Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Merit badge types (BSA)/RenamingArchive1


 * Renaming Suggestion Renaming this is likely to happen. How about Merit badge types (Boy Scouts of America)? I prefer that over Merit badge types of the Boy Scouts of America. Furthermore, look in the Boy Scouts of America category and only one follows the of the convention, whereas several follow the ...(Boy Scouts of America) convention.--Rlevse 20:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * "History of BSA merit badge manufacture or "construction" or something in that area,.." was a good suggestion by Tsavage (see below).--Rlevse 13:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merit badge design history (Boy Scouts of America) or Merit badge design evolution (Boy Scouts of America) are suggested by JohnDBuell. Rlevse 16:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Merit badge manufacturing evolution (Boy Scouts of America) or Merit badge manufacturing history (Boy Scouts of America) --Rlevse 16:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is there a reason that it can't just be Merit badge history (Boy Scouts of America)? If so, I guess I prefer Merit badge manufacturing history (Boy Scouts of America) as the new title for this article. Similarly, I believe List of discontinued merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America should be changed simply to Discontinued merit badges (Boy Scouts of America) and List of merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America should be changed to Merit badges (Boy Scouts of America).  I'm not a big fan of "list of" when it comes to naming articles if it is'nt really necessary; articles should not just merely be a list.  There should be other supporting information ...introductory paragraph, why the list is important, photos, etc. Any other existing articles in this "series" should also be renamed accordingly. --Naha|(talk) 00:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know how good of a comparison this is - but how about a branch for the entire history section of what will be the main merit badge article? I was working on the University of Texas at Austin article a while back (and haven't gotten close to finishing it yet, ha), and we linked the history to History of the University of Texas at Austin. It's a standard in many articles about places - and we could do the same thing here. It would satisfy everything in this article - both the "Badge history" section (which would then need to be fleshed out) and the bulk of the article describing MB types. How about we simply call this article History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America), very similar to what Naha suggested and following other Wiki precedent? -Rebelguys2 02:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I can live with that :) Following precedents is good - it helps to standardize things, which in turn makes articles easier to find with the search option! --Naha|(talk) 02:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Following precedent certainly has its benefits. But I would like to point out that if we use  History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America), then we either limit the scope somehow because some may think "History of" means it should include a history each MB (--which would make it WAY TOO big of an article) and/or somehow explain what the scope is. -Rlevse 12:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)  PS: or maybe Merit badge history (Boy Scouts of America), which would keep in named in the same pattern as the newly created Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America) Rlevse 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reworded the lead paragraph a bit, which I think satisfies Rebelguys' last comment, and I have boldly removed the "merit badge collecting" section and merged some of it into the lead (along with a link to the general memorabilia collecting article). I also moved the second paragraph of that section to Scouting memorabilia collecting.  The first paragraph was mostly a how-to, which is more appropriate for Wikibooks than Wikipedia. Further concerns:
 * 1) Agreed on the unencyclopedic tone in parts. Use of the second person is inappropriate.
 * Still some unencyclopedic tone issues, looks like much of it in the captions. References to the "sample photo", "here is a sample", etc should be reworded if at all possible. The phrase "were supposedly manufactured in rolls" is bad -- it sounds like a rumor or speculation, and it's not clear why it's relevant.  Also "or some inexplicable reason" and "Naturally, this made a neat-looking sash very awkward", "change was apparently by design", "Another way to identify a Type I is that on the back side", "Note, none of the merit badges on the mandatory list", "Type J merit badges are just like Type H merit badges, except some variation of the BSA Supply Division's Scout Stuff logo appears on the back" (any inline cite available for "reduce counterfeiting and show support for the American labor force"?) and "Someone pointed out a spider is an arachnid" (a cite for that one would be good too) are all unencyclopedic as well.
 * 1) Copy-editing needed, as some of the writing is stilted.
 * "two examples of positional shifts" is a runon. Don't start sentences with "There are" or "there is".  Way too much passive voice (most of the paragraph beginning "The Scout earns a merit badge" is passive).
 * 1) The "see also" section should be purged; most (or preferably all) of those links should be put into the body of the article (if they're not already) and removed from the see also
 * Consider maybe making a template for articles related to the BSA; then much of the see also could be easily removed.
