Talk:Royal Canadian Sea Cadets

Check out the to-do list! Quadra 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As a favour, would all anonymous posters kindly a) acquire an account (it's not that hard, people!) b) read the rest of the discussion page before editing the article, and c) post at the bottom of the discussion page? Thanks all! Quadra 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The old page Sea Cadets was a complex and multi cadet organisation page. It is being simplified and turned into a disambiguation page, with the contents being merged into their relevant organisations' pages Fiddle Faddle 11:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sea Cadets adds nothing here. I am removing the merge suggestion, but referring that page here. Fiddle Faddle 21:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Rank Insignia Pics

Great to have them, and thanks for putting them here. I had a look at the alignment and size issues. The 80px thumbnails seem to be a good compromise since you can read the text under the, Full pictures made the insignia dominate, rather than the text dominate the page, so I took your excellent work and I hope enhanced it.

Some alignment issues remain, but shrinking the thumbs is not going to solve it. I hope we have a good solution as it stands, but a better layout expert (of which there are many) may disagree.

Fiddle Faddle 09:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Alignment issues all solved by the use of a table structure Fiddle Faddle 15:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Needs more content

There are a lot of facts here, but little about history. I've been doing an "editing cleanup" as have others (I am not a content expert), but what is needed is a content expert to provide thinsg like a timeline of the history, notable cadets and officers, something to get one's teeth into. It's encyclopaedic, and editors have worked hard, but ut's rather empty still, though valuable so far as it goes Fiddle Faddle 10:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to Fiddle Faddle work

Wow! you did a great job. I will find the historical information needed for this site. user:ctjj.stevenson

Thanks. All I've been able to do is a general tidy, so subject experts like you are great to do the real legwork. BTW any idea why the "notable" units are notable? That section perplexes me. If they are notable for something real, let's say so. Otherwise I think that section is not encyclopaedic. If it is really worthwhile I think we should look at formatting etc

I'm also wondering about the long list. It might be better as a reference and a real List article created

Fiddle Faddle 07:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The List of Units

The more I look at this the more I think it is great background information, but requires a separate page. In general lists of this major length do not belong inside an article since they dominate the page. I am going to flag the top and bottom of the list with HTML comments so that it will be easy for whoever decides to split the list into a new article to split it.

Also, is the list complete?

Fiddle Faddle 16:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If the list of units is to have its own page, will each individual unit have its own page as well? If it is likely then may I suggest a template be created to go at the foot of each unit containing all the units, pre-linked, even though they will be overwhelmingly redlinks at first, together with a category Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Unit created as a subcategory of Category:Naval Cadet Organisations? Categories are simple to create, though it is essential that there is a page or two there to fill them within a very short time, or they tend to get deleted. Templates are not hard either, or not at this simple level. Look at Template:Naval cadets for inspiration. You can always ping my talk page if you need basic advice (coz my template skills are basic!) Suggested layout is a centred box in smaller font, with "unit | unit | Unit |" as a basic format, allowing the article to take care of word wrapping Fiddle Faddle 21:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Corps

Why are they notable? If they are not notable, please wikify them in the ordinary list. They are only notable if there is something notable about them.

Notable means something special, not just that they exist, because we know they exist. Unless they are themselves notable there is a real danger of having the list of corps twice. I have wikified them in the list of corps instead. If they are truly notable, bring them out and highlight them as well, but better to do that in their own articles. However, just creating an article because a particular corps exists does not really meet the cirteria for inclusion in wikipedia.

Fiddle Faddle 06:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Corps

I would like to move this to its own page - along with, eventually, details on training, history, etc. Quadra 17:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• I am in strong agreement that the list should be split out. No dissenting voice has been heard, so I suggest you are bold and do it. I am not sure what you mean about training and history. Do you mean "in general" or "for each unit? Fiddle Faddle 20:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have split the list out, created the new article and also amended the template to include it. Fiddle Faddle 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I was thinking of seperate pages for training and history, as well as the corps list. Also, perhaps change the name of the Corps List to Unit List - add the summer training facilities. For the corps, as most have their own website, would it be innapropriate to place a hyperlink under each corps name?--Quadra 17:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • From my perspective, feel free to move the list to any name you see fit. Do please edit the template to suit the new name, though :) For the rest, just be bold Fiddle Faddle 22:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ranks

I have moved this unsigned comment from the head of the talk page and given it a headingFiddle Faddle 07:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC) Abreviations such as PO1, PO2, and CPO etc. are designators for ranks in the regular Canadian Forces. When using abreviations in the cadet organization it is appropriate and accurate to designate cadets as C/appointment, as in C/PO2 in the same way at LS is differentiated as LC and AB as AC.

Anyone actually want to lay claim to that? I might put something into the article to that effect; however, within the organization, it is considered a given - when one addresses an RCSC PO2, say, they use the same form as they would to a member of the CF. Typically, "Cadet" is only placed in fron of the rank in PR material, speeches to the general public (for example, introducing members of a cadet band) or where confusion might otherwise arise - for example, if a document refers to both cadet and CF non-commissioned personnel. Quadra 23:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing the article

As a courtesy, would all users kindly mention their proposed changes on the talk page before fiddling with the article? Thanks! As a note, I'm cleaning up the flags section, and removing unnecessary repetitions of information (as an example, SCSTC in front of every Sea Cadet Summer Training Centre's name. This last is no more necessary than placing similar information in front of a regular naval vessel's name - one does not write "CPF (Canadian Patrol Frigate) HMCS Regina," therefore, one does not do so with shore establishments commissioned as ships - so-called stone frigates. Quadra 19:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Words Matter

