Talk:Girl Guides

Girl Guides or girl-only Scout organisations?

The article currently attempts to cover two different subjects, organizations called "Girl Guides" and girl-only Scout organizations. This creates inconsistencies and incoherence in subject matter, makes the title a misnomer and results in duplications of content with other articles that, over time, become inconsistent. The problem could be avoided by this article being dedicated to "Girl Guides" by name. Girl-only Scout organizations are already covered in articles on the Scout Movement.

For example, reference to the Girl Scouts of the USA is unnecessary as they are not Girl Guides by name. Girl Scouts, including the Girl Scouts of the USA are included in articles on the Scout Movement. WAGGGS is an association of both Girl Guides and Girl Scouts organizations, making it clear they are distinct terms but this article, by its title, is supposed to be about Girl Guides. 115.42.10.20 (talk) 00:30, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

It has always been both. The guideline has usually been affiliation with WAGGGS. Note that this also includes groups whose formal names aren't even in English such as Soma Hellinikou Odigismou (Greece). Are you going to exclude them because the don't have "Guide" in their name. Erp (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Contrary to the claim by editor Erp, the history of this page indicates that a few editors began conflating content on Girl Scouts into the article on Girl Guides. Archives of the talk page include discussions on such.

This is an English language Wikipedia page on Girl Guides and organizations whose names translate to "Girl Guides" would logically be included but organizations who specifically choose not to use the name Girl Guides should not be artificially included. As an editor on a subject, I merely write about the subject and don't choose to include or exclude organizations as editor Erp suggests. The subject is Girl Guides, not Girl Scouts. The bizarre reasoning suggested by editor Erp is that an article on Scouts excludes all Scout organizations whose names are not in English and do not include "Scout" in their name. Nonsense!

Girl Guides are distinct by name. WAGGGS is an association of both Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, emphasizing they are distinct by name.

Editor Erp suggests "The guideline has usually been affiliation with WAGGGS" but there are other articles on WAGGGS and its membership. This article is about the Girl Guides, not WAGGGS or its membership. Further, where is "The guideline" defined and who set it? Possibly it was just in the notions of some!

Why would an article on Girl Guides include content on Girl Scouts when Girl Scouts are already included in the articles on Scouts and the Scout Movement? Why would Girl Scouts and Girl Scout organizations be included in an article on Girl Guides when they have determinedly eschewed being Girl Guides? Why would an article on Girl Guides include Girl Scouts when they are distinct by name and when Girl Guides were founded with a distinct name for the very purpose of being distinct by that name?115.42.10.20 (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

The term Girl Guides is used in many countries but not all. The USA in particular calls them Girl Scouts. The international organisation talks about Girl Guides and Girl Scouts. Girl Scouts might be mentioned in the articles on Scouts, but they are part of what is called Girl Guides and Girl Scouts internationally. Bduke (talk)

Bduke expresses a very confused opinion and long outdated notions about the Scout Movement. Bduke claims the USA calls Girl Guides "Girl Scouts". No it doesn't. People in the USA call Girl Scouts "Girl Scouts". People in the USA are just as capable as Bduke and myself of understanding Girl Guides are Girl Guides and calling them Girl Guides. What a feeble argument! The Girl Scouts in the USA are Girl Scouts, not Girl Guides and they have determinedly rejected the name Girl Guides for over a century. Girl Guides and Girl Scouts are not the same thing or they'd all be called the same. A quick indication of Bduke's confusion is his reference (and unquestioning deference) to "The international organisation" when there are several. WAGGGS is just one organization and its name clearly indicates and acknowledges that there is a distinction between Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, otherwise it would just be WAGG or WAGS. Bduke states, "The international organisation talks about Girl Guides and Girl Scouts" - exactly! It refers to both, not just one as referring to both or meaning the same as the other. WAGGGS is an association of Girl Guides AND ..., not just Girl Guides. Then Bduke goes on to state, "Girl Scouts ... are part of what is called Girl Guides and Girl Scouts internationally" - exactly again! "What is called Girl Guides AND ...", not just what is called Girl Guides! Bduke's defeated his own argument. There are many Girl Scouts that are not part of WAGGGS. What of the Girl Scouts before Girl Guides were formed? What of the Girl Scouts of the British Boy Scouts and British Girl Scouts Association? Are we going include and call the Salvation Army Girl Scouts organization, the Girl Guards (of its SAGALA), as "Girl Guides"? Where will the nonsense conflation of subjects end? This article is not about WAGGGS, Girl Scouts or Girl Guards but is about Girl Guides - those that are by name and otherwise, distinctly Girl Guides.

