Talk:History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyright of images on this page

The creator of this article took the photos of the merit badge images used in this article. The merit badges are in his personal collection. The motif/design of the badges is what is copyrighted by BSA, which the creator of this article secured permission for on 13 Dec 2005. Written confirmation of this is in the works to be submitted to Wikipedia. Rlevse 18:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on one of the other scouting pages was to use the logo tag on these images, and note that it is a copyright or trademark of the BSA. --Gadget850 17:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The logo image tag is: {{logo}}. See Wikipedia: logos for more info. --Gadget850 18:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to apply that consistently then. Any takers? :) --JohnDBuell 18:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a compromise - let the first image stay with fairusein, since Rlevse arranged it himself and took the photo (or, actually it looks like five images combined on a computer, but that's still Rlevse's original arrangement). The individual badges change to the logo template? --JohnDBuell 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I scanned all the MBs in this article on my scanner (did not use a camera) for use herein. For the group shot, I took the five images you see and combined them using PowerPoint, grouped them, then pasted them into Paint and saved as a jpg. Good eye, John! I'll start on your proposal now. Rlevse 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Done with changing to logo tag. I left the group shot alone. Rlevse 19:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Article name

Okay, why Merit Badge Types instead of Design History? Types, to anyone who knows something about the BSA's program, usually means a category (like had been done in the 1960s) or is used to designate the difference in "Mandatory for Eagle Scout" vs. "Non-Mandatory for Eagle Scout." --JohnDBuell 18:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought MB Types would be less confusing to non-BSA folks because if we use "design history" I have no doubt that someone will claim it should refer to the artwork/motif of the MB. Maybe we should just leave the title alone for now until we are ready to resubmit it to FAC. Thoughts? Rlevse 18:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Regarding naming: good point. That would only leave potential options as something like Generations of BSA merit badges or Designs of BSA merit badge generations or something else like that. I think you're right, leave it where it is, maybe get some more feedback (is there a WikiProject for Scouting yet?), re-work, and re-submit. --JohnDBuell 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I think a WikiProject on Scouting is a great idea. There does not appear to be one in the list. Thoughts? Rlevse 19:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

References

If possible, can you include the page numbers with the references to the Merit Badge Field Guide book? --JohnDBuell 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. Rlevse 22:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Writing style

I'd like to follow up on my disparaging comments on the featured-article proposal. I've rewritten the Type F section; I hope it looks better now. --Smack (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for being willing to help. It would be nice to have a consistent style that all can agree on in the Type A-J sections. So far I like what you're doing. I'm eager to see what it looks like when you finish as I see you're right in the middle of it at the moment. Rlevse 19:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I edited that section just to demonstrate what I meant. (Sorry if I didn't make that clear.) I'm trying to get through a huge backlog on my watchlist and to-do list, where the articles need help more urgently than this one. I may come back here later, but if you want to pick up in the meantime where I left off, that would be great. --Smack (talk) 18:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It's just so hard to make those paragraphs sound good. I can't find a way to make them anything other than disjointed collections of facts. It almost seems that they would read better if they were broken up into several columns. Take a look at Merit badge types (BSA)/temp. --Smack (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. This may be a great idea (table redesign). I may do this when I get more time (there'd be 10 to redesign and reedit. THx! Rlevse 21:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

Scout is always capitalized, even in ranks, when it refers to Scouting in English. Chris 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right, and the usage wasn't consistent through the article. I've made them all with an uppercase "S", except the ones that are links to articles or websites. Thanks for catching it. Rlevse 16:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

internal source help

/sigh I'm still unsure how to do interal source citing ... I just added a line to the "Badge History" section: "Currently, the BSA "field testing" Hunting merit badge but it has not yet been released on a national basis. which I got from [1]. This source is already cited internally elsewhere in the article. If you can fix this for me that would be great. --Naha|^(talk) 19:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's only in the ref (now) and external links. I made the external link go specifically to the MB section, so I feel this is fixed. Rlevse 21:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Merit badge collecting

I saw the comment on the FAC page about needing to edit or remove the collecting section. I have to agree that unless it mainly contains info on badge collection as a hobby (as opposed to other BSA memoribilia) that it should be removed. Over the last hour I've been looking for info via Google searches about badge collecting as a *hobby* and am not really turning up anything good. All the collection information I can find is in regards to the scouts *earning* the badges and the criteria needed to earn them. I'll look some more I guess.--Naha|^(talk) 21:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Citation needed?

Does this claim really need a citation? "Spoof badges should never be worn on a Scouting uniform" ? I mean ...it makes complete sense. What offical group of any kind that pridees itself in the manner in which it awards its members would allow that? I think citing sources is wonderful, but over the last week or so it seems like all of a sudden people think every sentence in every article needs a citation. Seems a bit out of control. --Naha|^(talk) 21:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It makes complete sense to me too, but I added two refs anyway.Rlevse 22:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, better to overcite than leave people wondering I guess ...I'm just on a citation-police tare at the moment lol. --Naha|^(talk) 22:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

LOL

• Normally this criteria is something like, cooking, or weaving, but other useless feminine activities are also uncluded.

The above has been reported as vandalism. Rlevse 03:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

ALL VANDALISM ON THIS TALK PAGE AND THE ARTICLE PAGE HAS BEEN AND WILL BE REPORTED. Rlevse 03:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Start Year of Scouting

This page says Scouting started in the UK in 1908. It didn't - it was 1907. 2007 (ie next year) is our 100th anivesary and there is all sorts of things planned. See www.scouts.org.uk for further proof. Can someone change this (don't want to do it myself as it's a featured page and there's lots of warnings about vandals here).