I have moved this unsigned comment from the head of the talk pageQuadra 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) There was a wide range of information that did not reflect the official documents of the Canadian Cadet Organizations and the RC Sea Cadets in particular. All Sea Cadet Ranks have the word "cadet" i.e Chief Petty Officer Cadet First Class. Further cadets are not promoted they are appointed to rank. Please refer to QR and O Cadets. Cadets do not attend camp even though that word is used. Cadet Summer Training Centre is accurate and better reflects the training as there is little "camping" that happens and even less with the current Cadet Program Update. It is after all a "sea" cadet program. The aim of the program was incomplete. Marc Garneau is no longer an H/Capt and HRH Prince Philip is no longer Admiral of RCSC. He has relinquished that to one of his sons. To be revised on confirmation of which is correct ... Duke of York?

Editing the article Take II!

Kindly follow Wikipedia etiquette and sign your name! I'm a former cadet and currently an adult staff member of the program, so don't presume to lecture, especially anonymously, on the program. If you wish to make a major change, kindly bring it up on the discussion page - there is a reason for how I've presented the information. As far as can be determined, Philip is still Admiral. If anyone has official-source material re: Marc Garneau, please link. Until then, the appointment will remain on the page.Quadra 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As a side note to Bloggins that has been editing the page, the intent of this page is to represent the actuality of the organization, not to describe how things would be IAW all the regs. Where there is a significant and meaningful difference between regs and common practice, that may be noted; however, at all times, this article should reflect actual practice, not CATO or QR&O(Cdt).Quadra 17:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving content

I'll be moving almost all of the training information, including the current ranks chart, to Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Training. I think that a small rank chart will suffice for the main page, along with one-para descriptions of the summer and winter training regimes. The info on the camps will remain unchanged, until such time as I or someone else can get their individual pages going. Much of the Corps info will also move to the "Training" page, especially "Other Groups." Quadra 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Precision in material for public consumption

The language used on the page should reflect the official terminology and source documents of CF/DND and the Leagues. ie. the aim (singular) of the program as in QR an O cadets. The relationships between the CF and the Leagues etc.

The long disertation in advance of the rank chart is not necessary if the correct nominclature was used throughout rather than the colloquialisms. In the interests of not messing with the graphics coding it is left it as is, but subject to review. Why would it be correct to have Cadet in the french language and not in English. It would better reflect on the program if the english was corrected to the official terms. Considerable discussion goes on between the CF and Leagues in this regard and consistency serves everyone best. The edits are founded in a profound knowledge of the cadet program, it's history, place in the public domain and current administration. They are not done lightly. Cheers.

p.s. Mr. Garneau was removed from the CMS Hon Capt page about a year ago. 24.108.176.42 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Very well re: the removal of Dr. Garneau from the Honourary list; he will stay on the page, however, with, if you can find it, the dates of his appointment and relinquishment of same. Until the dates come up, I'll put his info in past-tense. His appointment, even if lapsed, is still significant. Anyone else appointed to the post?

No and not likely to be without considerable input from the League. The last H/Capt appointed was Senator Hugh Segal

• As for SCSTC in front of every HMCS Whatever, please, please, offer a legitimate explanation for doing this. No other species of stone frigate - naval reserve unit, whatever - does this. Therefore, it is inappropriate to do so for SCSTCs. Plus, from a purely editorial POV, it looks bad.

That it looks bad would be a personal opinion. The CF runs Army Cadet, Sea Cadet and Air Cadet Summer Training Centres. That is the official nomenclature and should be reflected as such..if the article is to have any credibility.

• This is not, repeat not, a PR piece for the RCSC, CF, or anyone else.

Therefore, the primary information used will be the colloquial language of the RCSC, with, as I've mentioned before, any major differing regulations or what-not mentioned. This is an encyclopedic article, not a press release. The dissertation stays.

It purports to be a "encyclodedic" the definition of which is knowledge, information, comprehensive. Cadet is comprehensive in english and french and represents knowledge rather than perception. The relationship between the CF and the Leagues is more than an affiliation. The CF pays the bills. The language used by both the CF/DND is sponsor.

• In the view of the above, I am reverting the edits on the "Range" section. Firearms safety is a tool, not the focus of the shooting program: good shooting, which is to say, hitting the target, is the focus of the shooting program. Also, why would the info about the various .22 rifles not be included?

The cadet program does not have a shooting program. Anyone can go on a range and shoot... The program teaches firearms safety and marksmanship. The words are important in today's world of mixing teens and guns in not considered positive. Anyone who wants to learn more about the Lee Enfield can search it. Its history and attachment to WWII and Korea not relevant to the contemperary cadet program. I need to dredge up the model numbers for everything. Also, is anyone still conducting large-bore marksmanship? I've seen the occasional RSO qualified for it. Army cadets can fire C-7s under controled conditions found in CATO.

• Cadet services vs. cadet programs: will leave that be for now. Service, in the lower-case sense, is still used by CF members, especially of the naval persuasion, to refer to their element. Will be re-writing the "precedence" section - hopefully finding a middle ground on that one.

• Would you have any info on the various national-level positions (as opposed to the incumbents)? Quadra 16:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yeah - would you please get an account? Quadra 16:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Sponsored vs. affiliated: affiliation with the CF in general is meant in the same sense as Affiliated Unit when referring to a specific RCAC corps' regimental bond: to reference how all the intangibles; tradition, custom, and "on-duty" lifestyle; spring from the Canadian Forces. Ditto for the CIC, almost all major training facilities, and virtually everything else except for funding a portion of LHQ training. They are sponsors, and nothing more, or less. That para is, after all, an intro: the relationship between the CF and NL will be covered in excruciating detail in some later portion of the article. Quadra 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The public posture is ... Royal Canadian Sea Army and Air Cadets is a national youth program sponsored in partnership by the Canadian Forces and the civilian .... Leagues. That line is in accordance with the Leagues and CF giving each other credit.