Bduke's logic would give us a periodic table with one or just a few elements, all grouped together. But each element is distinct, as are the Girl Guides from Girl Scouts.115.42.10.20 (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

You are incorrect on the history. The earliest version (2007) of the article was a redirect to Girl Guide and Girl Scout later versions started "Girl Guides or Girl Scouts..." (e.g., 2008) and so on. Yes there is archived discussion about moves and the result was apparently no change to the wording used in the article. Erp (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

And of the real, substantive issue in discussion?

Erp, The original redirect to which you referred was to an article on both terms, which was appropriate but what this article now does is conflate two different terms under the one topic. You confirm that only "later version started with "Girl Guides or Girl Scouts ..." 115.42.10.20 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Well later than the redirect or disambiguation pages. Pretty much all the versions since 2008 when this became a regular article have covered both Girl Guides/Girl Scouts. It is you who wish to change what has been. Erp (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Erp, Look at the absurd nonsense that you want to maintain. You've long had a hand in the article on Girl Guide and Girl Scout which absurdly states "A Girl Guide or Girl Scout is a member of ... some Guiding organisations". Do you seriously claim a "Girl Scout is a member of a Girl Guide organization? This is just an ideological position maintained by those who think of all girls in the Scout Movement as Girl Guides. It's just nonsense. Then, when you run out of any sensible reason and argument, you resort to "It is you who wish to change what has been." It's not change you resist but correction.115.42.10.20 (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

One problem is that the terms mean different things in different countries. For example I think it is that Girl Guide organisations in many countries are for females only. In some countries, Scout organisations are for males only and Guide organisations are for females only. In other countries the girls only units are called scouts and the term guides in not used. In some other countries, Scout organisations are for both males and females and Guide organisations are for females only This was the case in the UK where I was a scout a long time ago. Then it was all males. Now UK Scouts troops are largely males and females with a few all male troops, but I think Guides are still female only. Also the terms Girl Guides and Girl Scouts do not always mean the same thing in different countries. In some countries only the term "Scouts" is used for male only, female only and mixed units, with the term "Guide" not used at all. It is very complicated. Bduke (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Brian, You are decades out of touch. You left The Scout Association many, many decades ago and your experience then was very narrow and you were imbued with certain notions, at a time when the propaganda of a few dominant organizations prevailed. Cheaper publishing then The Internet and Wikipedia have brought the world much broader knowledge but you keep talking of and trying to restore the narrow past of what you mistakenly believed. Linden would be appalled in your determined holding to belief and refusal to rationalize. The issue has nothing to do with when "I was a scout a long time ago" in the UK, as you ramble or changes since. Your argument amounts to one thing - you, personally, think of girl scouts as Girl Guides. That is the only "problem" making things "complicated". An old, confused and very wrong POV.

Bduke claims the terms Girl Guides and Girl Scouts "mean different things in different countries." What nonsense. Different organizations use the distinctly different names. Girl Guides means Girl Guides and Girl Scouts is a different term used by different organizations. I think most people are able to understand there are two different terms and apply them appropriately.

Bduke states:

• "In some countries, Scout organisations are for males only". [Yes, they're "boy scouts" or "scouts"]
• "In some countries, ... Guide organisations are for females only. [Yes, they're "Girl Guides"]
• "In other countries the girls only units are called scouts and the term guides in not used." [Yes, they're "girl scouts"]
• "In some other countries, Scout organisations are for both males and females". [Yes, they're "scouts"]
• "In some other countries, ... Guide organisations are for females only". [Yes, they're Girl Guides"]
• "Now UK Scouts troops are largely males and females with a few all male troops". [Yes, they're "scouts"]
• "but [ ] Guides are still female only." [Yes, they're "Girl Guides"]
• "In some countries only the term "Scouts" is used for male only, female only and mixed units, with the term "Guide" not used at all." [Yes, they're "scouts"]

From Bduke's own statements, it is not only very clear but overwhelmingly apparent that Girl Guides and Girl Scouts are very easily distinguished, by their chosen distinct names! The Girl Guides Association in the UK are Girl Guides. British Girl Scouts of the BBS & BGS and Girl Scouts of the USA are Girl Scouts. There is no difficulty in distinguishing and calling them by their correct names and identifying them differently. It is only "complicated" by those who want to revert to past notions of there being just The Boy Scouts Association, Boy Scouts of America and the International Conference of the Boy Scout Movement for boys and The Girl Guides Association for girls (and what they considered an aberration, the Girl Scouts of the USA), who want to conflate subjects and confuse terms. Girl Scouts are female scouts. Girl Guides are distinct by name and otherwise, as they chose to be.