Thanks for catching that. Can't believe I missed that. Fixing it would not be vandalism, but helping. Rlevse 10:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Temp page

If someone who is an editor of this page can look over Merit badge types (BSA)/temp and see if there is anything to merge. The temp page has remained unedited for 2 months now. It should be deleted if there is nothing to save. Once anything is merged, place a {{db|temporary page}} tag on the page and an admin should speedy delete it. Pepsidrinka 04:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I forgot all about this. It can be deleted. Rlevse 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Spoof Merit Badges/Whitewater Kayaking

Under the section titled Spoof Merit Badges, it is mentioned that whitewater kayaking would possibly be approved by the BSA, but currently isn't. There is, in fact, a Whitewater merit badge. Perhaps this part of the article should be changed to reflect that reality. Mathboy965 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I just removed it to avoid confusion. Feel free to join the Scouting Wikiproject. Rlevse 18:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Page move

I've moved the page from History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) because the article History of merit badges doesn't exist (meaning that the paranthetical title is unnecessary) but the context of Boy Scouts is still needed. If you disagree, feel free to move it back. Axem Titanium 22:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Your new title is incorrect because the badges are specifically BSA badges and Boy Scout does not equal BSA, the title was agreed upon during a FAC, and you moved it without any discussion. So I moved it all back.Rlevse 23:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed- this article is BSA specific. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DogCare E back.jpg

Image:DogCare E back.jpg 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) 05:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DogCare E front.jpg

Image:DogCare E front.jpg 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) 05:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ForageCrops G back.jpg

Image:ForageCrops G back.jpg 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) 06:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ForageCrops G front.jpg

Image:ForageCrops G front.jpg 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) 06:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Camping H (Green) 1973-1977

The Wiki article cites this BSA Camping H (Green) 1973-1977as being a somewhat rare required merit badge due to the green border for this issue during this limited period of time. I do not have a scanner to present this merit badge in the same manner as most other merit badge images for this article (nor do I care to rip this merit badge off of the slash in order to scan it). I hope this image may be utilized to compliment the text in either the G (where mentioned in text) or the H section.Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 05:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest, but...It's somewhat rare, but it's not an error so that section is not applicable. It's not a G, so it can't go there either. It's on a sash, so we can't get a back photo. It's also just not that important. The scope is highlights of the "type" history of MBs, not to cover every variation. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse, let me first thank you for creating this article and most of the scanned images as the original author, along with your many progressing contributions and edits to History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) since Dcember, 2005.

However, I am thinking that you seem to be confused as the section in question is actually titled Errors vs variations with the subsection Specimen variations and not simply "Errors", and I do not recall presenting this Camping H 1973-1977 merit badge image as a Type G (perhaps you meant to say that you are thinking that this image did not belong within the Type G table), however, perhaps you or another previous editor (or editors) thought that this particular Camping merit badge is of significant enough interest to "highlight" as separate examples within the both the Type G text and Specimen variations sections:

In 1969, the BSA started issuing silver-bordered badges for those badges that were on the mandatory list for Eagle rank. Silver–bordered badges appear in Type G, H, and J. Consequently, the border color of a badge will change when it goes on and off the mandatory list. A good example is "Camping" Type H, which had a green border from 1973–1977, yet silver border before and after that; so this particular green border "Camping" variety is fairly rare.

thumb|right|100px|Rlevs:Collections, Type H, backthumb|right|100px|Rlevs:Manufacturing error on the First Aid to Animals merit badge, Type H, 1972, backFurthermore, as the article already has one sufficient reverse example of the Type H merit badge within the article, if would be redundant to feature the reverse image of the Camping H 1973-1977, such as a similar manner that it is redundant to feature the your First Aid To Animals H Silver Error back image file within the article.

Specimen variations

Variations do not appreciably alter the badge's appearance or design. Two types of variations include positional changes and stitching changes. These are often caused by manufacturing variations and not classified separately. However, some variations have attained notoriety, such as the waffle weave variation found among Type C badges and the large people vs. slender people variations among Family Life badges. Such variations were very common up until the 1940s and still occur, though not as often. Collectors find these variations interesting and collect such badges.

Examples of positional shifts among the objects comprising the motif of a merit badge include changes in the precise positioning of the tent and the mountains among Camping Type H merit badges. Another example is the shift among the Scout, the mountains, and the clouds in Hiking Type H merit badges.

The upshot is that this new image file of the good example Camping H 1973-1977 merit badge serves to both compliment and further enhance the understanding of Wiki users to the existing text of other authors --- including your own previous entries within the article that you chose not to edit out the related text of previous authors along with the Camping Type H 1973-1977 image file. I am thinking that perhaps we could both agree that this Camping H 1973-1977 is a fairly rare variation that supports the article text, and that a table similar to the ones constructed to display the individual merit badge types could be utilizied to better display examples of Error vs variations merit badges.
Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

variations are changes in design such as location of mb components, stiching changes etc. There is nothing unique about the 1970s green border Camping MB. I have more than one copy myself, and they're not on a sash. There are far rarer MBs too. The Type C stitching variations are actually far rarer, as are several others. Now let's stop reverting each other and work this out. I have a specimen of most MBs. What exactly do you want, to have the green camping mb in the article or show a variation of some type? There are better examples than the green 1970s Camping MB. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Rlevse, for your quick response (although I am thinking that you unnecessarily deleted the image and caption of the Camping Type F merit badge) and for solicting my suggestions as I believe that we can both agree that an individual cannot exercise ownership over any particular Wikipedia article --- and generally speaking, I am thinking that this small portion of the overall article should displayed as in the following example:

Specimen variations

Specimen variation of Camping merit badge with green edge, Type H, 1973-1977.

Variations do not appreciably alter the badge's appearance or design. Two types of variations include positional changes and stitching changes. These are often caused by manufacturing variations and not classified separately. However, some variations have attained notoriety, such as the waffle weave variation found among Type C badges and the large people vs. slender people variations among Family Life badges. Such variations were very common up until the 1940s and still occur, though not as often. Collectors find these variations interesting and collect such badges.