 * 1) Try and put at least a couple sentences under each section heading, introducing the upcoming material
 * I agree that it is close, Tuf-Kat 23:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * RE ITEMS 1 and 2...This has been worked. If you see more, please cite specific phrases so I know what to edit. RE ITEM 3...Yes, this grew bloated and changed with editing. This fix was done by user Naha. RE ITEM 4...I've done this as I understood what you meant. If there additional concerns, please let me know. Rlevse 01:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add that I don't think the names of merit badges should be links, and I disagree with the comment that Scouting should not be capitalized. There is a normal English work scouting which is not a proper noun; the Scouting movement is specific, at least when it applies to a program run by a WOSM member organization. Tuf-Kat 05:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've fixed these newly stated issues. There seems to be disagreement on whether the names of the badges should be links.  I totally agree Scouting is proper noun in the English speaking world. Rlevse 13:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I ask why the names should not be linked if there an article exists that covers the area of interest that a particular badge is for? Some people may not know what it means to be interested in [fill in the blank] and get a better understanding of what [fill in the blank] may be about by following a link. --Naha|(talk) 15:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist changed his object to a non-vote because of the wiki linking we did and Naha makes a good point; so my suggestion is to leave the MB name wiki links in.Rlevse 16:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess it's not a big deal (I won't oppose because of it). Linking merit badges makes it look like the links go to articles specifically about that merit badge, as opposed to the topic of the badge.  Also, the vast majority of merit badges have a topic that is perfectly ordinary and understandable to any English speaker -- I guess I'd be I'd be okay with Graphic Design and Surveying being links, because a lot of people are probably unsure of what they are, but not Insect Study, Hunting or First Aid. Tuf-Kat 16:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I moved the Collection section to Scouting memorabilia collecting and reworded it in more general terms. Rlevse 01:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Object. There's some good in this article, but it's not well written. In particular, there's a tendency to include fussy distinctions and redundancies. Here's an excerpt from the lead:
 * In addition to the Boy Scouts of America, many other Scouting organizations and Scouting-like organizations (such as Pathfinders and Royal Rangers) around the world also issue merit badges or their equivalent. Some Pathfinder groups call these badges honours or honors. Certain other organizations (such as fire brigades) issue badges/awards they call merit badges, but those are distinctly different in nature than the badges awarded by the Boy Scouts of America.


 * Not 'in addition to' and 'also', please.
 * I think we can drop the initial cap in 'Scouting' where it's not part of a title.
 * It would read more smoothly without 'and Scouting-like organizations', if that's possible.
 * Can 'or their equivalent' be removed?
 * To cite both US and UK spellings is too fussy here; all of these details make it harder to engage the reader right at the start.
 * Both sets of parentheses are probably better as commas, which are usually easier to read.
 * 'distinctly different in nature'—why not just 'different'?
 * Having introduced the acronym 'BSA', why not use it? And when you do use it, insert 'the' before it.

Try to find someone else to go over it finely; it's definitely unacceptable at the moment. Tony 05:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The issues mentioned by user Tony have been fixed--good critiques; except please note that in English-speaking countries "Scouting" is a proper noun and is capitalized, especially when it refers to the Scouting movement, Scouting program, etc. Consequently, Scouting should remain capitalized (see note by Tuf-Kat too on this)Rlevse 13:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was wrong on the word-initial S—sorry. Thanks for fixing those matters, but I pulled apart those two sentences to demonstrate that the whole text needs intensive work, not just the example. Tony 13:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just done more editing. If you  have time, could you look it over again and give me specifics?  If it's a long list, feel free to use my talk page.  Rlevse 14:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment To all of you who have made suggestions for improving this article, thank you! Many of the suggestions and concerns have been taken care of and we hope you will re-read the article and see if there is anything else that will help bring it to FAS. Also, as some of you have done, it is extremly helpful to strike through suggestions/concerns that have been satisfactorily (is that a word?) addressed.  This makes it easier for people working on the article to see what still needs to be done to improve the article.  Thanks! --Naha|(talk) 15:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the name of the article is still not clear - why not call it Merit badges of the Boy Scouts of America modifying the title of the similar Uniform and insignia of the Boy Scouts of America. There are lots of single sentence paragraphs with break up the flow of the text. Is there some reason why the botany badges have no accompanying text where all the other types do? Since the article sort of discusses collecting these badges - shouldn't there be a summary style section that links to the main Scouting memorabilia collecting, that briefly describes why someone might want to collect them and how much they are worth?