Stop obstructing clearly defined articles with contrived conflated nonsense.115.42.10.20 (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

It is you who doesn't understand. There are 17 years of precedence and consensus that Girl Guides and Girl Scouts are to be combined. The international association supporting them is called the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, which is recognition that they are so similar in nature as to be identical. You have yet to provide clear and convincing proof that Girl Guides and Girl Scouts are so dissimilar that they need to be separate topics; in fact, if they were dissimilar, Girl Scouts of the USA would be in the World Organization of the Scouting Movement, not WAGGGS. All you have provided so far is your interpretation; provide evidence in reliable sources that they are indeed dissimilar. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

JKudlick bases their argument on WAGGGS' position (or their notion of it) and refers to "The international organisation" when not all Girl Scouts and Girl Guides organizations are members of WAGGGS. Wikipedia and the world outside WAGGGS do not follow WAGGGS policies or bizarre POV notions of it.

JKudlick makes exactly the same argument (and mistake) as others in not giving proper consideration to the fact that WAGGGS is an association of Girl Guides AND Girl Scouts, clearly distinguishing the two. Far from this being "recognition that they are so similar in nature as to be identical", the AND is very apparent recognition that they are distinctly different.

JKudlick suggests there is not "clear and convincing proof that Girl Guides and Girl Scouts are so dissimilar that they need to be separate topics but I agree, Girl Guides and Girl Scouts are not dissimilar, in fact they are very similar, as are all organizations within the Scout Movement. They are so similar, it might be asked why there is a separate article on Girl Guides at all. On this line of argument, Kudlick is also wrong as Girl Scouts are mentioned in various other articles on Scouts, evidencing (1) the obvious close similarity of Girl Scouts with Scouts and (2) that Girl Scouts are Scouts, not Girl Guides and (3) that Girl Scouts are already covered in articles on Scouts and should not be conflated in an article on Girl Guides. Girl Guides, Girl Scouts and Scouts are not dissimilar but what makes Girl Guides distinct, is their distinct name, distinct identity as "Girl Guides" rather than "Scouts" and their particular history. Conflating the subjects obscures, detracts from and disrespects that very distinctness.115.42.10.20 (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)115.42.10.20 (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually WAGGGS is clearly uniting the organizations using Girl Guides or Girl Scouts (along with those that use names in other languages). Note these organizations use the Guide trefoil rather than the Scout fleur de lis, share similar customs like World Thinking Day, etc. They do share a lot also with the WOSM organizations but that is equally true for those that use "Girl Guides" as it is for those who use "Girl Scouts". Note some organizations belong to both WAGGGS and WOSM and they usually combine the trefoil and fleur de lis. Now we could rename this article to Girl Guides/Girl Scouts, but, that has its own issues with Wikipedia protocols. Erp (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Erp, You suggest, re Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, that "these organizations use the Guide trefoil" as some reason to conflate them in the one article but then you state "some organizations ... combine the trefoil and fleur de lis." What of Girl Scouts who do not use a trefoil and those that use only a fleur de lis? As to WAGGGS "uniting" the organizations, WAGGGS' name unites two different types of organizations, "Girl Guides" AND Girl Scouts. Further, this article is not a WAGGGS webpage or about WAGGGS. Your statement that "we could rename this article" is an acknowledgement that at present the title is a misnomer and your suggestion that it could be renamed "Girl Guides/Girl Scouts" acknowledges that at present it conflates subjects other than Girl Guides. I think that you, Bduke, JKudlick and I agree that girl guides and girl scouts are not dissimilar but they are also very similar to other scout organizations and they are part of the Scout Movement. However, Girl Guides have significant distinctions and unique history. My suggestion (previously made below) is that:

• girl scouts and scout organizations for girls (including mention of Girl Guides and WAGGGS) be covered (as they already are) in the article(s) on Scouts (with a section on "Girl Scouts and Girl Guides"); and
• this article on Girl Guides, be only about those organizations distinguished as "Girl Guides" by name, identity and history.115.42.10.20 (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

It is you who seem to be misunderstanding things. Whether they are the Girl Scouts of the USA (whose original name btw was Girl Guides before Low decided Girl Scouts fitted better in the US [note Low had been active in the UK Guides before returning to the US and she did not change anything other than the name; the organization continued to have connections with the UK Guides]) or the Guide Association (UK) they share a common history and association that is not shared with their WOSM only counterparts. To say the GSUSA are not covered by this article is to ignore this commonality. If anything needs to be changed, it is the article title not the article subject area.