• Career CF members vs. Regular and Reserve: will be offering a compromise; however, I meant it like it sounds: those persons who, regular or reserve, have spent a significant amount of time with the CF.

Actually former members of he CF transfering to the CIC say 2 years service for reservists and 5 years for Reg F.

• As regards the aims, we are not here to quote, verbatim, the regulations. RCSC training doesn't give two seconds to the Army or Air Force; the point is interest in the Navy (maritime element - but nobody says that any more). Re-writing in para form - offers more scope for discussion. There is only one aim of the cadet program ... it is found in QR and O Cadets 2.03 it has not been changed. There are various iterations of saying almost the same thing on the website and in the recent MOU with the Leagues. The MOU, by the way changed nothing, it only amplified what part of the partnership is to do what.
• Do you have a badge for HMCS Gimli? Would be nice...

• Also, any idea on the copyright status of photos off of CF/DND websites? Would like to raid, loot, and pilfer to give this article a bit more colour. Properly attributed, of course...

Any photo from the DND/CF may be used as long as it is credit "CF Photo" or DND Photo as it is credited from where it is copied from including cadet.net sites.

Quadra 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Quadra 17:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Each of you Quadra and Sancho a lot to offer making this page better reflect the Cadet Organization. It would be unfortunate if you well meaning efforts caused a CATO or Routine Order to be written that further amplifies the restrictions on CF members publishing material for the public as per DAOD 2008 and QR and 0. That is a serious consideration wrt to internet use. 131.137.245.200 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a vehicle for recording attributable, verifiable facts. Recordng such facts in accordance with WP:NPOV cannot of itself cause anything to happen since it is merely a record. It is not meant to be a repository for personal knowledge, since that is Original Research, whcih is banned, and usually removed by most editors. Thus it requires sources in the public domain and reliable. Under these circumstances no such order could be contemplated because the information is already publishes, attributable, verifiable and available. Fiddle Faddle 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree attributable, verifiable and available:

How much more productive if we could together create something that is unasailable. Right now these pages are of little value to anyone who would want comprehensive, knowledge or information about the Canadian Cadet Organization. , 12 December 2006 (UTC) 131.137.245.200 16:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

To repeat:

Each of you. Quadra and Sancho have a lot to offer fixing these pages and making them reflect well on the Cadet Organization. You have the technical skills. It is also worth considering that members of the CF are constrained in their ability to produce material for the public on any CF or Government program. DAOD 2008, and Q R and O apply. Therefore precision is paramount rather than perception, guess work, or rumour. It would be counterproductive through your well meaning and important effort to cause a CATO or Routine Order to be constructed and issued thereby amplifying those regulations and further restricting participating in this process by members of the organization unless authorized. That is a serious consideration! 24.108.176.42 01:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)131.137.245.200 16:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The use of bold type and your reformatting of this talk page is becoming distracting. Please use conventional threading with indents.

Please understand that Wilipedia as a vehicle has no interest in any regulations, nor is there any mechanism nor interest in restricting editing to any particlaur calss of perosn. Articles are not Owned or restricted in any way. While your internal concern may be justified, it is of precisely no importance to wikipedia. All wikipedia requires is secondary and tertiary sources to validate its encyclopaedic nature. It does not care who the authors are at all.

Please get an account. Talking to an IP address, especially one with strong opinions, tends to be limited by its very nature

Please also do not patronise other editors. Your phraseology currently is bordering on hectoring. You may be passionate about the topic. Good. So are other people. Good. My next paragraph is a standard template. Please read it and act upon it.

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Fiddle Faddle 07:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

+NOTE

• It is guaranteed that the correct and proper public representation of the Canadian Cadet program will be vigorously defended by responsible authority. 131.137.245.200 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful with what you are saying here. WP:LEGAL applies in situations like this. It feels to me that you are on the verge of making a legal threat. I appreciate that you may feel passionately about your topic. Equally you have to be within the rules. Fiddle Faddle 18:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE TO DND/CF Members who edit pages on Wikipedia: DAOD 6001-1 may allow modifications of pages such as "Sea Cadets" as "authorized" use of the internet, as opposed to "official use". Other pages would not likely count. This would not be considered as "official use" for the following reason: under DAOD 2008-6, Wikipedia would not count as an "authorized site". Under this order, "DND employees and CD members involved in creating or maintaining these unofficial sites must ensure that these sites are in no way understood to officially represent DND or the CF". To assert yourself as a "responsible authority" would therefore be inappropriate. Also ensure that any information you provide is public domain information, and does not violate the Privacy Act, National Defence Act, Offical Secrets Act, or any Treasury Board, CF/DND or or policies and guidelines. If you are officially posting under DAOD 2008-0 Public Affairs Policy, then the use of anonymity would not be appropriate. Chains of Command are responsible for YOUR posting from the internet, and all such postings are tracable.

--131.137.254.206 14:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever posted that last - sounds like a clear guideline for CF/DND types. I, for one, would be very happy to see persons with ready access to certain information (ie, duties of senior officers) to pass such information along, or at least a location at which it can be found, keeping in mind the various applicable regs. Nobody wants you catching hell on behalf of Wikipedia! Quadra 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I see some causes for concern over misunderstandings of what Wikipedia as and is not. I have also seen, on Quadra's talk page a suggestion over a request for semi-protection to prevent those with no ID from editing.

