Talk:Scouts BSA/Archive 1

message: Propose that the ranks of Scout through Life be merged into this article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean get rid of the separate Scout-Life articles? Since the BSA article has been split, I am okay with that, but I'd leave the Adv & Recognition article intact. Rlevse 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Much of the information has already been included in the Boy Scout article.  It's mostly history stuff that needs to be moved. I also recommend that we leave Eagle separate as it is rather large for a section.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Make a sub page link to it from here.Rlevse 16:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Done --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd leave the current requirements out, that'd make it too long and require too much updating. Rlevse 12:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: a thumbnail of requirements, and a footnote for details.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge: ranks

message: Propose that Venture (Boy Scouts of America) be merged into this article.  Venture is a direct boy scout program, and most of the article consists of history. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, be sure to keep Venture patrol distinguished from Venture crew. Explaining the differnce would help as many people don't realize it. Rlevse 16:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.  BTW, did you know that this is the third use of crew? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No I didn't. Rlevse 21:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "be sure to keep Venture patrol distinguished from Venture crew".  Why?  Venture Patrol is just a rename of Venture Crew.  Are you confusing these with Venturing Crew?  I created the Venture page for a reason, BTW.  --Emb021 22:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Because a venture crew is a separate entity from a troop but a venture patrol is a specialized patrol that is still a part of a troop, so yes, there is a distinct difference that needs to be noted; it is not just a rename of a venture crew. Rlevse 22:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but you are totally incorrect!  A venture crew was NEVER a separate entity from a troop!  It was ALWAYS part of a troop.  The only way a 'separate entity' could exist is if they were another unit.  A venture patrol was just a renaming of the venture crew!  I know, we had a venture crew when the program was rolled out.  I have all the literature from that time, so I don't know the basis for your information.  I've been researching this area for years.  See my website.  --Emb021 23:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, there have been more then three uses of the term 'crew' in the BSA.  It was first used by Sea Scouts as their equivalent to a patrol.  Rover Scouts units were be called 'Crews'.  Later the term was picked up by Explorer Scouts & Senior Scout units (Posts & Outfits, respectiviely) as their name for their equivalent to patrols.  The equivalent to an SPL was called 'Senior Crew Leader'.  The term 'crew' was supposed to be standard across all Senior units, but Air Scouts/Explorers still used the term 'Flight'.  This is also why Philmont has 'crews': they were usually groups of senior scouts.  Later, when Exploring was revamped, only Sea Explorers still used it.  This is what lead them to call venture groups 'crews', and later Venturing units 'Crews'.  I count 7 uses.  --Emb021 23:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point, I always say Venture Crew when I mean the separate unit and Venture patrol when I mean the patrol that is part of a troop, but I guess I should say VenturING Crew. Rlevse 02:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And its incorrect and causes confusion.  Ignore the terms 'crew' and 'patrol'.  Focus on the program names: "Venture" and "Venturing".  "Venture" is a program for older Boy Scouts.  "Venturing" is a co-ed program for older youth.  Agree on the points Gadget850 has pointed out.  I (and many other scouters) have spent the last 9 years making sure our fellow scouters don't confuse the 2 programs.  (its one of a handful of 'hot button' topics with me)  I didn't like the idea that they were going to use a term too similiar to an existing program (Venture came out in 1989, Venturing in 1998).  I also didn't like them using the 'crew' for the unit name, and wished they had brought back 'Outfit'.  Regardless of Rovers, 'crew' has always to mean indicated a patrol-like subgroup of a unit (Crews in Explorer Posts & Sea Scout Ships, crews at Philmont, venture crew in troops).  I heard that the National Venturing Committee had voted to get rid of the Venture Patrols (as if they have that power).  I should have asked Doc Miller that when I met him at Sea Base in January.  --Emb021 16:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't just ignore "crew" and "patrol", because that's what they are and are called, even in official BSA literature, towit: .  And whether anyone of us like it or not "Venture Crew" is used all over the country in common everyday usage when referring to a separate Venturing unit, as are "crew" and "patrol"; as is "Venturer" when referring to someone in a Venturing Crew. Yes, it's all confusing and largely caused by national, but that's what BSA named them (Venturing Crew and Venture Patrol) and ignoring the fact "crew" refers to a separate unit and "patrol" to a part of a troop will not make it go away. Rlevse 16:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood the point I was trying to make.  I was trying to get you to focus on the names of the programs, and not the unit terms.  The Programs are "Venture" and "Venturing".  Regardless of how widely used the term "Venture Crew" is used, it is an incorrect term!  Please do not lecture me on Venturing.  I have been involved with the program for day one.  I am fully aware of the correct terms ("Venturer", "Venturing Crew", "Venture Patrol", etc).  I maintain a large site cover the history of these programs and contributed to many of these articles here at wikipedia.  --Emb021 18:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why stop?  You're the one lecturing me and getting all excited, putting exclamation points in and such. Calm down and discuss rationally. I know you have contributed to Wiki extensively, but so have I, so what's the point of that statement? Whether you agree or not, it's correct or not, people won't stop saying "Venture Crew" in everyday use, though I do agree we need to use the proper terms in the Wiki articles. Rlevse 19:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge: Venture