Examples of positional shifts among the objects comprising the motif of a merit badge include changes in the precise positioning of the tent and the mountains among Camping Type H merit badges. Another example is the shift among the Scout, the mountains, and the clouds in Hiking Type H merit badges.

Stitch patterns are not always consistent. There are three known stitching variations among the Type C Personal Health merit badges: "vertical heart", "horizontal heart", and "split heart"; the variation creates the appearance of a split down the middle of the heart. A similar error appears in both Type H and Type J Citizenship in the Nation badges, where colors vary in order from red, white, and blue to blue, white, and red; the reasons for this are unknown. Large and small bell varieties also exist. Emergency Preparedness was made with a red cross from 1972 until 1979, when it was replaced with a green cross in 1980. This change was intentionally made. However, the color of the green is not consistent; even today, it varies between dark green, medium green, light green, and yellow green.

Manufacturing errors

thumb|right|100px|Manufacturing error on the First Aid to Animals merit badge, Type H, 1972, frontGenuine manufacturing errors occur from time to time. Some Atomic Energy Type G badges were made without a nucleus. The only time a merit badge was made without a silver, green, or blue (aviation blues only) border was in 1987 when Whitewater Type H badges were made with a black border. Dairying appears in Type H with the cheese in both orange and burgundy. It is supposed to be orange.

There have been at least three Type H badges made with little or no plastic; called plasticizing or Type G errors: American Cultures, Colonial Philadelphia, and Journalism. The Colonial Philadelphia patch was only available from 1975 until 1976 to Scouts in the Philadelphia region and could only be used for Eagle Palms.

First Aid to Animals (FATA) Type H was made in error with a silver border in 1972. This is one of the most famous errors. It has a slight blue tint in the plastic back (see photos). It is believed that only about 100 of these were made and that only about 50 have survived to this day. Counterfeit versions of this badge error also exist. "Beekeeping" Type G is also known in silver border error. Neither one has ever been a required merit badge.

[...]

I am thinking that is would better serve this article to leave my uploaded file of the Camping Type F (1973-1977) merit badge with the "Variation" caption as shown in the aforementioned example, move the front image of the Animal First Aid Silver Error image file to the Manufacturing errors section, and simply altogether eliminate the redundant reverse image of the Animal First Aid Silver Error image file (the Type H section already provides front and reverse image display of the Type H Collections merit badge) and in addition, the reverse image of the Animals First Aid merit badge is both cropped too tight and features a shadow across the top of the image from where the merit badge was scanned to close against an edge of the flatbed scanner.

Perhaps you should also choose your words more carefully...actually, a BSA merit badge variation --- according to the uncited definition in your article History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) --- "is a minor change, whether intentional or not" and that further, that the BSA Camping Type F 1973-1977merit badge is according to [[History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)#Type G|both a "good example" of BSA merit badge variation and "fairly rare". Futhermore states that:

Consequently, the border color of a badge will change when it goes on and off the mandatory list. A good example is "Camping" Type H, which had a green border from 1973–1977, yet silver border before and after that; so this particular green border "Camping" variety is fairly rare.

If we are to understand you correctly (in context of the article), then how is "...this particular green border "Camping" Type H 'variety is now somehow not a variation of the BSA Camping silver–bordered badges appearing in Type G, H, and J? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...variation, variety.

I only uploaded the Camping H Green1973.jpg image file as the article references this specific and "fairly rare" Camping Type H (1973-1977) merit badge with the green border and that the Camping Type H merit badge being referenced in a different passage "Specimen variation" without providing an image file to generally show the Camping merit badge, and more specifically illustrate the Camping Type H 1973-1977) specimen variation.

As far as the perception of quality, I am sure there is a divided camp on the diffrence of digital photos of merit badges on a sash versus scanned images of merit badges captured on a flatbed scanner; I never was a collector of BSA merit badges, rather I earned a few along the way amd I am thinking that many other Scouts and former Scouts would not find any problem with displaying an image file within the Wiki article of a single merit badge sewn onto a sash.

I am also viewing this article in Netscape and I am viewing most of these merit badge images as having a brighter white background than actually displayed on the Wikipedia page itself. As the Camping Type H would not not be featured within an existing table format (but rather within the Species variation section, I find nothing wrong with this image file... you may however, as a closing suggestion, want to find a better quality front view of the Animal First Aid merit badge in your collection that has the merit badge logo properly centered and then re-scan it that Animal First Aid merit badge centered within the image file itself.
Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Section break

I'm not claiming ownership and I resent the insinuation. I'm trying to keep this featured article at the highest quality.---a lot of work went into getting it there. But let's move on. Your merit badge is not a "Camping Type F (1973-1977)" it's a "Camping Type H (1973-1977)". While it is somewhat rare, it is not a variation and does not illustrate the point of the paragraph you're trying to attach it to---this is the basic problem with it being there. It is a standard variety green Camping type H, the "standard issue" for Camping MB of its day--there's nothing exceptionally unique about it. A variation would be if it had a red tent instead of a green tent, ie, as the article states, a deviation from the "standard issue". The FATA reverse is a blue-back, and hence is not redundant as the other image is a clear back. The reverse image does have a shadow but I can fix that, as I can fix the slight tilt in the scan, but since we're criticizing images, notice yours has almost the exact same degree of tilt. Yours also has many sewing threads that crunch the badge. As for the FATA being a little off center, there are only about 50 in the world, so they're not many of them to choose from. The Green Camping H had tens of thousands manufactured and I myself have better specimens. The overall quality of that specimen is not up to that of the others in the article. As for a centered FATA, I'll contact another collector about a more-centered silver border FATA.

I honestly feel a better sample for the variation section would be a waffle weave Type C. Or, a large vs slender people Family Life pair. Both of these possibilities are also mentioned in the article. How about one of them?