BTW would Het Arubaanse Padvindsters Gilde (the Aruba WAGGGS associated organization) be in scouts or guides in your classification since padvinderster can be translated as either [female] scout or [female] guide? Erp (talk) 13:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

What the Girl Scouts of the USA was once, briefly, called is irrelevant to this article on "Girl Guides". Within months of forming, Low's nascent Girl Guides of America merged with the earlier and numerically larger Girl Peace Scouts and other Girl Scouts and changed their name to Girl Scouts. For well over a century, they have chosen to be Girl Scouts and eschew being Girl Guides. This article is about "Girl Guides". The shared history, connections and commonality with Girl Scouts is not ignored at all, as you falsely claim, as they are already dealt with in articles on Scouts.

Membership or not of WAGGGS and WOSM and those organization's policies are also irrelevant to this article on Girl Guides.

Erp asks about "your classification" but I am not classifying. The Girl Guides, Girl Scouts and organizations have chosen their own classifications. It is an ideologically driven group of editors who are trying to artificially classify Girl Scouts as Girl Guides.

As to the girl only Het Arubaanse Padvindsters Gilde, the name does not translate to either girl scout or girl guide as Erp claims to help their argument but, very apparently, to "The Aruban Girl Pathfinders Guild". "Pathfinder" is referred to in the lead paragraph of the article on Scouts, along with Girl Scout. Notably, Girl Guides are also mentioned in that article and the article on the Scout Movement. These make it apparent that "Girl Guides" are a particular type or organizations within the Scout Movement but Girl Scouts are not a type of Girl Guide. Girl Scouts, Girl Guides and pathfinders are already mentioned in the articles on Scouts, why would an article specifically on the "Girl Guides" need to cover similar organizations and connections and commonalities already covered in other articles?

Erp suggests changing the article title, rather than limiting the content to the title subject. Such determination to use Wikipedia to push an ideological position. Why does there need to be yet another article to set out the connections and commonalities between Girl Guides and Girl Scouts when such are already covered in articles on the Scouts? Why not have an article on just the Girl Guides? This is just a mind set and ideological position by those who see the world in terms of WOSM and WAGGGS and deferringly believe Wikipedia should have articles divided along the same lines.115.42.10.20 (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that there is a Tower of Babel issue at the root of this. This article (and and some discussions) seem founded on considering "guides" to be a synonym for "scouts" and the topic is all scouting type organizations which are exclusively or primarily only for girls. I'm assuming that "guides" is a synonym for scouts where they speak British English, but "guide" means something different in American English. But then it has a sentence which in essence says that "Girl Scouts" in the USA (which is the proper name of a specific organizations) is a synonym for "Girl Guides" or "girl guides". Finally the "G" in "Guide" is capitalized in the title, which means that it is referring to a specific organization, but that is contrary to the text and content of the article. May I suggest:

1. Step 1. Decide what the topic of the article via description (not yet a title) I'm guessing that the two most likely possibilities are: #1 The organization(s) whose official name is "Girl Guides". #2 Scouting type organizations that are primarily or exclusively for girls
2. Step 2 Create a title which makes sense in both American and British English for that topic
3. Step 3 Modify the article to align with that.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

North8000, Thank you for your sensible contribution to this discussion. Argument that "Girl Guides" and "Girl Scouts" are synonymous or so similar or that they are "all scouting type organizations that are primarily or exclusively for girls" and therefore should be in the same article, necessarily leads to the conclusion that there should not be a separate article on Girl Guides and they all belong in the article(s) on Scouts.

I use British English and the term "guides" is not at all synonymous with "scouts" and I can discern, as most can, between scout and girl guide organizations. In Britain, there are and have been both girl scouts and girl guides for over a century - e.g the British Girl Scouts and Girlguiding|Girl Guides Association]] and there are numerous scout organizations with girl scouts but only one girl guide organization, indicating Girl Guides is a specific and distinct organization.

