Talk:Scouting in North Carolina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical council information to be folded in[edit]

Historical council information to be folded in -Kintetsubuffalo (talk • contribs) 11:58, 20 September 2006

  • Hook, James; Franck, Dave; Austin, Steve (1982). An Aid to Collecting Selected Council Shoulder Patches with Valuation.

References

  1. ^ Archived 1999-02-09 at the Wayback Machine
  2. ^ Archived 2000-09-02 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ^ Archived 1999-01-28 at the Wayback Machine
  • @Jayron32: If you are updating the section on the current councils, you may want to fold some of this information into your work. --evrik (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I'm in process right now of updating current council structure only. Some of the history stuff and how councils and districts have been folded and reorganized and renamed over the years is out of the scope of my current work. If you want to update the history in its own section, feel free. I'm also working on cleaning up a lot of the formatting problems, mostly in line with WP:ELNO, as there were a TON of external links we don't normally do. Maybe at the end one link per council is appropriate, but including every district and OA lodge as a full in-text external link is very wrong in WP:MOS house-style. --Jayron32 18:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raven Knob article?[edit]

Does anyone think that Camp Raven Knob is significant enough for its own article or would it get deleted? It does host a LOT of scouts every summer, one of the biggest in the country I seem to remember. FinalWish (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had to Google to find that it belongs to Old Hickory Council, which redirects to this article. You really need to start the parent council article first, with the camp as a section. See Stonewall Jackson Area Council and Tidewater Council for examples. See also WP:SCOUTMOS. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Camp Bud Schiele[edit]

Camp Bud Schiele is not notable on its own and it can go under the Piedmont Council subheader. Deflagro Contribs/Talk 21:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge per nom.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merged. --evrik (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting[edit]

@Jayron32: I restored the formatting that has been used in many of the state pages. I think about half of them were standardized five years ago, but with fifty pages ... you can find examples of everything. NC was one of the ones not done, which is why I made the edits know. Someplace, the scouting MOS talks about this. --evrik (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we remove the CN tags? If you're insistent on the silly section headers, fine. But it isn't required that a footnote is needed for each individual sentence, merely that information is verifiable, and the source is obvious. Every section has a source in the accompanying infobox. --Jayron32 11:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the facts on this page are not referenced. This is why the effort to clean up the state pages stalled. Cite what you can. Leave the tags where they are. Hopefully someone will see them and fix them. --evrik (talk) 18:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are referenced. Literally every section has a link to the page where the information is found; it's not footnoted after every sentence, but that level of referencing isn't needed except for the most contentious information. Things like district organization and location of summer camps is not contentious or controversial in any way. For example, the Cape Fear Council section currently has an easy to find link to https://www.capefearcouncilbsa.org/. The districts and camping information is obvious and easy to find on that page. We don't need to also add a footnote after every sentence; the link is sufficient. The style of these sections, which is mostly in list and not flowing prose form, doesn't owe itself to easy footnoting; material doesn't have to be footnoted, merely conspicuously verifiable. Arguably, this information is better referenced than with a footnote, because the link is MUCH more prominent and doesn't require any footnote chasing. --Jayron32 18:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean. The Early history (1910-1950) section is four paragraphs, with one citation. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, I would say that every paragraph should have at least one reference. --evrik (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just went through most of the page and I removed a few tags. Everything else is easily citable. --evrik (talk) 03:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scouting_in_North_Carolina&oldid=1199488052"