Another suggestion, you may want to consider adding that MB and/or your sash to Advancement_and_recognition_in_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America#Boy_Scouting, Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America). — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Camping H Green1973.jpg

Image:Camping H Green1973.jpg 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 ensure 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) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Done at the image description page and includes a fair use rationale

Bee Cliff River Slob (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting

Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Disadvantages of date-autoformatting

• (1) In-house only

• (a) It works only for the WP "elite".
• (b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
• (c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.

• (2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences

• (a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.

• (3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates

• (a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
• (b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
• (c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.

• (4) Typos and misunderstood coding

• (a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
• (b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
• (c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.

• (5) Edit-mode clutter

• (a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.

• (6) Limited application

• (a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
• (b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. I'm seeking feedback about this proposal to remove it from the main text (using a script) in about a week's time on a trial basis/ The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone earns all 121 badges

[2], a story I noticed in the Chicago Tribune about "LINCOLN PARK, Mich. - An 18-year-old from Lincoln Park is being honored for earning all of the Boy Scouts' 121 merit badges." Thought someone might want to add this somehow.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really. This article is specifically about the types of merit badges. But Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America) is probably a better article for it. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool, I did a search and this was the first entry that popped up, and the article claims he's the first to do so since the Scouts founding in 1910. Will post something on other page, thanks.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Title

I'd like to propose moving Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America)] to List of merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America and History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) to merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America. I think these titles are more typical for Wikipedia and are more on-topic. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed to the history one. This article is specifically about the history (evolution) of the badges, not MBs in general. If you look at the FACs on this article, you'll find a lot of talk about the article title and this is the one settled on. Don't care about the first one. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs a place

Currently, the BSA is "field testing" a Hunting merit badge, but it has not yet been released on a national basis."Hunting merit badge being field tested". Merit Badge Research Center. Retrieved 2005-12-28.

I had heard this, but I don't think it will be released. Boy Scouts aren't allowed to go hunting, so this never made sense to me. Robotics ,GPS/GIS, Scouting Heritage and Scuba appear to be forthcoming. http://www.scoutingnews.org/2009/08/13/new-merit-badges/ ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I heard, but can't prove, it was hunting with a camera. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Self-published source

• Duersch Jr., Fred (2003). Merit Badge Field Guide. Downs Printing Inc.

By all evidence, this appears to be a self-published source. Downs Printing is simply a printer,[3] not a publisher. Presumably they'll print anything that isn't illegal or immoral. There's no ISBN, and it is only held by two libraries, both near the printer(and presumably the author).[4] The author, though probably devoted to the cause,[5] does not appear to be an established expert. For those reasons, this source does not seem to meet Wikipedia standards, per WP:SPS. If there's no objection I'll remove it.   Will Beback  talk  09:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The obit is for the author's father. Fred Duersch, Jr. is considered an expert in this field.[6] He is a contributor to the Journal of the American Scouting Historical Society[7] and the International Scouting Collectors Association Journal. His Scouting books include Green Khaki Crimped Edge Merit Badges, 1947-1960 which was expanded into the Merit Badge Field Guide, now in it's 3rd edition,[8] and A History of the Order of the Arrow in the Cache Valley Council. He has also written a number of genealogy books. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that reply. The very brief article by Duersch in the Journal of the American Scouting Historical Society doesn't seem like it's sufficient to establish him as a published expert, and the Journal itself isn't exactly a scholarly work itself. It seems more like a high quality hobbyist's newsletter/catalog. The Herald Journal article makes him sound like an avid collector, but not a published expert. Green khaki crimped-edge merit badges issued by the Boy Scouts of America from 1947 through 1960 is held by only one library, and also looks self-published.[9] Ditto for A History of the Order of the Arrow in the Cache Valley Council. Self-publishing three books doesn't make one a published expert either. The source would be passable if this were just a minor article on an obscure topic, but I don't know how this became an FA. I suppose the standards were much lower back then.   Will Beback  talk  09:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-free images

Resolved

How does reducing the number of non-free images from 23 to 17 resolve anything? This is a FA...with 17 non-free images? Shirtwaist ^chat 23:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the maximum number of allowable non-free images? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Are merit badges really logos? Logos seem to mostly be used for marketing and identification purposes. Some of these are not recognizable as being connected to the BSA, unless one already knows them. They'd seem more like trading cards or stamps. Also, the fair use statements for each says that each one is used in an infobox at the top of the article:

• The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America), a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey.

That rationale seems incorrect for any but the actual image in the infobox.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixed ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• The significance of the badge is to help the reader identify the badge, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the badge, and illustrate the nature of the badge in a way that words alone could not convey.

Are the badges used to assure readers that they have reached the right article? I don't think so. Neither are they really used to identify the individual badges, since that isn't the purpose of the illustrations. The final rationale seems correct though - they are used to illustrate differing construction techniques through history. The actual image on the badge seems or secondary or tertiary importance to how it was made.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Images removed. Issue resolved. This just isn't fun anymore. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to be a stickler for following the rules. This is an FA and it should be in full compliance with the fair use and other policies.   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the images aren't usable, we just need to make sure that the paperwork is correct.   Will Beback  talk  01:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixing other articles. Bye. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 02:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we just need to cross the I's and dot the T's for the licensing on these images, so no need to remove them all yet. Let's fix the ones that need to be fixed, eh? Dreadstar ☥ 02:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The type A badges should be public domain because they were published before 1923 --Guerillero | My Talk 15:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• http://www.scouters.us/homemb.html
• http://mitchreis.com/bsafake.htm
• http://www.dtmb.gobot.com/
• http://www.scoutingnews.org/2009/08/13/new-merit-badges/
• http://www.sageventure.com/history/changes/#merit

These webpages appears to be self-published sources.   Will Beback  talk  05:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

?? What do you mean? Especially by the "self" ? And what is the wp:issue that you are implying? North8000 (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS.   Will Beback  talk  11:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

(added later) You can't possibly be calling that an answer. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