• Authority to Edit or similar things are not a concept that Wikipedia is ever likely to consider as suitable. While it is true that editors must not compromise their personal positions by edits they make to Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not under any obligation to act in accordance with any organisation's "standing regulations"
• Semi-Protection is not going to be granted in these circumstances. The article is public property and is available to be edited by all editors, whether registered or not.

All that is required for an article is that it is within all the Wikipedia guidelines. That means in essence that all facts must be suported by public domain citations, otherwise they are Original Research and are unacceptable.

Military/Civil Service types who are used to working within a rigid set of rules have sometimes becaome confused between their own rules and Wikipedia's rules.

Put simply, edit the article with facts that are citable, and that are within the rules of any organisation you work for or whose rules you must obey. However, you have precisley no rights to alter another editor's edits if they are in conflict with your own rules. (By "you" I mean "you in general" not any person in particular). Fiddle Faddle 16:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Compromise edits

Here's the deal: have cleaned up para one - administered by the CF, funded by DND and NL. The MOU can be gone into later, as can the precise nature of the financial arrangement (did you know, for example, that the League headquarters receive funding from DND? Will be digging out the CF documentation ASAP so it can go in the article!). However, the things some non-cadet type wants to know are: who runs it? The CF, in all the senses that matter. Who pays for it? DND and the League.

As far as range goes, we are trying (or should be, anyway) to describe what cadets actually do, and give the reader a feeling for the subject - therefore, a brief description of the rifles used makes sense. Again, we aren't a PR platform, so concerns about "teens with guns" are irrelevant - besides, I haven't even touched on the Ceremony of the Flags yet, or field guns... the former almost merits an article of its own, while the latter will be going in Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Training.

The range program - I'll replace "shooting" with "marksmanship" - has suffered in recent years; the range closure is verifiable, so it stays. The scramble... the scramble is personal experience, and, I must admit, a hurried edit. Consider it re-written - mostly. I am attempting to avoid an edit war; however, I would ask that you wait for a response before blundering in and editing the article, as I have been attempting to do with your editing ideas.]

SCSTC is useful only as a distinguisher - if one was listing every commissioned naval entity in Canada, one might list CPF HMCS Regina, MCDV HMCS Yellowknife, and SCSTC HMCS Quadra. Outside of that circumstance, or within CATOs, I can see no real need to preface the names with SCSTC, especially given the context. Quadra 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Couple things: first, it's bad form to hack up someone else's posts on the discussion page. Now that that's dealt with, the article shouldn't be restricted to the contemporary program - ideally, eventually, the reader will learn everything about the program, from Naval Boy's Brigades to present. As far as the Range section, I fail to see the safety consideration in your persistent edits - the section acknowledges the priority given firearms safety. Also, we are writing for the general public; therefore, descriptions should use the language that will be most widely understood, and refer the reader to the most useful articles. A section dealing with cadet range teams should refer to Shooting, or similar - to give the reader information regarding the shooting sports, specifically target shooting - not a non-existent Firearms Safety article. If you want to create such a page, go for it - but it shouldn't be a focus. Will be modifying that section to make focus on range teams clearer, and distinct from phase training.

Quadra 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC) +NOTE To repeat

• It is guaranteed that the correct and proper public representation of the Canadian Cadet program will be vigorously defended and edited by responsible authority.131.137.245.200 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC) 19:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have asked for an experienced admin to view this page, the more so since this repeat message has been posted after a specific but gentle warning. The request for admin attention has been placed at here. Fiddle Faddle 19:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, oh great one, wise in the ways of Wikipedia. Honestly, I know the program, and am learning more editing as I go - but the finer points of Wikipedia, not so much... Quadra 19:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is rather difficult when two editors with strong feelings about an article come head to head. It is harder when each has strong knowledge of the topic at hand, and when one of them appears to "pull rank" over the other. Under such circumstances the only thing that suffers is the article itself. A whois lookup on the IP range used is interesting. I wish the anonymous editor would simply get an account. As you say at the head, it isn't hard. But they have a right not to. Fiddle Faddle 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• The note is not a threat of legal action. The correct and proper public representation of the Canadian Cadet Organization is and will be monitored and edited as appropriate by responsible authority. 131.137.245.199 19:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

So, to clarify, what you are saying is that it doesn't matter what is put in this article, it will be monitored by that organisation, and edited?

Well, since anyone has the right to edit wikipedia they may do as they wish. However, your tone here is very challenging, and this is a behaviour which is unlikely to prove productive with your fellow editors.

What you will not achieve is frightening anyone off. I can tell you that is my perception of your aims, based solely on the stance you have taken and the words you have used. I woudl very much appreciate it if you would abandon this hectoring stance, leave the attitude behind, and get on with editing instead of what appears to me to be posturing and sabre rattling. Fiddle Faddle 20:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Bloggins: would you kindly stop returning to "Cadet" and "C/" everything? It is absolutely unnecessary, and doesn't reflect common usage. Need I say again that this is an encyclopaedic article? Regs are of strictly limited interest - good for citing, and contrasting with reality. There are a great number of subjects that need immense work - writeups on all the summer courses for Royal Canadian Sea Cadet Training, for example. On another tack, hiding behind an IP address whilst claiming to be a "responsible authority" will gain you no respect - and will not garner your arguments any weight. Advance and be recognized, please.