You are correct in pointing out the nonsense of the suggestion that the Girl Scouts of the USA are somehow "Girl Guides". "Guide" does not mean something different in American English, it is just that the Girl Scouts of USA chose not to be "guides" and determinedly resisted changing (even upon legal threats) from being "Girl Scouts". Particularly as they resisted being "Girl Guides", they should not be included as such and conflated in the same topic.

I suggest that:

• Girl Scouts and scout organizations for girls should be (as they are already) covered in the article(s) on Scouts.
• Girl Guides have a separate article for those organizations distinguished as "Girl Guides" by name, identity and history.115.42.10.20 (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I didn't follow that fully. But there's one thing (which might be underlying) which I'd like to emphasize. In US English, the term "guides" is not used to refer to scout organizations. One other note.....when it comes to terminology/ types of English, sometimes it's about minor differences when choosing whether to use American or British. At other times there are major difference between the meaning of words, we need to handle it so that it is not misleading to anybody. The structure of this article sort of presumes that "guide" is a synonym for "scouts". (which is not true for US English) If this is true for British English, then as a minimum we need to explain. If it's not true for British English, then the article has structural problems beyond just choice of English styles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I note on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scouting the purpose of articles like this is "General summary pages that have see also links to other Scouting pages. Use to lead users to more in depth articles. No longer disambiguation pages due to all the confusion of different naming conventions. All other plurals redirect to the singular per Wikipedia standard, not to Scouting or a separate organization oriented article" now this is based on a discussion back in 2007 (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting#Girl_Guides, note I did make a minor correction recently to the above text to try to make it coherent, I'm also not sure the previous discussion supported the change made in 2007). The previous version might be better "Disambiguation pages due to all the confusion of different naming conventions. All other plurals redirect to the singular per Wikipedia standard, not to Scouting or a separate organization oriented article". In either version both sides now seem to be wrong. We should probably bring this closer to the Boy Scouts article (which points to a full fledged disambiguation page]] and use a disambiguation page. The text of this article should probably move to a new article title specific to the Guiding movement (which includes Girl Guides as well as Girl Scouts). It will require work given the number of links to this page. It will also require discussion which might be better on the WikiProject page and notification of this discussion at appropriate places. Erp (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Erp and the WikiProject Scouting Talk discussion on Girl Guides refer to the "Guiding movement" but the table on the WikiProject Scouting Talk page, the article on the Scout Movement and even this article on Girl Guides, indicate that Girl Guides are part of the Scout Movement. The articles on Scouts and the Scout Movement indicate that Girl Scouts are female Scouts, not Girl Guides. Yet the content of this article on Girl Guides suggests Girls Scouts are Girl Guides. These are just some of the inconsistencies arising from the classification used by some editors. The WikiProject Scouting "article structure" table attempts a form of taxonomic order but it is almost entirely based around WOSM and WAGGGS positions or, more accurately, the divisions between them. The paradigm of those divisions didn't exist at all for Girl Scouts before the formation of the Girl Guides in 1910, never existed for those in Scout organizations, including the British Girl Scouts, that continued to have Girl Scouts, and have shifted since the admission of Girl Scouts to former Boy Scout organizations from the 1970s, making it apparent that the divisions, while they continue between WOSM and WAGGGS, never really held except in some people's perceptions. Many WAGGGS member Girl Scout organizations are not also WOSM members, not because they choose not to be members but because WOSM's constitution permits only one member organization per country. The rule protects the founding members by locking out competitors to legitimize themselves but now also locks out the Girl Guides Association in the UK, its overseas branches and former branches, the Girl Scouts of the USA and other WAGGGS members. This perpetuates a perception of a division, grouping Girl Guides and Girl Scouts, that does not have any necessary basis. Some, imbued with those perceptions hold to them as if they are necessarily true. However, they exist only because of artificial constitution rules of WOSM and WAGGGS that don't hold outside them. Bduke and others in WikiProject Scouting have expressed long support for merger of Scouts and Guides but edit with notions that perpetuate the contrary. I suggest there is a planar or multi-dimensional continuum from Scouts through Girl Scouts to Girl Guides, not a division into two groups, and that Girl Guides are a sub-movement within the Scout Movement. On that continuum, the Girl Scouts of the USA would be close to but not Girl Guides. WAGGGS may include many of the organizations in a section of that continuum, along with scattered outliers. Over time, organizations have moved their positions. Scout-like organizations, through their non-adherence to some tenets of the Scout Movement would sit just off the continuum. The WikiProject Scouting "article structure" could do with a review asking some searching questions about the Scout Movement.

