Talk:Scouts Aotearoa

Image copyright problem with Image:CookI.jpg

The image Image:Cook Islands Boy Scout Association.jpg 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. --03:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

--Matilda ^talk 04:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Issues

Name

Is the name Scouting New Zealand? The website http://www.scouts.org.nz shows it as Scouts New Zealand.

Logo

Is File:Scouting New Zealand.svg the current logo? it does not appear on the website.

Sea Scouts

Sea Scouts New Zealand needs to be renamed to either Sea Scouts (Scouting New Zealand) or Sea Scouts (Scouts New Zealand).

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Name: It seems so, but they in fact consistently call themselves "SCOUTS New Zealand".
• Sea Scouts New Zealand: Agree. It also wants a clean up and the removal of the list of Groups.

--Bduke (Discussion) 22:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the Charities Commission, they are registered as The Scout Association of New Zealand.[1] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we move it to The Scout Association of New Zealand and start the article with something like - The Scout Association of New Zealand, commonly known as SCOUTS New Zealand?

We need to determine the correct name they operate under. For example, The Guide Association operates as Girlguiding UK. Everything on the web shows Scouts New Zealand. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We need to resolve this. The article should be moved to The Scout Association of New Zealand or Scouts New Zealand or even SCOUTS New Zealand as the web site always uses capitals. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The current name is clearly not the best. I suggest making it like The Guide Association, use the common name as the article title and explain the official vs everyday name the way Girlguiding UK explains it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree.

• Move to Scouts New Zealand; see MOS:TM for capitalization rules
• Note legal name in lead or infobox using |namelabel1= and |name1=; see Wikipedia:Article titles. The organization does business as (dba) Scouts New Zealand, thus it should be the article title, with the full legal name noted.
• Update logo from website

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 10:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(Invited to weigh in at the Scouting talk page.) Well, to narrow it a bit, I think that the only viable candidates are it's official name, or one that it extensively uses to identify itself which is not an abbreviation. Is anybody here knowlegable on the latter? North8000 (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 15:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(Invited to weigh in at the Scouting talk page.) I agree with change to legal name, I disagree with change to logo, they've gone to the same stupid generic website banner South Africa and others have gone to, all of a sudden it's a "new logo". Dispute heavily, no disrespect to Gadget850.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it as suggested by Ed. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Logo

Do we update the logo to the current one or keep the version that is no longer used just because we don't like the new one? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not "no longer used", the logo is corporate branding, the badge is the membership badge.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scouts New Zealand. 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/20100109054726/http://www.scouts.org.nz/ACTIVITIESEVENTS/GangShows.aspx to http://www.scouts.org.nz/ACTIVITIESEVENTS/GangShows.aspx

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) 23:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Name *resolved*

User:PukekoNZ made the following change:- (I have changed "Scouts New Zealand" to always being "The Scout Association of New Zealand". The rejection of SCOUTS New Zealand, as the proper branding usage by Wikipedia, will thus only be corrected by using the movements other legal name. SCOUTS New Zealand is the umbrella term for all sections; whereas 'Scouts New Zealand' would just be in reference to the Scout Section in New Zealand. The naming SCOUTS New Zealand, and capitalisation, is not of stylistic nature - but of necessity for inclusion of all sections.) This makes no sense as the first line has to reflect the name of the article, which is Scouts New Zealand. There are several choices. We could move the article to The Scout Association of New Zealand or we could move it to SCOUTS New Zealand, or we could just leave it as it is, which is understandable but may be incorrect. Please discuss here and look at the earlier discussion above. Bduke (Discussion) 21:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