Quadra 20:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What is needed to know ... is known ... for the momment. Everyone is on the same side here.The correct and proper public representation of the Canadian Cadet Organization is and will be monitored and edited as appropriate by responsible authority in accordance with CF and League policy ... on how the Cadet Organization is presented in the public domain. There is some good work happening here ... the stakes are very high with regard to the outcome.

With an aside... curious why there is no injection of the discussion regarding Master Sea Cadet?, when the air cadet discussion was of some interest. 131.137.245.199 21:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Any sources at all? There's been some discussion of it on Cadet World, but it hasn't really come on the radar yet; the Air one has been discussed, and announced as "in progress" at various official venues (CO's conferences, and the like) whereas the MCdt thing is still more of a phantom thing - AFAIK.

Quadra 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This responsible authority thing really needs to stop, please. No-one cares who or what you are, but they do care about what feels like intimidation. Your edit summaries are intimidating and your attitude is intimidating. Please understand once and for all that Wikipedia as a vehicle does not care about "responsible authorities". It cares about proper and encyclopaedic edits and articles. Fiddle Faddle 21:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

For FF

Caring about proper and encyclopaedic edits and articles is most worthwhile and exactly what is happening here. No intimidation is intended. Every organization has policies wrt to how it is represented in the public domain. How does "Report a problem about an article about your enterprise work?" For instance if an organization does not want to be in WIKI at all can it request deletion? Unappily, persuasion and persitence is not working here. 131.137.245.198 22:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about FF, but I have no intention of not stating something because it doesn't meet the party line. You cannot complain about a fair and well-written (more or less) article that covers all aspects of an organization. So long as an article meets NPOV, and doesn't leave Wikipedia open to legal action, I suspect you'll have a tough time getting rid of it. Also, Wikipedia doesn't, and shouldn't, care about the stakes for the organization.

Quadra 22:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, anonymous friend, the issue is not about militaristic pedantry, but is about verifiablilty. It is about using non primary sources and reporting things. It is not about making a point. It is also not about representing an organisation "as it wishes to be represented", nor "as it needs to be represented", but instead about representing it in a correct manner. Often they differ. It is also not about your opinion prevailing, but Wikipedia prevailing. We edit by consensus, not by diktat.

The height of the stakes are truly not important, though, if encyclopaedic, they shodul form a part of the article. But Wikipedia is not a PR machine for, nor a vehcile for publishing standing order of, an organisation. Fiddle Faddle 22:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

SCSTC

As regards the earlier conversation, adding SCSTC to every name is superfluous, as they are all part of a list named "Sea Cadet Summer Training Centres." Point taken as far as Forces usage of CPF & MCDV vs. class names; however, one wouldn't start a list called, say, "Halifax-class Frigates" and then include that designation in every para, would one? If it's not necessary there, it's not necessary with the centres. Enough and finished - convince me, with a really good reason, why this particular species of naval establishment should be handled differently - and "proper representation of the organization" does not cut it. Quadra 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really

"So long as an article meets NPOV, and doesn't leave Wikipedia open to legal action,"

There's more to it than that!

"It is also not about representing an organisation "as it wishes to be represented", nor "as it needs to be represented",

Why then does WIKI have concerns about representing people and organizations?

It is as you say about representing in a "correct manner". 131.137.245.200 22:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you ask this question where you are likely to get a wider answer. I suggest the Village Pump. Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Well, gentlemen, that was special. How do you propose to resolve this issue of to SCSTSC (or whatever) or not to SCSTSC? Because you are going to have to agree now before the protection is lifted.

If you can't agree, may I suggest using Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal? Fiddle Faddle 23:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems they have an 8 day backlog currently. Since the issue appears to involve just two of you there is little point in a poll. I have not checked the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, but it is likely that it is in it somewhere (which would solve it absolutely). The best route is for you each to consult it and determine if it is covered. And if it is or is not, to agree your mutual commitment to the same course of action. Fiddle Faddle 00:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the Manual, especially WP:NC-SHIP, if you insist, I will put up with SCSTC bracketed after the name, in the initial mention - thus, "HMCS Quadra (SCSTC), located in Comox, BC..." but not affixed to the name elsewhere in the article. Thus, "The Marine Engineering course is offered only at HMCS Quadra..." or "During the summer, Quadra is home to over..." Sound good? Quadra 01:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That strikes me as pretty definitive. For the avoidance of doubt, may I suggest you paste a paragraph/section below so the other editor(s) can see clearly your interpretation of WP:NC-SHIP. The reason I ask is that there may be grey areas. The designation SCTSC does not necessarily seem to be covered, though I equate it with a class of ship, since that is, broadly, what it is.

After that has been done I suggest you leave it sufficient time for anyone who wishes to comment to make those comments, answering them with reference to NC-SHIPS, seek to achieve consensus, and work form there. The guidelines you have quoted do seem to prevail in this situation, so I would be surprised if a dissenting voice were valid. After all, the guidelines are equivalent to standing orders. Fiddle Faddle 12:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:NC-SHIP:

Do not use the hull classification symbol as a prefix:

• USS Nimitz (CVN-68) (not "CVN Nimitz")

WP:NC-SHIP#Military_ships

And,

Do not give the hull number or other disambiguation information unless it is immediately relevant. Someone who needs to know can follow the link:

• Vanguard was Nelson's flagship at the Nile (not "Vanguard (1787) ...")
• Yorktown was sunk at the battle of Midway (not "Yorktown (CV-5) ...")
• But in ""the later Lexington (CV-16) was laid down as Cabot but renamed in honour of the earlier Lexington (CV-2)" the disambiguation information is needed. WP:NC-SHIP#Referring_to_ships

