system. Who has independently noticed the trail system and given us a third party source to reference that it is notable? In fact the article had no third party sources, which is one reason why it should not stand alone. However, there is no reason why the trail system can not be briefly discussed in the section in Scouting in Victoria, but that section should not grow out of proportion to the rest. --Bduke (talk) 21:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I abide by community consensus, always, but we both know the article is of "high importance" to the encyclopedia. This does have more to do with editing philosophy than content though, and is somewhat Australia-specific, so there's no use going at it here. Perhaps we could split the flora/fauna and track sections to your namespace, and work on it there? I have some family in Yea, so it should be right within a month or two. Ottre (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not know that it is of "high importance" to the encyclopedia, and I do not even think it is. This article on "Scouting in Victoria" has been assessed as mid importance by the Scouting Project and has not yet been assessed by the Victoria Project. Almost anything else on Scouting in the State of Victoria is unlikely to be notable enough for a separate article and should be included in the State article. I repeat my question above, but generalise it. Who has independently noticed anything about Mafeking Rover Park and given third party sources to reference that it is notable? Until we get some reliable third party resources, I see no need to do anything. The section on the Mafeking Rover Park here is already large enough given that it only has a reference to its own web site. Have a look at how the Scouting WikiProject has dealt with similar issues. They have all been merged into other articles. For example, in the UK there are only 5 articles on camp sites and they include the four national activity centres such as Gilwell Park (also National HQ and B-P House (not a camp site). It might have to do with editing philosophy, but is one that has wide consensus among editors of Scouting articles. I do not see anything Australia-specific about it. --Bduke (talk) 02:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, support. I was just saying there's a much less notable park (the John Charles Franklin walk) in Yea that I will be writing about soon, on my next visit. Ottre (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Scouts Australia.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge: Rovering in Victoria describes activities (mostly non-notable) for a section within Scouts Australia. Both facilities mentioned are open to everybody and not restricted to Rovers. --jergen (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• support; sections by region are not a good idea— notability is going to be very hard to establish --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• comment. I'm holding fire on this one until I can see what the new editor who wrote it thinks. I'm not sure about Jergen's point about the facilities. They are Rover facilities not general Scouts Australia facilities. Or am I misunderstanding the point. Ed, could be right, but I think the Rover Motor racing might have been noticed. Note that a lot of the stuff in the new article was removed from the Scouting in Victoria article so it is a fork out and of material that was beginning to dominate the State article. So lets not rush to merge this. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
• Further comment. Nothing has been heard from the editor who created Rovering in Victoria. He first edited to make this article and did 17 edits on the article or related matters in less than one hour on November 16, 2008. He has made no edits since. Scouting in Victoria was getting rather full of Rovering matters, perhaps for the reason that many Rovers are geeks and some are wikipedians. I am inclined to leave it as it is as it is not apparently under threat of deletion and does contain a lot of sourced material. I would however like to hear the opinion of some of the Australian Rover editors. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• I am closing this as "leave as is" for the reasons given above. We can always revisit it if needed. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Britannia Park (Girl Guides Victoria) be merged here, although no reasons were given by the editor who added the merge tags. Please discuss below. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support for now. I was thinking myself that this was the ultimate fate for this article. I discussed this with the editor who wrote the article at User talk:Kingbird. However, adding material about Guiding to this article, and renaming the article, is a proposal at Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Australia. This proposal is receiving support, but it still have to be done before we could merge material about one camp site. I think a merge will happen, but not just yet, so leave as is for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - primarily because the article contains too much material to be satisfactorily merged. Kingbird (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have come to the same view as Kingbird and think we should leave it. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I will close this as leave for now, thought I am not entirely convinced, I expect that the history of the site and the number of events that occur there make it notable. -- maelgwn - talk 04:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a copy of this stature in Australia as The Ideal Scout asserts in its lede, and is it at Gilwell Park in Victoria? The "The Ideal Scout" article has a photo saying it at Gilwell Park, Australia, but it is a photo of the stature at Gilwell Park, England. I altered the link there to the section here on Gilwell Park before realising that the photo is not of a stature in Australia. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The section on venturers says VG is one of the larger events on the calendar and that the event changes location every 2 years. Could a citation from http://www.vicgathering.asn.au/ be used to back this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.216.250.133 (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Chief Scout has been disambiguated, I think at least twice, to Chief Scout (Victoria, Australia)). This implies that an article should exist with that title. That implies that the topic is notable. I very much doubt if that is the case. Please discuss if you think it is notable, or you can think of alternatives. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

The Scouting WikiProject does not support articles on individual units unless they are extremely notable. This article has one semi-outside source and one selfie, it should be merged here.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 09:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The article certainly needs some cleanup, but I still think as I did 10 years ago (see above) that it is notable for its role in founding the world sport of Rogaining. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

While I see those above, and I trust your judgement, the sources are weak as they were in 2007.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I am hoping to find some sources soon. Please give me a bit of time. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bduke: Take your time, no rush--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: I asked the Crew to look for sources long ago and got a reply saying they would, but have heard no more from them. They meet not far from where I am about to move to next week. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bduke:--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Still nothing from them. I think we should go ahead with the merge. --Bduke (Discussion) 20:32, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It is time this was sorted out. I will do the merge in 10 days if nobody adds anything further to this discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I am now ready to do the merge, but I now think that it should be merged to Rovering in Victoria. Of course we might later decide to merge that article to Scouting and Guiding in Victoria but that has been discussed before and not supported. Any quick views before I merge it there? --Bduke (Discussion) 05:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I have done the merge to Rovering in Victoria. Please check it. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scouting and Guiding in Victoria. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110311224704/https://www.vicscouts.asn.au/Heritage/history.php to https://www.vicscouts.asn.au/Heritage/history.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080830085341/http://home.vicnet.net.au/~latvia/skauti.html to http://home.vicnet.net.au/~latvia/skauti.html

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).

• 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) 11:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)