Wikipedia

Talk:Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America/Archive 1

< Talk:Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America
Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Improvement

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since each rank has it's own page, this article duplicates those articles. Should we:

  • Delete this article, merging the content into the individual articles
  • Delete the individual articles, merging their content into this one
  • Delete the individual articles except for Eagle, merging their content into this one

--Gadget850 20:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that the individual ranks are generally not encyclopedic and do not deserve their own articles. (I think we can make an exception for the Eagle rank, because it's something of an institution with importance beyond the arcana of BSA rank advancement.) However, I don't think that there needs to be an article on BSA ranks, because the section at Boy Scouts of America is probably sufficient. Even this article could easily be moved to Wikisource. --Smack (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Split & merge

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I propose that this article be split and merged into:

This will allow other information such as history and the like. --Gadget850 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the individual ranks deserve their own articles. We could make an umbrella article for all seven, or maybe split out Eagle and combine the other six. --Smack (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm wavering both ways. Eagle Scout deserves it's own article. The rank links at the bottom of each individual page is pretty neat, but not necessarily a reason to keep them. I suppose we could tighten up the requirements (they are rather detailed for this article) and add a bit of history. I probably won't start anything major here for a week or so, as I will be traveling. I have a few minor things to add. --Gadget850 19:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

After perusing Long article layout, perhaps we should keep all the articles and lay it out like History of Brazil. Also see Article series --Gadget850 11:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Long article layout advises against splitting medium-length articles into stubs. I don't think that these articles (with the exception of Eagle) can ever be more than stubs. It's not helpful to look at them in isolation; they only make sense as part of the progression of rank advancement. As for the requirements, I copied them verbatim from my Boy Scout Handbook, several years ago, assuming that they have some value in that form. They should probably be moved to Wikisource, or deleted altogether for copyright reasons. An exegetic treatment would be helpful. --Smack (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I've moved the requirements to the separate articles, and have simplified them: there is no need for the level of detail. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 13:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvment 2

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

How about this:

Objection. Please revert your changes. I thought we had established above that the individual ranks do not deserve their own articles. --Smack (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Smack: See what I wrote in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Scouting/RulesStandards#Separate_articles on 26 Jan. No one objected (perhaps you didn't see it). I wrote what I perceived to be a workable solution. Having said that, you and Gadget850 have a fundamental difference of opinion on this particular issue and it can't be done both ways. For me, my main goal on the rank articles is that the Pack, Troop, Crew ones be set up the same so there is a consistency, unity, and cohesion to them. And oh, we've all forgotten to mention VARSITY TEAMS. I think their ranks work like troops, and there aren't many of them, but we should mention them, perhaps in the troop rank article. Rlevse 11:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Had not forgotten Varsity, just did not know much about the program until last night. Think I got it figured out. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion for this issue has spread across several talk pages, so I seem to have missed something. Please, let's be COURTEOUS and FRIENDLY and work this out. I know I explained my reasoning somewhere, but let's look at it again. First, take a look at these sample articles:

Hopefully, you can see where these are going. Not just the bare requirements, but also a background and a history to put it into context. The whole series still needs work, but I think it's a good start. One article covering all this information is going to be quite long, even if split by division. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 12:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the current parent article? (Rank requirements...)? and do we still want Pack/Troop/Crews to have separate parent articles or all in one?Rlevse 12:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
See the third note at the top of the list. I have only started a scratchpad version as of yet.
Topics to cover:
  • Purpose
  • Cub Scouts
  • Boy Scouts
    • Varsity Scouts (Teams??, rlevse added)
    • Order of the Arrow
  • Venturing
    • Sea Scouts
  • Religious awards
  • Honor awards for merit
  • Support of Scouting awards
  • Leadership and training awards
  • Honor awards for outstanding service
--Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think "list of..." should be changed to "adv and rec..." I like the way you have the parent article sectioned. Then perhaps one article per level pack/troop/crew with a rank overview as you've started, with the ranks for each level detailed in the sub article (pack/troop/crew). This would break it up in smaller pieces but also keep each rank out of a separate article. Rlevse 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Most of the bullets will be converted to prose as this develops. What do you think of the infoboxes? I mostly like them, but don't want them to detract from the article. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I love the info boxes. Perhaps you can see if you a small Cub/BSA/Venture logo will fit in them nicely.Rlevse 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input- I had considered that. I might also try a small logo of each award just to see how it looks, but I don't want to overdo it.
Bah. My mistake. I got confused between several different Scout-related topics on several different pages. Or maybe it's really just this one topic, and I lost track of what was going on. I did see the proposal on RulesStandards, but I didn't notice that I disagree with it. --Smack (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No worries. This topic did get spread out over a few pages. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 10:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Improvement 3

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As I get into the gestalt of the whole advancement program, I can see that as a whole, this is not going to work as one article. Here are some thoughts:

  • Move the new sections I wrote here and move them to the parent article.
For example, copyList of BSA rank requirements#Cub Scouts to Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)
  • Take the separate rank articles and combine them into one (it's just going to be too long to fit in the parent article). Use the section as the lead-in. Take the requirements for each rank and really simplify them- get rid of the bullets.
For example, create Advancement in Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America), use the section from here as the lead, and combine Tiger through Webelos and Arrow of Light, and add the Academic and Sports Program.
  • Create main articles for each of the other award categories, and fold the sub-articles into it.
For example, create Service awards in the Boy Scouts of America. Fold the short DESA and Silver Buffalo articles into it.
  • We might just want a List of awards and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America to use as an overall view of things.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 11:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me you have a great grasp of this. I'll likely like what you come up with. Just my 2 cents.Rlevse 12:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read the above talk(s) and, while I think I may possibly almost nearly understand (not to be humble or anything), I want to check on something: We can have articles for specific ranks/awards as long as they are more than a skeleton-description? (I was specifically thinking of Venturing Silver, and was hoping to find some historical context for it as well.) —ScouterSig 15:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Move discussion

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This isn't really a list anymore. I propose naming it Rank requirements (Boy Scouts of America) Rlevse 23:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This was moved to Advancement and recognition in the Boy Scouts of America on 15 Mar.

Scholarships

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There are scholarships from NESA too.Rlevse 12:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and probably OA as well. I'm not sure they belong here, but it's someplace to put them for now. I'm finding all sorts of awards I never heard of before. --Gadget850 ( Ed)

Coordination with other pages

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone please provide some advice - the Varsity and Venturing information on this page is also covered on Venturing (Boy_Scouts_of_America) and Varsity Scouts. I have tried to keep the information consistent across these pages, but it is definitely redundant AND it runs the risk of being edited on one article but not the other. How is a better way to do that? NThurston 18:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Put a msg on Gadget850's talk page. He knows more about this than the rest of us. Rlevse 19:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The only doable way is to add a comment at the beginning of each section noting that the other article should be updated. I've been meaning to add this to each section, but I'm in a time crunch for the next week or so (Venturing and Wood Badge staff). --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I can get something that will work. NThurston 22:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Attention tag

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

The lead needs expanding. Rlevse 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

OK now.Rlevse 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Improvements

Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion

I think the detailed Cub Scout through Venturing sections should now go away and be replace with short summaries and main articles. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I could support that if I thought there would ever be enough information for those individual articles to be significant on their own. I doubt that will be the case. I would recommend against this for now, for the same reason I support merging sub-articles into Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. --NThurston 15:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this. Currently we have a duplication of sections between this article and the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Venturing and Sea Scout articles. For example, the Cub Scout advancement section here is (or should be) a duplicate of the advancement section in [[Cub Scouts (Boy Scouts of America)]|]. I can't remember the reasoning for this now, but this was done when we moved a split a lot of stuff a year ago. Having five duplicate sections between the articles makes for maintenance overhead while trying to keep them synchronized. I propose to keep a short overview here, with a main link to the advancement section in the appropriate article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gadget850 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 9 February 2007.

I see the problem. For example, the same section appears here and in Boy Scouts (Boy Scouts of America). There are a few options:
  • 1. Your suggestion: Designate the "main" section as the section in the program article. A shortened version is placed here with a link.
  • 2. The complement: Designate the "main" section as the section here. The program articles contain a shortened summary with a link here.
  • 3. Template: Create five templates where advancement editing should take place. The information is automatically included in both articles.
There are other options, but I think these represent the three most logical things to consider because they assure that all the information is included and accessible. My preference would be #3 with sufficient documentation in a comment near that section so that people could figure out how to edit it. I propose to try that first. If it doesn't work, then I propose #2 as my next choice. --NThurston 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion for #3 has come up before. I would love to do it this way, but per Wikipedia:Template namespace: "Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article." I suspect this is because novice editors would not easily be able to make changes and the text would be in the wrong namespace (apparently this is a bad thing). --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could be WP:BOLD and see what happens. I'm game. I think the masquerade clause might not apply so much where content is to be included on multiple articles. The other argument is valid. It does make it more complicated to edit, but that can be addressed to a degree with commented instructions. What do you think? --NThurston 18:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hold on. I think there might be a way to transclude article sections as if they were templates. So the info could be in one article and transclude into the other. Give me a bit to explore and figure this out. --NThurston 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
We can transclude "part" of an article, but only one part. Or at least, I haven't figure out a way to have five parts of an article each transclude to a separate article. However, we can transclude one part of five different articles into a single article. So, if the Boy Scouts page has a part (and just one part) that we want to transclude into the Advancement article it can be done. Same for each of the other pages. In reading through guidelines looking for a way to do it slicker, I also found this: Help:Template#Pages_with_a_common_section which is exactly our case. They propose creating each "part" as it own page in Main: space, and transcluding them into the two main articles. So there is precedent for doing it that way. --NThurston 18:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I wish they had an example of this- it would be a lot clearer. This would be a very useful method. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 19:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Been looking and haven't found one. It was also interesting that the "content" could be in template or in Main. I think you have discovered some sentiment against Template. If we're going to do this, let's do it in Main: and make sure that the articles are structured to be as independent as possible, but clearly labelled as "C" pages to avoid attack. --NThurston 19:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the SubArticle template- this goes on the talk page and alerts editors that sections are replicated in other articles. It isn't perfect, but it does give us a bit of a stick if we revert stuff. It might also be useful to keep a list on the talk pages of sub-articles. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Where do we go now...