And,

You may give the ship's prefix the first time you introduce the ship, but you should not repeat it on future mentions. You need not give the prefix at all if it is obvious from the context (for example, in a list of ships of the Royal Navy there is no need to repeat "HMS" each time). WP:NC-SHIP#Referring_to_ships

And, on italics,

Put the ship's name in italics, but not the prefix or hull number:

• USS Nimitz (not "USS Nimitz" or "USS Nimitz") WP:NC-SHIP#Referring_to_ships

Hope that clears everything up. Quadra 17:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just realised that I was ambiguous, which oddly served a good purpose. The segments you have pasted above do look wholly as though they answer the concerns, and quoting them here adds clarity to the discussion. What I meant to do was to ask you to paste soemthing fomr the article formatted in this manner, in order that our anonymous friend might see the precise application of this set of Wikipedian Standing Orders. Forgive my ambiguity. :) Fiddle Faddle 18:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a para formatted as per Wikipedia conventions:

• HMCS Quadra (SCSTC), located in Comox, British Columbia, operating as a Sea Cadet training facility since 1953, and a commissioned one since 1956, is the second largest summer training facility. It employs close to 150 staff cadets every year, whose tasks vary from general maintenance to physical fitness to boat instruction. Quadra is the only Sea Cadet Training Centre in Canada to include all four trades plus three of the four speciality trades (Marine Engineering, Shipwright, and Silver Sail). Quadra occupies Goose Spit opposite Comox, and makes use of Highland Secondary School as an auxiliary training facility for classroom work, first aid, and music training. Cadets undergoing training as Boatswains and Marine Engineers also undergo training in damage control at CFB Esquimalt. Quadra plays host to a number of international exchange cadets. In recent years, these have included contingents from Korea, Japan, the United States, Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Bermuda, and the Netherlands. HMCS Quadra's website

Okay as is

• With the exception of a preference for adding one more SCSTC in the text, the entire article is good as it is and might remained locked. 131.137.245.199 18:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • You are outside the wikipedia manual of style, and simply will not prevail by this attitude, I am afraid. If necessary this will have to be taken, at great waste of time, though the various procedures in order to ensure that you understand the guidelines, policies and procedures here. Fiddle Faddle 21:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion

All of what has been set forth above applies to ships afloat and not naval shore establishments where the naming conventions are somewhat different to emphasis them being “Stone Frigates.” In the RN and RCN context, originally Naval Shore establishments took their name and the title HMCS from their “depot ship.” Both the ship and the shore facility had the same name, therefore the requirement for the additional designation.

Modern examples are: Naval Reserve Division HMCS Carlton or NRD HMCS CARLTON or previously, officially styled a Naval Reserve Unit and designated NRU CARLTON w/o HMCS. Naval Radio Station HMCS ALDERGROVE or NRS HMCS ALDERGROVE (now known as CFRS ALDERGROVE.

In the case of the Sea Cadet training establishments: The following is from “Canadian Warship Names – David J. Freeman, Vanwell Publishing 2000.

“In 1956, in order to simplify a division of responsibility for sea cadet camps (which they were as they have few buildings), NSHQ decided to commission the two camps at Comox and Point Edward as Fleet Establishments for the duration of each summer. After considering (other names), the naval historian recommended Quadra and Acadia as being of similar significance on each coast and Royal Canadian Sea Cadet camps Quadra and Acadia came to be .. RCSC QUADRA, RCSC ACADIA.

In 1982, the VCDS, granted permission for three RCSC camps to be commissioned as HMC Ships MICMAC, ONTARIO, and QUEBEC, joining QUADRA and ACADIA. About the same time RCSC camps had their title changed from camps to training establishments RCSCTE"

Thus, RCSCTE HMCS QUADRA. "Training Establishment" has since modified to Sea Cadet Summer Training Centre SCSTC as the designator to differentiate the shore establishment from any floating ship past or present.

Therefore, SCSTC HMCS QUADRA etc. is correct for historical and practical purpose. That was particularly the case when the destroyer HMCS QU’APPELLE was paid off and with in a year the name transferred to SCSTC HMCS QU”APPELLE. 131.137.245.199 18:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That would do well as part of a separate article, perhaps "Cadet summer training establishments in Canada" or what not...

For continuity with Wikipedia, would you be willing to accept the general guidelines?

I would absolutely prefer the Wikipedia guidelines to the "as-per-regs" approach; especially since, much like "Cadet" "SCSTC" isn't common usage, excepting regs, press releases (and not all of those) and certain other very official internal material; however, in the interests of getting the article moving, and considering the info presented, I will accept, very grudgingly, "SCSTC" as a preface at the first mention of the facility in the list of SCSTCs; thus:

• SCSTC HMCS Quadra, located in Comox, BC... Quadra hosts over ___ cadets each summer...

However, the persistent use of this preface is needless, annoying, and detracts from the readability of the article.

Moving on, would you have any info on MICMAC? Never heard of it, let alone having any idea where it was. Also, any copies of GIMLI's crest floating about? Quadra 20:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Attempt at dispute resolution

I have asked on the Village Pump that expereinced editors come and cast an eye over this issue in order that the page may be unprotected after a consensus is reached.

If I have it correct, the dispute is about the prefix SCSTC for "Stone Frigates" and its use or non use in the article.

Quadra cites WP:NC-SHIP and the anonymous editor cites an external text. Put plain the consensus required is about the repeated use of the prefix SCTSC or the use of it once, when the establishment that is one first appears in the article.