--nixie 16:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that the name needs some clarification here. We are not talking about merit badges in general; rather, we are talking about the evolution of BSA merit badges over the past century. In addition, this article used to be located at Merit badge collecting (BSA), but was moved here and the collecting sections were removed. This article is not a how-to guide and it is not a collector's resource. There is enough discussion in Scouting memorabilia collecting, which is linked to in the lead paragraphs. Any more is off-topic, as we are talking about the merit badges' evolution, not the collecting hobby. -Rebelguys2 16:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * While I agree that this article is not about collecting, there is stuff included that is only of relevance to collectors, like the variations and errors section of the article, and collecting is alluded to- I don't think that a short section that points the reader in the direction of the article that does discuss collecting would hurt.--nixie 17:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nixie, the sentence you request is already there; second paragraph, last sentence: "The classification of badges into types came about as a way for collectors to categorize and classify their collections. Merit badge collectors often collect other Scouting memorabilia as well." I think this addresses all your concerns, it's just a question of when we when rename it.  A collection section was in the FAC (I think it's in the archive Rebelguys2 created), but was moved to this same Scouting memorabilia collecting article--Rlevse 20:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The sentence above the Botany badge photos refers to them, so I added a clause to make this clearer. I initially named it ....(BSA) because I thought spelling it out was too long, but if there is consensus to spell it out, we can.  I concur with Rebelguys2 (BTW, thanks for cleaning up the FAC page) statements about collecting, memoriabilia references, etc.  Most of the single lines are examples and don't lend themselves to being much wordier.Rlevse 16:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC) The Botany F&G part has been removed and the write ups in the F and G sections adjusted accordingly. -Rlevse 13:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with the longer article name, it would go some way to a consistent naming convestion for these scouting articles- clarity is more important that brevity for titles. Merge single sentences into more comrpehensive paragraphs.--nixie 17:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I concure with the idea of making the naming convention the same, but I think we should wait until the FAC is almost complete. I'm merging the examples into longer paragraphs now.Rlevse
 * I agree it should be the last thing to happen after all the other suggestions and comments for improvement have been addressed. --Naha|(talk) 20:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Conditional Support. I've offered an alternative at Merit badge types (BSA)/temp regarding the table issue. Nixie's consistent naming argument is likely worth following. I don't see much else to keep my support conditional, however, other than a lot of style and grammar fixes after this. -Rebelguys2 17:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * SuggestionThe page Merit badge types (BSA)/temp was created by Smack and several people have been offering suggestions to a better table layout. The combined input is really proving fruitful, so have a look.  Rlevse 20:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Restructing of the tables is done. Rlevse 21:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Further comment. A lot more work is still required. I've just copy-edited the 'Type C' section. Can we remove all of the forward slashes and use commas, as per my changes in that section? Try to omit 'merit' and even 'badge' where possible, so that the text can flow more smoothly. So, 'Type B/C' --> 'Types B and C'; 'Type B/C/D' --> 'Types B, C and D'. But this is only one issue; there are many others that need attention. Tony 12:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony: this was good, you gave me a specific set of great suggestions on one section that I can easily work with throughout the whole article; which is what I just did–work the whole article. Pls let me know of other specifics.  Rlevse 13:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Object The article is interesting, seems comprehensive (in the areas it covers), and is mostly quite well-written and not taxing to read. However, I do have significant objections in the general area of overall clarity, which fall under FAC guidelines 2(a), 3(a) and 5., and these give rise to a problem with comprehensiveness as well.
 * Distinction not clearly made between BSA "merit badges" and "merit badge types" This is my core objection. A good deal of the article is a discussion of the BSA merit badge system (info which should be at merit badges, but isn't). The switch to coverage of the main topic, the badge types, comes with section filled with tables, which are very nicely laid out and easy to reference, but hardly main article text. There is a history of badges, but no history of the badge type system. Excised of the merit badge info, the article is more of a tabular list of badge types (not necessarily bad, but a different article than presented).