See the FA in the FAR on this that is mostly SPS and this particular one was endorsed at the notice board. Everything else to say is here. 206.217.140.229 (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.meritbadge.com/home.htm

This appears to be an open wiki.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hillcourt problem

With citing the "7th edition". According to all of the Hillcourt listings at worldcat there is only one publication by Hillcourt in 1965 and it's a 6th edition held in Denmark. So either worldcat is wrong or the source in this article is wrong. In fact I see no other listing for the handbook written by Hillcourt except for the 9th edition. This needs to be fixed. Brad (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

World.cat is wrong. William Hillcourt is known to have written at the 6th, 7th, and 9th editions of the Boy Scout Handbook. The 9th was called "The Official Boy Scout Handbook" and the 6th and 7th "Boy Scout Handbook". So as for the edit you made changing 7th to 9th, both editions are correct. 216.246.49.22 (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody clarify the exact question/change/proposed change with respect to the article? I think I might have put one or more of those in, and did it from info from holding the book(s) in my hand. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

From the handbook you used please list here all of the information relevant. Publisher, year of publication, author, location of publisher, edition, isbn if it has one, and reprint year if applicable. I will take it from there. Brad (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember which ones I put in, but I'll do that for the ones I have copies of. (Except my 1940's one is missing a key page in that respect) North8000 (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

As a quick note on the authorship topic, In the 7th edition it says that it was written by Hillcourt. I think that they gave him particular prominence in the 9th edition because at that time he was a core person/ leader in their recovery from their failed experiment of the early 1970's, and a visible sign (for publicity etc) that the recovery was occurring. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

You can of course look at the article history to find out which cites you added. Brad (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course, but I'll just do it for all of them where I have the actual books. North8000 (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have some of the old handbooks, including edition 7 (yes it's Hillcourt's), two from the 1940s (one with the campfire and Indian and one with the sea scout). I have a few other versions too. If you need info from them post here.216.246.49.19 (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am missing the key page from the 5th edition which has most of that stuff. Could you post the info that Brad101 described from the 5th edition? North8000 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be the one with the three Scouts in uniform sitting by a nighttime campfire with a ghost/spirit-looking Indian rising from behind the campfire smoke. The 5th edition was printed from 1948-1959 and was called Handbook For Boys. Here's info from the one I have: Copyright 1948 by Boy Scouts of America, New Brunswick, NJ, 5th edition, 11th printing, October 1957, 525,000 copies. I don't see a named author but it lists a Ted S. Pettit as general editor with "using material especially prepared by experts in many fields". It goes on to say different chapters were mostly done by various people listed. No ISBN. Let me know if more info is needed. 216.246.49.19 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much! I'd like to triple check myself, and since I'm also missing the cover, could you just pick any page number somewhere in the middle of the book (e.g. page 342) and tell me the first few words on it? Thank you so much! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have the same edition but a different printing isn't it possible the pagination could be a little different? In my 1957 printing page 342 is the third page of the handicraft section and it's all text, no ads or diagrams. The top line reads "...(uncut) edges at the seams (A), and for the folds to..." It's talking about making your own tent. 216.246.49.20 (talk) 20:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!!!!!! that exactly matches mine which I received from someone who used it in the 1940's, presumably 1949. North8000 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have all but a 2nd edition Handbook. User:Gadget850/Scouting bibliography ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Bibliography

Brad, I added the page numbers here, but since that cite is used several times in the article, and there are different page numbers per the content, it looks like it needs to be split out. Not sure the best way to do that. Show me how and I'll make it so! Dreadstar ☥ 22:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes it will need to be split out. Look at the two sources I moved down into the bibliography and set yours the same way. Then you can see how I changed the Hillcourt (9th ed) and Duersch (2003) refs by looking through the changes I've done recently. Just keep in mind that uniformity in referencing is important to criteria 2c. That means watching to make sure the periods and commas are all in the same place. The "full citation" tag in the references means that at least a publisher name is missing. All sources need as much information as possible. I'll leave the inuse tag on and you can remove it if you wish but I'm done editing on this for today. Brad (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, that is cool! So much simpler than the full citation style, I like it! I also like the 'in-use' tag, that would have come in handy on several articles I've worked on and I'm sure will come in handy in the future! I'll remove the in-use tag for now, and work on this more tomorrow! Dreadstar ☥ 02:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope I added in the 2008 3rd Edition of the Merit Badge Field Guide correctly.[10] I haven't been able to find an OCLC number yet, I'll check again tomorrow. Dreadstar ☥ 02:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

These are shortened footnotes. I updated the Duersch refs using {{sfn}}— no refanme required, cleaner markup and the shortnote links to the longnote. Also, if only month and year are known, don't use |date= as it mangles shortened footnote links— use |month= and |year=. I will do some more cleanup.

Why do we have two different editions of Duersch in use? I understand a 4th edition is coming out in the fall. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 17:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The 2003 Duersch references were in the article already, I added cites and cotent from the 2008 version. I can probably update the 2003 edition to the 2008, I only have a copy of the 2008 3rd edition; I'll just have to go through and verify everything. Dreadstar ☥ 21:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I like the shortened footnotes, those are cool! Thanks Gadget! Dreadstar ☥ 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

If you did not know— you click to follow the link and press back to go back. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Duct tape

We really need four references? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that anybody who wants to change it can just feel free to use their judgement. North8000 (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources are pretty weak. The Atlantic Highlands Herald looks like a one-man news portal. http://www.dtmb.gobot.com/index.html looks like a self-published website.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, since it is just an idea rather than a real merit badge, it might new a few refs to show the idea has some RW notability, not that wp:notability applies. North8000 (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Handbook for Boys, 5th ed., Ted Pettit, ed. 1948