You'll have to excuse me as I am new to Wikipedia and haven't learnt all of the 'lingo' as yet. I understand many of you wanting to change the name to "Scouts New Zealand" as it fits the title of the article, but this is incorrect as "Scouts New Zealand" does not exist in the context for which it has historically been used here. My reasoning is posted by Bduke (thank you). Could we either use SCOUTS New Zealand (The umbrella term for all of the movements sections) or "The Scout Association of New Zealand" (which is very long...) as these are the official names of the movement in New Zealand. I have reviewed Wikipedia's policy on caps and I do understand the conflict here. Yes, SCOUTS is not an abbreviation - but then it is not just stylistic, but has an actual function. I believe that it was common nature to use "ScoutsNZ" prior to the changes around 2011*, but the movement moved to expand NZ to New Zealand and capitalised SCOUTS to be more inclusive to all sections. On the grounds that it is of a functional nature rather than stylistic, I ask that either SCOUTS New Zealand be used or The Scout Association of New Zealand be used in this Wikipedia article; to uphold the integrity of factual material on Wikipedia and the organisations name. Or else, is there an option to change the article name to SCOUTS New Zealand? - so as to address Bduke's comments on needing the title to be the same name in the first instance.PukekoNZ (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

OK. Let us wait a bit to see what other people in the Scouting Wikiproject think? I am not sure changing the name of the article to "SCOUTS New Zealand" would work, but changing it to "The Scout Association of New Zealand" or "Scout Association of New Zealand" might. The use of capitals is always a problem and I think the NZ Scouts are causing confusion by calling one thing with "Scout" in capitals and another thing not in capitals, but of course Wikipedia has to use what the organisation uses.Bduke (Discussion) 02:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Bduke The Wikipedia-appropriate way to show that it is stylized in all caps would be like Sony "Sony Corporation (...stylized as SONY)", a single ALL CAPS mention at the top, then proper non-acronym capitalization "Scouts" throughout.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure that I follow this, but it looks as if you are suggesting that "Scouts New Zealand" would be used further down the article to refer to the organisation when in NZ it only refers to the Scout section. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

So I've talked with a rep from the national office of SCOUTS New Zealand and they said that yes the capitalisation is in all formal publications and is an umbrella term for inclusion. They also said that it's technically also stylistic as well as serving a purpose. However, Scouts New Zealand is not on any of our updated branding guidelines or publications, but in the instance of Wikipedia, it would be more appropriate than "SCOUTS" as it falls under 'stylistic'. The person also said 'The Scout Association of New Zealand' is really long winded and it would be nice if SCOUTS were to be used (but Wiki rules here). So on balance; even though it's not correct, Scouts New Zealand is agreeable to. Apologies, for reviving the naming issue! I'll keep on adding other content as it comes. PukekoNZ (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• PukekoNZ, kindly stop editing promotionally. Drmies (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
• Drmies, Okay, can I still include the information in "Modern Scouting" on the new Child and Youth Protection Policy? PukekoNZ (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Information needs to be relevant and well-verified. The best way to satisfy both is to cite secondary sources. In individual cases primary sourcing can be used, but that leaves open the question of whether something is worth writing about if secondary sources haven't... Drmies (talk) 05:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge Sea Scouts New Zealand article

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.

Consensus is to keep as-is; no merges. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

---

It is proposed that the article on Sea Scouts New Zealand is merged into Scouts Aotearoa and/or Sea Scouts articles. The Sea Scouts New Zealand article is about a part of Scouts Aotearoa (The Scout Association of New Zealand) with no separate notability and insufficient content to justify a separate article. The content is almost entirely a listing of Sea Scout regattas and collection of brief information about each group that was previously merged from attempted separate articles on each Sea Scout group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.42.4.155 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Adding this to the taget artilce would simply clutter up the destination. Leave it as it is. Also, I am not sure who 115.42.4.155 is, but they just went and tagged four articles for a merge. I'm not clear on the motivation here. --evrik ^(talk) 23:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose I would be better to improve this article by adding a history of sea scouts in New Zealand and a general tidy up. I agree with evrik in that merging into Scouts Aotearoa would just add clutter. NealeWellington (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Sea Scouts is quite a bit different from Scouts Aotearoa, the article would be better updated but has a good base of an stand alone article already.— NZFC^(talk)(cont) 08:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the entities seem to have enough differences between the 2 that i feel separate articles are warranted, also don't want to make the Scouts Aotearoa article messy, recommend fixing this article up to make it more clear maybe go more into the history of the org Tryp1c Ac3 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as suggested above. --Bduke (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2022 (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.