 * The article you refer to, merit badges, redirects to List of merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America, which is a list with a few intro paragraphs. So including this 'types' article in a list article would fundamentally change the nature of the list article and negate the validity of its title.  This is about the evolution of BSA MBs over 100-year history of BSA, not a collecting guide.  Collecting portions were moved to Scouting memorabilia collecting.  The badge "Type" system only came about in the last 5 years or so, so it doesn't have much of a history. --Rlevse 00:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like to look at this article as a historical overview of merit badges as a whole. It's not here to give us an overview of the merit badge system as we know it today. It's not here to give us a guide to collecting and other related items - such as where to find badges, how much they're worth, and so on. I don't think the core section of this article is about the merit badge system at all. There is a short section entitled "The purpose of merit badges," which I feel is sufficient as a summary-style lead-in if there existed a page designed to give an overview of merit badges as a whole. However, a lack of this kind of page should not affect this FAC. -Rebelguys2 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is the badge type system recognized by the BSA? This isn't entirely clear. The only reference I could find to the origin and use of badge types is a single sentence in the lead: The classification of badges into types came about as a way for collectors to categorize and classify their collections.
 * BSA does not support any classification scheme for any of its insignia or memorabilia. This is why collectors have developed various systems for that.  Would you like more than the one sentence that is already in on that? Rlevse 00:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The information here is not official. However, it is not the other extreme, original research, either. Again, this article is primarily to trace the evolution of merit badges over time. Official or not, it is true, proven, and has been substantiated by many experts in BSA memoribilia and the like. As such, there is not "official" title to put this article under. However, I think Tsavage does have a point here, and I think that the lead could be reworded, which should fix any problems about clarity. -Rebelguys2 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Errors vs variations" section is simply mystifying I'm not at all clear on why I'm reading about variations in stitch patterns and thread color, how many legs were on a bee. I can guess that this must be collector stuff, and a slipped in sentence like Some collectors find these variations interesting and collect them. helps, but this is overall borderline bizarre if the whole article is read at face value, with no clearly established idea that this is mainly about the physical appearance of merit badges, not about merit badges and what they stand for proper.
 * I feel what MBs stand for and what they are is discussed quite adequately in the article. See the parts dealing with earning them, COHs, etc. Rlevse
 * I think that the lead, which immediately segues into production of merit badges, as well as the fact that most of the article deals with "Types of merit badges," is enough to set the tone that the article is about the historical evolution of the actual, physical merit badges. Again, I think that any problems here could be fixed with a clearer lead. -Rebelguys2 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is largely about a collectors' description of some sort of artifact, why is there not more info on collectors? An encyclopedia article should be straightforward and easy to understand, and each article should make itself plain. If I'm reading about a collectors system, why is there almost no mention of that context. What's the best badge type? Is an C better than a D? What are they worth? Who trades 'em and where? How many of 'em are they? What's the deal?
 * See earlier comments about why there is not more collector's info. There is no best badge type, the types evolved over time and were manufactured at various times during BSA's history.--Rlevse 00:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Collecting how-tos and the like are mentioned in a separate article, Scouting memorabilia collecting, which is linked to in the lead. Perhaps it would help to clarify that these types have been given names (Type A, Type B, et al) by collectors and are now in widespread use, but, again, that's a small change to simply clarify something. I don't think the article as a whole is lacking.
 * What's the best badge type? Is a C better than a D? There is no "best badge type;" this article deals with the different versions of merit badges that have existed. In good articles about popular vehicles, we write about their evolution and various redesigns over the years. Barring any major engineering breakthrough, can we say that one model or make is undoubtedly better than another? I suppose we could say that the newest model has taken in the most recent technologies, preferences, and the like into consideration, but it's the same concept - merit badges have slowly changed and evolved due to a multitude of reasons, which we can't break down into absolutes.
 * What are they worth? We're not here to provide a price guide. Perhaps it may be useful to add a little idea of their values on the market in general terms, but any more would be trivial.
 * Who trades 'em and where? How many of 'em are they? Regarding specifics: Wikipedia is not a directory. As for generalities, I suppose it wouldn't kill any of us to try to find information regarding demographics of merit badge traders? I'm not even sure what to say besides the fact that Scouts earn them and people with an interest in Scouting collect them, and that it's an American thing. Again, this deals more with what would fit better in Scouting memorabilia collecting.