I have obtained a copy of this book, but I don't understand how or why it is being used as a reference. Citation #32 is used for this statement: Type E: Dog Care. Are we citing the existence of the badge? The Dog Care badge does appear on page 480, and the line drawing resembles the photograph. If we are using the handbook as a reference for the mere existence of a particular merit badge, then I don't understand why we're only citing the Dog Care badge. I see that there is a gardening badge (though it looks different), a public health basge(which looks similar), a citizenship (civics) badge (also similar), a camping badge (similar), swimming (similar), a "Grasses, Legumes, and Forage Crops" badge (similar design but changed name), and a stalking badge (similar design, changed name). We should either cite all of the individual badges or none. I don't see much point in simply citing the fact that the badges existed at one time or another - the photographs are probably sufficient proof. Citation #33 is used here: "Years of Issue: 1947[33]–1960 Last type with crimped edges", and the citation refers to pages 456-526, which is the chapter on merit badge requirements. However the book does not mention "Type E badges" or crimped edges, nor does it say they were introduced in 1947. I would call that #33 a failed verification. So I would remove this book as a cited reference, since it doesn't seem to say anything about the history of merit badges (unless there's something else in the book which does so that I haven't found.)   Will Beback  talk  06:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going by memory but I put a few cites in where it confirmed some basics, e.g. that it is as shown circa that time period, or as partial confirmation of the years. You seem to be arguing for removing a cite/reference because there is something similar or parallel elsewhere that is not cited, or because the scope covered by it is narrow. That is the reverse of what is supposed to be happening. North8000 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I had just pulled my Handbooks (I have all but a 2nd edition) off the shelf to check this— they only show that a particular merit badge existed when the Handbook was published. Dog Care merit badge is referenced by the 1948 Handbook but the badge was created in 1938. The 1965 Handbook is used to reference Forage Crops merit badge which was also created in 1938. None of the Handbooks have any history on the merit badges. As best I can tell, the classifications of types and nicknames were developed by collectors and codified by Duersch. Back issues of Boys' Life and Scouting will probably have information on introduction and discontinuation— the articles have links to the Google Books editions. I have done a diligent search, but the only currently published source on merit badge history is Duersch. It appears that Duersch based some of his initial research on Rick Hubbard's The Merit Badge Chronicle (1986) which is out of print and probably well out of date. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 14:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I found the same thing which is why my uses as I recall them of the handbooks were to cite only narrower things per my previous post. The handbooks really don't get into the things like the construction details of merit badges. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to removing these two citations?   Will Beback  talk  21:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think that they should be left in, for the above reasons. North8000 (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please repeat the reasons. I'm particularly concerned about citation #33, which does not support the assertion. Nowhere in the book does it say that the Type E badge was started in 1947.   Will Beback  talk  21:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Basically, they confirm certain aspects of the material which cited them. If there are questioned aspects that they do not confirm, that is a reason to add sourcing, not to remove sourcing. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please quote the material from the source which confirms that Type E badges were started in 1947.   Will Beback  talk  21:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that it said that. And so you are implying that I said (false) things things I didn't say and asking me to support them. I'm not going to be drawn into one of these attempted-manipulative-discussion situations again. Sorry I couldn't find a more indirect way to say that, I tried. What I did say regarding this is above. North8000 (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't follow that at all. Citations that don't directly support the text they're next to are worse than useless - they're misleading.

This thread leaves me wondering if the other Handbook editions are being used the same way, as pseudo-sources that don't actually support the claims in the text. If we can't resolve this then we may need to review each of those more carefully as well.   Will Beback  talk  22:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Since you seem to have conveniently "forgotten" it, (since just a few posts up) here it is again: "I'm going by memory but I put a few cites in where it confirmed some basics, e.g. that it is as shown circa that time period, or as partial confirmation of the years." The only thing that you need to "review" is wp citing 101. It's quite common that a cite does not confirm everything that it is put after. If someone questions the items not covered, they can tag the remaining items for citation, challenge them as as being uncited, or can add cites/sources. What is "inexplicable" and invalid is someone saying that the cite which covers the other aspects/items should be removed. North8000 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

What fact appears in that book which supports the statements at citation #33? None that I can see. The best that we can do with this material is to add a line to the description block saying that the 1948 Handbook includes an illustration which resembles the photograph. Even that is borderline original research.   Will Beback  talk  00:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's say this is an article on an architect. Let's say that the article says,"his neo-modern period lasted from 1965 to 1971". Could we then use as a citation a photograph of a house taken in 1967, with no other relevant info? We wouldn't know when the house was built (except prior to 1967), what the style is, or anything else useful. A citation can serve as an illustration rather than a source, so if that's the intent the that's different. But since we already have a photo illustrating the appearance of the so-called "Type E" badge I'm not sure what these citations are supposed to add.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll post a list of the sentences and cites for which I've requested quotes or other explanations.   Will Beback  talk  00:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a valid analogy, Will. At this point I can only feel sorry for you and pity you Will. Asking for multiple quotes from sources?...after you've taken multiple swipes, when one doesn't do it you take another swipe at it. The single minded zeal with which you go after your perceived enemies is amazing. And you're an admin, somehow. What happened to you to make you this way, Will? Who/what hurt you so bad to make you attack this article this way? Were you kicked out of Scouts when you were a boy? Someone connected with this article committed some perceived wrong towards you? What is it? Have you noticed no one else has consistently supported you? A quick look at just your current talk page shows you're a party to an arb case and a couple other complaints about your wiki behavior. i think there's a pattern here by you. What would a deeper look find, Will?184.22.81.64 (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, but your constant personal attacks are entirely inappropriate, and reflect poorly on those who make an effort to obey the BS oath. And making such attacks while using anonymous IPs is rather cowardly. If you're going to hurl insults at least have the courage to sign in with your usual account.   Will Beback  talk  01:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Scout handbook by Hines 8th ed. 3rd printing