Why shouldn't the many organizations named "Girl Guides" be the subject of a Wikipedia article?

Why would Wikipedia have an article on 'Girl Guides and Girl Scouts', which is an artificial conflation existing only in the notions of some editors when that is an incomplete an inexact grouping as many Girl Scouts are not connected with Girl Guides or WAGGGS.115.42.10.20 (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

North8000, You state that "In US English, the term "guides" is not used to refer to scout organizations". Nor is "guides" synonymous with "scouts" in British English. Girl Guides organizations are and always have been distinctive, particularly by having chosen a different name but still, are not only similar to Scouts but a subset part of the Scout Movement, as clearly indicated by their inclusion in articles on Scouts. People in the US may be less familiar with Girl Guides but there have been Girl Guides organizations in the US, one referred to above by Erp. These points all indicate that this debate is not a result of a difference between US English and British English. The debate and problems with the article are the result of a mindset ideological position that should not hold sway on Wikipedia. As demonstrated by the discussion above by Erp and I, regarding the even less familiar name "pathfinders", most people are capable of coming to an understanding of a variety of terminology and distinguishing.115.42.10.20 (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

IMO it's time to turn this discussion into specifics on what to do. My suggestion (with a tweak) for the next steps remains as follows:

• Step 1. Decide what the topic of the article via description (not yet a title) I'm guessing that the four most likely possibilities are:

1. The organization(s) whose official name is "Girl Guides".
2. Scouting type organizations that are primarily or exclusively for girls
3. If "girl guides" (note lower case) has a meaning, an article on that
4. A disambig page, listing a wide range of articles

• Step 2 Create a title which makes sense in both American and British English for that topic
• Step 3 Modify the article to align with that.

Step 1 is central to our discussion either way...does anyone have an idea on that? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

I would go with step 1 (4), disambig page, for the name "Girl Guides" and merge current information in this article into the Scouting article and perhaps create a separate article on "female-oriented and female-only Guiding and Scouting" (to quote the WAGGGS page) to supplement the Scouting article. Erp (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The suggested disambiguous page would likely create ambiguity. I agree with proposed Steps 1(1) - leave this article for "Girl Guides" under the current title (Step 2). I agree with Erp, to put current information in this article on Girl Scouts and Girl Guides into the Scout Movement article but not all of the content or to merge and delete this article. I think it would be unnecessary to create a separate article on female-only Guides and Scouts to "supplement" what is already covered (and would be expanded by transferring content from this article and presumably under a subheading) in the Scout Movement and Scout (Scouting) articles.115.42.10.20 (talk) 08:19, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The problem with your suggestion is it goes against the previous discussions that took place in the Wikiproject and it makes an artificial distinction between Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (for instance do we include the Het Arubaanse Padvindsters Gilde in it or not given that Padvindsters is sometimes translated Girl Guides and in others Girl Scouts). I note also the article Girl Guide and Girl Scout with its note "For Scouts in coeducational troops and boys-only troops, see Scout (Scout Movement). For the movement, not the member of the section, see Girl Guides." Also see the discussion there. Erp (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

@Erp: What exactly would be your answer be to the question posed in step 1? Would it be one of the 4 listed possibilities or something else? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

What I stated above, number 4, but with concerns. I note the presumably same person behind 115.42.10.20 (now 115.42.13.151) has started a related discussion at Talk:Scouting#Disputed. Erp (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The distinction between Girl Guides and Girl Scouts in not artificial. They have similarities, as with all Scout organizations, but the terms are not synonymous, the organizations are not identical and the two should not be conflated.

The Wikiproject Scouting group are just editors (many long inactive and others outed and permanently blocked or fled) and while I'd consider their reasons, I see no reason why Wikipedia should necessarily follow their decisions. They could review their "previous discussions" from years ago.

The Aruban Girl Pathfinders Guild was discussed above and belongs under its own article and "Pathfinders" are already mentioned in the Scout (Scouting) article and should be mentioned in the Scout Movement article.

I read a few lines of the Girl Guide and Girl Scout article and it's just nonsense and full of inconsistencies from trying to conflate multiple subjects into someone's POV grouping. Scrap the article in favour of a subheading in each of the Scout Movement and Scout (Scouting) articles.115.42.13.151 (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)