May I suggest that interested editors show their opinions below by indicating use once or use always, giving brief rationale for either view. Fiddle Faddle 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Area to indicate opinion

• use once because I interpret WP:NC-SHIP to apply to stone frigates in this manner per Quadra's comments a long way above this. Fiddle Faddle 22:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• use once as appropriate. The current revision is good. SCSTC is not used in badges, it is not used in the listing. It is sparingly used as a modifier for clarity in the text. 131.137.245.198 23:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Question Does this mean that you and Quadra are in agreement and that we can move forward and edit the article with harmony? If so, problem solved and unprotection may be requested and take place. Fiddle Faddle 00:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Answer Just about... Once the article is unprotected, I would like to clear out the superfluous "SCSCT HMCS" bits within the SCSTC list, as per Wikipedia MoS; not necessary to refer to "SCSTC HMCS" Quadra for the fifth time, in its own para! Using SCSTC as a more appropriate synonym for "camp" works - and for the rest, will accept, as both a compromise and the least of all evils (within the SCSTC List), SCSTC as a prefix on the initial name, as that seems to be historical precedent for stone frigates. A qualified yes. Quadra 02:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Area to resolve differences

Looking at Quadra's statement "Just About", above, I remain confused. I have set aside the small area below here for Quadra to show by example precisely what he means, and a different area for an alternate solution or solutions below that.

In this way we may see the differences with precision and simply discuss those and agree a solution: Fiddle Faddle 07:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Quadra's example

Quadra, please enter your example here, between the begins and ends flags. Any extra commentary should be after "ends"

BEGINS SCSTC HMCS Quadra, located in Comox, British Columbia, operating as a Sea Cadet training facility since 1953, and a commissioned one since 1956, is the second largest cadet summer training facility. It employs close to 150 staff cadets every year, whose tasks vary from general maintenance to physical fitness to boat instruction. Quadra is the only Sea Cadet Training Centre in Canada to include all four trades plus three of the four speciality trades (Marine Engineering, Shipwright, and Silver Sail). Quadra occupies Goose Spit opposite Comox, and makes use of Highland Secondary School as an auxiliary training facility for classroom work, first aid, and music training. Cadets undergoing training as Boatswains and Marine Engineers also undergo training in damage control at CFB Esquimalt. Quadra plays host to a number of international exchange cadets. In recent years, these have included contingents. ENDS

Other editors' version of Quadra's example

If you have another version of the areas Quadra has shown above, please enter that version below, using "begins/ends" flags to make our life easier

BEGINS

ENDS

Discussion area for differences between the examples

Please use this area to discuss the differences, one by one. Please highlight any specific differences and refer to WP:NC-SHIP to justify your position.

Is this the idea?

SCSTC HMCS Quadra, located in Comox, British Columbia, operating as a Sea Cadet training facility since 1953, and a commissioned one since 1956, is the second largest cadet summer training facility. It employs close to 150 staff cadets every year, whose tasks vary from general maintenance to physical fitness to boat instruction. HMCS Quadra is the only Sea Cadet Training Centre in Canada to include all four trades plus three of the four speciality trades (Marine Engineering, Shipwright, and Silver Sail). Quadra occupies Goose Spit opposite Comox, and makes use of Highland Secondary School as an auxiliary training facility for classroom work, first aid, and music training. Cadets undergoing training as Boatswains and Marine Engineers also undergo training in damage control at CFB Esquimalt. HMCS Quadra plays host to a number of international exchange cadets. In recent years, these have included contingents.

The committee agrees that works. 131.137.245.200

Posted my example above... in keeping with WP:NC-SHIP, the "class name" isn't used more often than absolutely necessary (only in introduction, not as part of article unless needed for disambiguation), ditto for HMCS - not used after the introduction of the "vessel," unless for some reason necessary for clarity. And italicize the ship's name.

Sound good? Quadra 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC) A collective .... Yes 131.137.245.199 18:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent! Will be asking for unprotection soonest. Quadra 18:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out the to-do list! Quadra 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, Thank You for moving this into a civilised and consesnus based solution. Fiddle Faddle 20:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Organisation & order of precedence

Better way to phrase "within the cadet organizations?" Don't want to give the impression that a cadet unit stands first overall in precedence - that's the Navy's spot! Quadra 00:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Large-bore firing

Anyone know of any cadet unit or facility still conducts .303 range training? I'm aware of the various permutations of C7 training... Quadra 05:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Permutations of permutations - Adm, RCSC

Some discussion has come up recently re: Adm, RCSC on Cadet World, of all places - various persons who should know suggest that the appointment that lapsed was HM Prince Philip's as Adm, SCC, the British sea cadet organization, and that his appointment with the RCSC has continued. Awaiting further information. Quadra 15:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA failed. Please address the following and resubmit:

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article. The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
• Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Entire sections have no wikilinks.
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article and should not have special characters.
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: armour (B) (American: armor), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), program (A) (British: programme), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Footnotes comes right after punctuation and you need more of them. Sumoeagle179 04:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Standard formatting for cadet pages, CIC, etc...

Will be tossing up reformatted (no real content changes, just organization, appearance) pages for all three cadet elements, as well as the CIC and any sub-pages (i.e. Cadets Canada) off of my user page, for consideration. If anyone has any suggestions, feel free to pass 'em along! I'll post the links once I'm done. Quadra 17:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Change to Seamanfor Ordinary through Leading

I've heard of this as a rumour-mill item only, related to the immense Cadet Program Update; does anyone have a reputable source (ie, an official document) to back this up? Would be great, if true - but is it? Quadra 19:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is a rumour only

131.137.245.200

Fair use rationale for Image:ISCA logo.gif

Image:ISCA logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mil Info Box

I have changed the badge to the Ensign for two reasons:

• Standardisation with other cadet articles, admittedly most Army Cadet Corps in the Commonwealth do not have their own ensigns as individual units are normally parented/affiliated with regular Army units
• The RCSC badge which was in the infobox was repeated within a few paragraphs, duplication isn't neccessary.