 * What's the deal? Mostly, that we've tried to have the article focus on: lead, a short summary about merit badges as a whole, followed by their overall history to establish context, followed by the bulk of the article about the physical changes (i.e. types), followed by more information about these types (i.e. Errors and variations). Perhaps "Spoof merit badges" could go to the main merit badge article if someone made it. -Rebelguys2 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can supply more examples, but hopefully my point is clear. I think somewhere along the line, the focus on collectibles and badge types was lost. It should be found. The merit badges article needs much of this material (what would someone clicking there from here make of it all), and this article should concentrate on badge types. --Tsavage 21:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that, if a actual merit badges article, besides a list, existed, this page would be a sub-page. Regardless, this article concentrates on the evolution, mostly physical, of merit badges released throughout the past century. It was never here to focus on the act of collecting or the people that collect - that's why this article was moved from it's old locations at Merit badge collecting (BSA). This article, I feel, does concentrate on badge types. "Errors and variations" offers more insight into the actual, physical merit badges, which matters when you read and see that it deals with specific examples among specific types of merit badges. "The purpose of merit badges" is admittedly there to provide context, but even "Badge history" constantly refers back to changes in design, motifs, and the like - it's simply giving some context to see the evolution of merit badge types in. -Rebelguys2 01:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. I understand what you're saying, and I think that is consistent with what I could guess the article is aiming for, but it's kind of the case where if you have to explain it, then it's not doing the job. Of course, you could say that my interpretation is completely unusual; I naturally don't think that's the case, rather, I believe this is a genuinely unclear article.


 * 1. In FAC, we may be dealing with single articles, but that doesn't take them out of the context of the rest of the encyclopedia. In a case like this, where I think we agree that if a actual merit badges article, besides a list, existed, this page would be a sub-page, it is easy enough to move the "Purpose" and "History" sections to the "list", rename List of merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America to Merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America or something similiar, and we'd have a fine basic primary article for the topic in under five minutes. (Badge types could then continue in development, or merged with the main article for now, both ways work.) Which seems like the overall desirable solution for building overall encyclopedia quality.


 * 2. Apart from that, still, this article without a doubt deals with collectibles, it just doesn't go all the way, which makes it incomplete. If this was a system for classifying stamps or coins for collectors, a history of stamps or coins would not be expected or appropriate, while there would certainly be some discussion of the collecting of stamps or coins, and of the system itself. I don't this is unreasonable, in fact, it seems obvious. How did this system orginate? Is it the only such system, by which all BSA merit badges are sorted and collected? Is the Merit Badge Field Guide the bible of merit badge collecting? Did MBFG formalize the system, if not, where was the system first published? And so on... This can't be a comprehensive article on a classification system without going into some detail about that system...


 * 3. Another point may be that there is intrinsic value in knowing about the physical evolution of merit badges. Fine, but since that is framed in the formal "merit badge type" system, we're still back at 2. Otherwise, you would have to in effect make up your own classification system in order to write the article.


 * Perhaps a more accurate lead sentence would be something like this: "Merit badge type is a classification used by collectors of Boy Scouts of America (BSA) merit badges." OR it could be retitled to History of BSA merit badge manufacture or "construction" or something in that area, which could encompass 3., and introduce the merit badge type system for the purpose of facilitating the physical classification. Either way, these are two different articles, sharing common content with the current version, but really in need of substantial rewriting.


 * FAC objecting is apparently all about qualifiers and disclaimers and warranties, so: I am not trying to be argumentative, or block FACs, or whatever else that's inappropriate, I'm here simply to review them according to the criteria. On that basis, my objections serious concerns. If you're not clear on what I am referring to, please ask and I will attempt to clarify further. Thanks! --Tsavage 02:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You've made some good points and I see where you're coming from. I especially like your ideas on the possible new title tightening the focus.  On the other hand, I do not feel merging it into List of merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America is the way to go (that would make a longer article and this one already links to it), nor is making the lead article of a set of MB articles (that could get unwieldy.   --Rlevse 13:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Tsavages objection- which was also a component of my objection - the article isn't clearly focussed - I'll happilty look over it again and revise my vote when there is a better coordination of the information.--nixie 16:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: creating primary "Merit badges (BSA)" article