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080527102319/http://www.scouting.org:80/Media/FactSheets/02-503.aspx to http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080528182132/http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/28-406.pdf to http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/28-406.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080527102319/http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503.aspx to http://www.scouting.org/Media/FactSheets/02-503.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Middle Tennessee Council Boy Scouts of America website specifically uses the term Scouts BSA over the term Boy Scouts. You can see this here:  - Mrwoogi010 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you willing to update all the language throughout? Seems to require changes across many related pages. Geodude86 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in the process of changing language on many of the related pages. Mrwoogi010✉</sub> 16:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a consensus on the naming/location of the page? I think Scouts BSA is appropriate with a mention near the top of 'formerly Boy Scouts' and a redirect also Geodude86 (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest filing a move request per the instructions at WP:RM. I personally doubt that "Scouts BSA" is the WP:COMMONNAME. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was renamed to Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America) and then renamed to Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America). Where was this discussed. The article however still starts with "Scouts BSA is ..". The section name is "Scouts BSA" so the former should be the name of the article. Can we have an explanation and consistency. --Bduke (talk) 05:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that a consensus should be reached at the wikiproject page before we make mass edits. --evrik (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

text: This is a major error, we need to fix it soon.  I'd fix it but I don't want to repeat the error (renaming a major article without discussion) that caused the error in the first place. North8000 (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest filing a move request per the instructions at WP:RM. I personally doubt that "Scouts BSA" is the WP:COMMONNAME. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scouts BSA over Boy Scouts 

message: Let's move past the wild crap that has been happening and have a non-rushed careful discussion on the article name. 
My thoughts: The official name of the overall organization is "Boy Scouts of America" (abbreviated "BSA") and it has not changed. The article for that organization is Boy Scouts of America.  This article is about one of the programs of that organization.  The official name of the BSA program which this article is about has changed to "Scouts BSA". And now it allows girls.  So "Boy Scouting" or "Boy Scouts" is no longer the name of that program, nor is it descriptive of the program, and, on both of these points, would be in direct conflict with the (correct) content of the article.  So, "Scouts BSA" is accurate.  I think that "Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America)" would also be correct, even clearer, and in line with the previous format of including the name of the organization after the name of the program.North8000 (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree. I also agree that "Scouts BSA (Boy Scouts of America)" is the best name. We should have a proper debate that is not shut down quickly. As noted in the paragraph above I have only just woken up here in Australia and I am going to be busy for the rest of the day. Can you go through the formal process? --Bduke (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean a RFC?North8000 (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

text: We're having a discussion to decide, we're not at the point of making a move, nor identifying it as a requested move, much less a controversial one. What IS controversial is you closing a discussion only hours after opening and unilaterally making the page move that was under discussion. But lets move past all of that and have a pleasant discussion on  the best name for the article. North8000 (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not the correct chain of events. Bduke  appealed for a move directly on the talk page of a page mover. That page mover moved the page and then created a move discussion proposing to move it back to the old, long-standing title. This is incorrect and out-of-process, per WP:TITLECHANGES and as per WP:RMUM, such undiscussed page moves can be immediately reverted, which I did, making his out-of-process RM proposal above moot. Short version: the guideline is to preserve pages at their long-standing titles until consensus is shown via a properly handled move request. -- Netoholic @  21:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not appeal for a move directly on the talk page of a page mover. I merely asked him why he moved it and asked him to explain it in places where it was being discussed. I was as surprised as you when he reverted his move. We need a proper discussion that lasts at least a week. --Bduke (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. North8000 (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's decide the article name

message: Venture patrol is gone. If anyone is using it, it's not official and only anecdotal. --Eagleinflight (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments? --Eagleinflight (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be confused with Venturing. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Venture patrol is gone. It is no longer in the Scouts BSA Handbook nor the Scoutmaster's Handbook. The insignia is no longer in the Insignia Guide nor available in the shops. --Eagleinflight (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venture patrol 

message: === Updating links and primary sources ===
Now that the naming discussion seems to be resolved(?) it seems that the majority of the references on the page are 10 years old or more. Some more recent images would be beneficial also. Geodude86 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere I reverted this addition, but I think there is probably a way to appropriately put it in.   Any wording that implies that it is on the official 2-item official short list (the scout slogan and scout law) is wrong / unsourcable.  This is merely one of dozens of slogans, statements/re-statemets of scout principles & training etc promulated in Scouts BSA. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

text: IMO for their early years, this program and Boy Scouts of America (the organization which it is a program of) were in essence one and the same and so the Boy Scouts of America's history is Scouts BSA.  Not sure where that leaves us on the question.  North8000 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put something in to that effect. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Now that the naming discussion seems to be resolved(?) it seems that the majority of the references on the page are 10 years old or more. Some more recent images would be beneficial also. Geodude86 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating links and primary sources 

message: Even other areas (e.g. Scrum refer to the Boy Scout rule - see Technical debt).
However, under the Scouts BSA page I don't find this.
Thanks to anyone trying to weave this in. ----Bernburgerin (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Somewhere I reverted this addition, but I think there is probably a way to appropriately put it in.   Any wording that implies that it is on the official 2-item official short list (the scout slogan and scout law) is wrong / unsourcable.  This is merely one of dozens of slogans, statements/re-statemets of scout principles & training etc promulated in Scouts BSA. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: How could the Scout rule "always leave the campground better than you found it" be worked into the article?

message: This article is missing a history section. There are scattered historical comments, but that is inadequate. Kdammers (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO for their early years, this program and Boy Scouts of America (the organization which it is a program of) were in essence one and the same and so the Boy Scouts of America's history is Scouts BSA.  Not sure where that leaves us on the question.  North8000 (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll put something in to that effect. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: This isn't an /the article about the Boy Scouts of America this is an article about a mere program within the BSA. Plans and expectations should keep that in mind. 
Regarding history, since it started out as the sole program of the BSA, early history would be a duplication of that of the BSA. The "changes" to that status are not changes to the topic of this article, they are creation of other programs within the BSA while this / the original program continued. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep scope in mind