The Mil Info box needs further work as in missing info where applicable, unfortunately the cadet Forces website isn't a great help.--Pandaplodder (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of Great Britain as opposed to United Kingdom (UK)

I had to change this, there are Cadet Units in the UK outside of Great Britain as in Northern Ireland, the formal correct title would be United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, but this is shortened to United Kingdom or UK (British Army units based within the UK are known as UK Land Forces for example). Still at least you didn't commit the greater sin of saying England when you meant the UK :)--Pandaplodder (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Cadetscanada72.png

The image File:Cadetscanada72.png 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. --09:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

How much difference is there between the elements?

Talk:Canadian_Cadet_Movement#How much difference is there between the elements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.210.111 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Prince Andrew is Admiral Of the Canadian Sea Cadets?

Hey Guys...I'm a current Sea Cadet and Prince Andrew is not the Admiral, that position belongs to the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Andrew is Admiral of the Sea Cadets in the UK, that's why they don't have the designation of "royal". Last I heard the Duke was our Admiral LordLewery (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've corrected, again the information that the Duke of Edinburgh is the Admiral of the Royal Canadian Sea Cadets and not the Duke of York. I hope that this false information will stop being added on this page.Ctjj.stevenson (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

No mention Of PSRY

On this page there is no mention of Positive Social Relations For Youth (PSRY), which is the succesor to the CHAP (Cadet Harrasment Abuse Prevention)program. If you guys want to put up stuff about scandals, you should have a section on PSRY. Also, this page needs more content.LordLewery (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If this page needs content, be bold and add it! Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sections on Budget and Sexual Abuse - include or remove

The discussion is taking place on the Army Cadets talk page please contribute there. That page was selected as representative of all the articles affected. Fiddle Faddle 18:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Royal Canadian Sea Cadets emblem

Moved from [[User talk:Ajraddatz

Hi Ajraddatz. I saw your edit to Royal Canadian Sea Cadets and the way you've reorganized the images into a gallery. Just thought you should know that one of those images, File:Sea Cadet Emblem res72.png, is non-free image and using non-free images in galleries is something that is generally not encourage per WP:NFG. Galleries tend to be decorative in nature, and such decorative usage of non-free images does not really provide the context required by WP:NFCC#8. Each usage of a non-free image must satisfy all 10 non-free content crtieria; failing even a single one can lead to the image being deleted. Non-free images used in galleries tend to be flagged by editors checking for such things and often end up being discussed at WP:FFD. My suggestion is that you somehow try to incorporate the image back into the article near the relevant section where it is being discussed. It also would be best if you could find reliable sources (to avoid WP:OR) which discuss the image to further strengthen it's ability to meet NFCC#8 and show that it's omission would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. Right now, the image's non-free use could be easily challenged per WP:NFCC#3a because it can be clearly seen on the flag used in the main infobox, which means there is currently really no reason to use two non-free files essentially showing the same thing and serving the same encyclopedic purpose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thanks for the information. That page needs a lot of work overall, and I'll keep that in mind when doing rewrites. There is a severe lack of referencing in general. Because two iconic images of the sea cadet program were included in that section, I think reorganizing them into a gallery makes sense, to be complemented by other images as they exist and as I find them. The guideline clearly supports case-by-case usage, so that doesn't seem to be a problem to me. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think I've ever seen a case where the use of a non-free image in a gallery discussed at FFD resulted in a keep, unless the image itself was the subject of sourced commentary within the article. So, any reliable sources you can find discussing the image itself will only strengthen the case for it's non-free use. I did some googling and found this, but it's not exactly what is needed. I'll keep looking for a reliable source (such as an official page) which discusses the badge and explains its appearance. Something like this or this, but only for the sea cadets would be helpful.

Finally, I think the sentence "It is also depicted on the Royal Canadian Sea Cadet ensign." actually weakens the current case for non-free use because it basically tells the reader that they can look at the flag in the infobox to see the badge. Minimal usage (WP:NFCC#3) is one of the things that is often discussed at FFD when in comes to non-free image usage, and generally multiple non-free images tend to be considered unnecessary when they serve essentially the same encyclopedic purpose. Instead of directing the reader to look at the infobox, it might be best to add more content (preferably sourced) about the badge itself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

This might be a discussion better had on the article's talk page. I didn't add the image, and am not particularly convinced that including the badge as well as the flag is of any use. The flag has much more significance, and could be talked about in much greater detail - especially since it includes the badge. Regardless, I appreciate the advice. There are other... more pressing parts of that page that need fixing up, but I'll get to that part eventually as well. If you do find anything and wanted to help, that would be nice too of course :) Ajraddatz (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You're right about this being better suited for the article's talk page. My bad and sorry about bringing it here first. Feel free to move it there if you like. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Just suggesting, not criticising :). As I said, I do appreciate it. I don't know much about free vs. non-free image use, so it's good to know. I'll move it over there. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Now that this is over here, I understand the concern with non-free image use, and I don't think that the article benefits much from a picture and one-sentence description of the RCSC badge. I was thinking of reworking it into a "symbols" section anyway; does that sound good to other who may be stalking the page? Ajraddatz (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)