 * Suggestion Sorry to add more detail to this discussion, but in the general spirit of things, I'd like to improve the List of merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America by copying over the history and purpose sections from Merit badge types (BSA), per my suggestion above (this is not a proposal to merge "merit badge types", only to upgrade Lists to primary MB article). Upon reflection, this only makes sense. Rlevse, you mention that the article would be too long and unwieldy; in fact, the List article is under 1,000 words, about 6K, and the relevant paragraphs from Badge types is about the same, so the total article would be somewhere around 10K. Also, with tight space limitations (such as, in print), a complete list of (current) badges might have to be omitted from a summary article, however, in Web-based WP, it seems totally reasonable to have the complete list (in fact, an omission not to, like, uh, the periodic table article without a list of all the elements...for space reasons?). If the tabular format seems too long in Lists, the info can be displayed in more compact fashion (in fact, with the minimal info presented, need for a big ol' table is debatable). WDYT? Any suggestions on the new title: Merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America, Merit badges (BSA)? (NOTE: I'm here following the article improvement process along its logical course, based on our discussion, just as I would outside of FAC. Nothing more. Perhaps this FAC discussion will be assisted with the existence of a primary merit badge article.) --Tsavage 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: Barring any opposition, in the next few hours I'll move (rename/redirect) [[List of merit badges in the Boy Scouts of America to Merit badges (Boy Scouts of America), copy in relevant material from here, and do a quick copyedit to get things in rough readable shape. Lemme know if there is a problem with that... --Tsavage 01:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've said this before - we're probably overdue in having a WikiProject for Scouting to coordinate these things. :) --JohnDBuell 01:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oooh WikiProject! --Naha|(talk) 02:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did something pretty similar...we have good timing. ;) I'll be reworking the lead to this article (Merit badge types (BSA) right now, and, yes, I do support merging some items into the main merit badge article. -Rebelguys2 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and regarding JohnDBuell's last comment - I'd love to start up a Wiki collaboration (see Collaborations). I know there's a decent number of us with an interest in Scouting on Wikipedia, and as we can see here many more skilled people to give us a hand. It'll keep us busy when we finally get Rlevse's work to FAC! -Rebelguys2 01:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just saw that (TWO edit conflicts on posting this reply... How quickly some things can move.) OK, I was gonna copy over stuff, but I'll leave it to you for now. I do think that, per my comments above, the list of current badges can and should be incorporated in the main article: there's "room", it's interesting, it adds to the comprehensiveness... When reading about merit badges, I'd pretty soon want to know what they are... --Tsavage 01:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll get around to further editing those articles. As for editing the lead to this one - I stared at it and am not sure exactly what to do...I think it's best I wait until there's a consensus on this article's name. I've added a suggestion in the discussion above. -Rebelguys2 02:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've finished moving what exists elsewhere regarding merit badges per Tsavage's suggestions. However, for now, I'll hesitate from touching anything on this page until we can find a consensus regarding the renaming of this article. -Rebelguys2 02:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should put up a "vote" or something on the talk page for this article with a few suggestions for its new name? --Naha|(talk) 03:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * First, like JohnDBuell said, the idea of a WikiProject has come up before. As Rebelguys2 said, WikiCollaboration is also a possibility.  I think either one would be good and I'll support it.  Second, we've have many people who care about the Scouting articles help on this FAC and I do appreciate it.  It appears to me that this is one case where the constructive collaborative efforts of many people are moving a FAC (and in this case related articles) in the right direction; and I appreciate it. Concurring with Rebelguys2, we should move on the other articles after this FAC--for now working them primarily to finish this FAC, but in the meantime work the FAC within the bounds of our larger Scouting article goal.  I really like what Rebelguys2 did last night (or early am-;) with the other articles and this one to set things up.  If no one objects, and I certainly mean no offense to the great skills of the others helping, I would like to ask him to do the big copyedit after we settle on a rename as I feel it'd have more focus if one person had the lead on this big copyedit--it'd keep it more consistent.  Of course, we can all have input in keeping with Wiki spirit, but I feel a big task such as this should have one primary lead.  This copyedit should also focus the article in tune with the new title.  Third, we all concur we need to rename it.  See my last comment on this in the renaming section near the top. I agree with Rebelguys2 that the rename should occur before the copyedit. Rlevse 13:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone move on the name change dilemma recently. I'd like to move it to History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America). It's more standardized as opposed to Merit badge history (Boy Scouts of America), and, as for a history of each individual merit badge, a simple See also: Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America) will take the reader to a list of merit badges with dates, which suffices. My main issue is this - how do name changes work in an FAC? Can we simply move this page to a new address, or must we copy and paste, restart etc.? -Rebelguys2 09:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rebelguys2. The more I think it over, the more I like his re-naming suggestion.  I vote for going with History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America).  I left a msg on Raul654's talk page about how to best do the renaming.  Rlevse 21:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)