Now you made me go and dig out my old handbook. But the skulduggery with referencing continues. Current citation #18 says p. 443 but there is nothing on p. 443 that backs up anything in that paragraph. Current citation #39 is pp. 374-473 but all those pages are is a listing of merit badges; not enough to cite the historical timeline that it's currently doing. Brad (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I put some of the manual cites in. As indicated, "I put a few cites in where it confirmed some basics, e.g. that it is as shown circa that time period, or as partial confirmation of the years". I hope that you are not calling that "skulduggery", that would be the worst case of ABF. I am going to check the ones that look familiar. North8000 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't bother to look and see who added the cite because this isn't a finger pointing exercise. Now that two independent editors have consulted the sources used it's obvious that serious problems exist. Laying down cites that don't cover or only partially cover article content is misleading. As for #39, looking at two different sources and drawing a conclusion is original research. Brad (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling something skulduggery certainly amounts to fingerpointing and worse. I think this is merely a matter of understanding how sourcing works and the massive changes that have been made to this article since it was suggested for FA delist. I certainly don't see evidence of underhanded or unscrupulous behavior in regards to sourcing. I kindly ask you to retract that remark, Brad. Dreadstar ☥ 22:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I never got a response to my question of how the Scuba Diving citation got added when the source contained nothing about the material being cited. If we had honest answers to how this article is being sourced then it'd be easier to assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I've run into citation skulduggery once before elsewhere. When I ask questions and get a sideways answer like above here with the Hillcourt 7th ed question, I start looking closer. There are editors claiming things are referenced when they aren't. There is the 216 flamer problem and the overall hassle that Will Beback is going through. And now I've found cites that don't back what they're claiming because I have the book in front of me. It doesn't bode well for the article when two independent editors find bad cites. Sometimes there are editors more worried about keeping an article's status then they are about making sure the article is correct. So far that's all I've seen going on here. I most certainly do understand how sources and citations work. I've taken 4 articles through FAC and helped other editors get theirs past FAC as well. Brad (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's not a satisfactory answer, I find your comment to be a personal attack against both North and myself. Whether you believe it or not, my actions on this article are untarnished by underhanded or unscrupulous intentions. My comment about "understanding how sourcing works", was not directed at you, but at the attempts by North to use a source to partially source some of the content. As far as WBB's "overall hassle" experience, that's a whole other issue that I don't see the need to address here. Thanks for the assumption of bad faith. Dreadstar ☥ 03:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Brad, there's a huge difference from the situations which you describe. I have NEVER claimed or implied that the material I put the cites on is now (i.e. sufficiently) cited. In fact I have essentially said the opposite when I said that the cites I put on only partially confirm the material which cited them, that the badges are as shown circa the year of the source, or as only partial confirmation of the years which the statement says that it was out. I gave the example where if it was stated that it was out 1934-1936 and the source just confirms that it was out circa 1935. Last night I got the books out and was going to more specifically address them (the handbook ones that I put in) one by one, but see that all but one are now gone, and I addressed the one remaining one. As reconfirmation of what I said before (just trying to help a little, not debate or be mentally invested in FA status) and how disgusted I am with the maneuvers and painful atmosphere there, I indicated that I am leaving the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Cites/Sources which cover only one aspect

As indicated above, "I'm going by memory but I put a few cites in where it confirmed some basics, e.g. that it is as shown circa that time period, or as partial confirmation of the years.". Will just went through an put 6 more tags (plus one the day before= 7) saying "quotation requested" despite the above clarification that for these types of situations such is not applicable. For example, if the listing or picture in the source just confirms that the badge is as shown circa that time period, or partially confirms the given year range (being an example for the year of the source) text quotes are not going to be applicable. I'm going to assume the best, that Will was just unsure if the above conversation was applicable to those tagged cites and I will look at the tagged items individually to see if such is the case. North8000 (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

1. ) There have been 11 major styles of merit badges: Types A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K.
2. ) Type A: Years of Issue: 1911–1933
3. ) Type E: Years of Issue: 1947–1960 Last type with crimped edges
4. ) Type G: Years of Issue:1961–1971
5. ) A good example is "Camping" Type H, which had a green border from 1973–1977, yet silver border before and after that; so this particular green border "Camping" variety is fairly rare.
6. ) Type H: Years of Issue: 1972–2002
7. ) Most Type C badges come in both cotton and silk thread variations. Emergency Preparedness was made with a red cross from 1972 until 1979, when it was replaced with a green cross in 1980.

So the question is, what do the text or illustrations in the cited sources say to support these statements?   Will Beback  talk  01:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll be re-checking on the ones for older handbooks (1979 and B4); I think I put most of those in. And what I'll be verifying is what I said which was: "I put a few cites in where it confirmed some basics, e.g. that it is as shown circa that time period, or as partial confirmation of the years." This means that they do not fully confirm confirm all aspects of the statement that they are after. For example, if the text said that it was used during 1935-1937, that one being pictured in a 1936 manual is a "partial confirmation of the years" or that "it is as shown circa that time period" North8000 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If that is what the source says, then that's what we should say. Not "1935-1937", but rather, "A similar badge appears in the 1936 manual."   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a different topic (whether or not the statement is challenged/sufficiently) sourced. Those statements were there already; I just added sources which partially confirmed them. North8000 (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If the citations you are adding only partially or indirectly support the assertions then where do the assertions actually come from? My guess is that virtually every sentence in the "Types of merit badges" section, and much of the rest of the article, comes from only one source, the Duersch Guidebook.

For the listed citations, could someone please explain precisely what "partial" information we are taking from each of them?   Will Beback  talk  06:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, your first question is addressed to me but I already said they were already there; i.e. the answer is I don't know. North8000 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you added them but don't know what statements they support then we should take them out.   Will Beback  talk  22:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Recap of what I said on sources which only partially confirm material

I think that most of the cites to Scout manuals 1979 and older were put in by me. As indicated above, "I'm going by memory but I put a few cites in where it confirmed some basics, e.g. that it is as shown circa that time period, or as partial confirmation of the years.". For those that I put in, the listing or picture in the source just confirms that the badge is as shown circa that time period, or partially confirms the given year range (being an example for the year of the source). I'm going to review any tagged or listed-here cites to manuals 1979 and older to see if this is the case. Where such is the case, a text statement/quote from the source would be not applicable and be based on an incorrect premise. So, for those, the end result is that the source helps and should stay, but I make NO claim that it it confirms all aspects of the material which it follows / cites it. The latter is a different question and topic. North8000 (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Here are the handbook cites that I think I put in:

1. By the type A image. Confirms that that particular badge is as shown, and that such is true circa 1911.
2. That's it. All of the others I remember putting in are gone

You've repeated that a couple of times already, but it doesn't solve the problem. If you're the editor who added the material then please say what statements or pictures in the Handbooks you thought were relevant. I've added a numbered list above to make it easier.   Will Beback  talk  20:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Will, as per usual, you keep misrepresenting what I said, which is what I recapped it all in one place. You did it again, but this time it's easier (just a few lines up) to see what I actually said. North8000 (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion too closely, been busy in RL, but let me see if I'm understanding this latest issue. We have content in sentence 'X', sourced by citations '1' and '2', where source 1 directly supports 100% of the content of X, but source 2 only supports one small part of the content - not all of it. The suggestion is that since source 2 does not provide 100% support, then it should be removed. Is that right? Dreadstar ☥ 22:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more like we have a statement that "George Washington was the first president of the United States", and as a citation we have a link to his portrait. A non sequitor. These sources do not appear to support any of the assertions that they footnote, not even "partial support". I've asked North8000 which parts of the assertions he believes these citations support, but he's still working on it I guess. The article should be based on what we find in reliable sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems that North has said that the citation partially supports the content and is therefore not a non sequitor. Say for instance a badge is said to have existed from 1990 to 1992, and a 1991 book that only shows active badges shows that badge, then that book sources the existence of the badge in 1991 - a partial sourcing of the content. I'm not saying that's the right thing to do with sources, but it begs the question I asked. Dreadstar ☥ 22:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that the Handbooks don't say that the Type G badge existed in 1991. They simply show pictures of the then-current badges. I doubt there is any edition of the Handbook which makes reference to "Type E" or "Type H" badges. At most, we can say that the 1991 Handbook has a illustration which resembles what Deursch, et al., categorize as a "Type G" badge.   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If the 1991 source shows pictures of 'then-current badges' and it shows what is already indentified as a Type G badge by other sources, then that source certainly shows that Type G badges existed in 1991. The question is how close does that brush up against WP:SYNTH; certainly no more than the sentence you propose above. Dreadstar ☥ 23:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Considering how subtle the differences are between types, I'm not sure we can necessarily make a determination that a particular illustration shows one type or another. We could say that a photo shows a badge with khaki background, or something straightforward like that. But the Handbooks are being used as primary sources so we can't draw conclusions from them, like concluding that a particular photo depicts a Type G badge.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're getting that, there are distinct boundaries between badge types; especially true of the early ones and A-G and I. For H, J, K you have to look at the back. We don't need the obvious spelled out. Dreadstar ☥ 23:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, we should spell out the obvious.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Please point out the specific policy that demands spelling out the obvious; things like 2 + 2 = 4 and "this is a photo of a white bird". Dreadstar ☥ 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:OBVIOUS is part of an essay on writing better articles. WP:PSTS is a policy which says we cannot draw conclusions from primary sources. Simple math, like 2+2=4, is allowed, but not when it requires making judgment calls.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't ask you for an essay, and there's no judgment call here. It's an obvious image. Dreadstar ☥ 01:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of a specific case?   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the real point of this is that I feel North was unfairly attacked for using this source in the manner in which it was used. That's the specific case I've been attempting to get a little clarification on, and I think I have my answer. Dreadstar ☥ 01:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I meant is there a specifc badge type which is obvious, as you wrote above. Anyway, unless someone wants to add back these citations I don't think we need to belabor this issue. If they do want to add them, then we need to know what facts are being attributed to which sources.   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I posted a comment here about Will's behavior, behavior at this article. Will moved it to his talk page. (ONLY) as an olive branch I'm not planning on putting it back in here. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To keep my sanity, I only allow myself active involvement in one painful article at a time. Unbelievably, an article about merit badges has become a second one, and I'm totally disgusted at what has happened here. I'm leaving. North8000 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Types

• Types of merit badges
• There have been 11 major styles of merit badges:

It's my understanding that these types are designated by collectors, not by the BSA. If so, we should attribute them to whoever created the typology. If they are official designations, then we should say that. Either way, we need to say where these designations come from.   Will Beback  talk  23:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The BSA has never classified badges— the system for merit badges was developed by collectors and codified by Duersch. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

How should we attribute that then? "According to collectors and badge historians <cite Duersch>, there are..." Does the BSA recognize the system or classifications at all? Do we even need to attribute it if a majority of sources talk about the classification? Do they? Dreadstar ☥ 00:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Since this is an article on the history, it'd be appropriate to say who created this typology, if known. If not, then "According to collectors and badge historians <cite Duersch>, there are..." would be fine.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea, we'll have to find sources for that. Dreadstar ☥ 00:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added it, with a cite request.   Will Beback  talk  01:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-engaging

I'm re-engaging on this article, finding sources and trying to improve it. Any assistance or input is welcome. Dreadstar ☥ 06:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool. North8000 (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I thought I was...but apparently not yet.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 19:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Merit badge borders

How about a section on what color the borders are?174.19.73.163 (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice idea! Can you help write up something and find sources for it? Dreadstar ☥ 19:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It is scattered through the article. The Type G section notes "In 1969, the BSA started issuing silver-bordered badges..." The Historical section states "...with a gold mylar border." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 20:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)