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As I had hoped, once this material was consolidated, it began to grow, and many individual articles have been created. Where do we go with this article now?

  • Move the Cub Scouting, Boy Scouting and Venturing sections to the respective articles (any bits that are not already there) and leave a short overview and a list of awards here.
  • Encourage the creation of good individual articles.
  • Encourage the creation of good group articles where it makes more sense; for example, the Cub Scout leader awards have so much in common that they would work best as a group article.
  • As articles are created, shrink the entry here to a commented list entry.

I welcome more thoughts on this. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Medal of Merit.png

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Image:Medal of Merit.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image Image:Cub Scout leader awards.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)   Fixed ----— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 09:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)   Fixed both of the others too. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Venturing and Sea Scouting

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

As sea scouting is a part of Venturing (just as Varsity and the OA are parts of Boy Scouting), it should be merged into the Venturing section. All Sea Scouting advancements and awards are earnable by all Venturers, and vice-versa. I don't want to just lump everything together however, and I am leaving for ArrowCorpes in just a few days. Anyone else want to take a try? IanCheesman (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed this hanging here. Sea Scouts may earn Venturing awards, but Venturers cannot earn Sea Scouting awards, so having them in separate sections is logical. This is same with Boy Scouting and Varsity Scouting where Boy Scouts cannot earn Varsity Scouting awards. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all, this is a complete an utter falsehood. For the past 10 years there have been 3 divisions of traditional scouting, each with their own set of awards. Sea Scouting is part of Venturing, as is Community and Religious Life, Outdoors, Arts and Hobbies, and Sports and Fitness. It is a program area, that has some associated advancement, training, and awards. Anyone in Venturing can go through them. An Advisor of an Arts and Hobbies focused crew can go through Seabadge and Powderhorn just as easily as an Advisor for a Sea Scouting focused crew or a Outdoors focused crew. There is no difference. Please stop these attempts to divide the program, it only hurts the youth.
As for what will be happening in the future, over the past week I have had conversations with two people who were at the final National Venturing Committee meeting, and nobody, including even Charles Holmes, knows how it will all flow. Everything is being tossed up in the air, and it will take time to fully settle. There will be no such thing as a "Venturing" committee on the national level, and within the next 10 years, they won't exist on the Regional, Area, Council, or District levels either. Advancement for any member of the BSA will be under one committee, Training will be under another, etc. Why there is a box for Sea Scouting on that graphic, I don't know, but notice that it does not match the placement of line of communication that every other box has.
As I said, we will find out more in the future, so no use panicking. - IanCheesman (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
How can a crew member earn Apprentice?
  • Apprentice: 1. Qualify as an official member of your Sea Scout ship by taking part in the ship's admission ceremony.[1]
How can a crew Advisor attend Seabadge?
  • Seabadge: 2. Current registered in an adult Sea Scouting position for not less than one continuous year.[2]
How can a troop member earn the Varsity Scout Letter or the Denali Award?
  • Varsity Scout Letter: 1. Be a registered Varsity Scout team member.[3]
  • Denali Award: The Denali Award is available only to a Varsity Scout team's youth members who have already earned the Varsity Scout letter.
So, I stand by my statements: Venturers in a crew cannot earn Sea Scouting specific awards; Boy Scouts in a troop cannot earn Varsity Scouting awards. I don't claim to be an expert in Varsity Scouting or Sea Scouting, so I am going by what I read. Please give me some references to show how I am wrong.
--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
First, let me apologize for the tone of my last comments. I was tired at the time I wrote it, and should not have made the assumptions that I made.
I believe you are correct about Varsity being a seperate program from Boy Scouting, even though it is/was under the Boy Scout Division. This was never an area that I have had much knowledge in, and it wasn't my intention to say that these two programs are one and the same.
Sea Scouting was a seperate program from the other older youth programs for many, many years. When Venturing was created, it was completely wrapped up with the rest of the focus areas into one program. The reason so many specific training, awards, the uniform, etc. are still around is two-fold. The history of Sea Scouting (the second oldest continuous program in the BSA after Boy Scouting) is the most often mentioned reason. The second, and less mentioned, is the "old diehards" who feel a need to be different and thus better than anyone else. Over the past 10 years I have witnessed many of these people gradually "retired" at all levels of the program. It is from these people (and the people who learned from them) that the idea of Sea Scouting being different from Venturing continues to spin. Sometimes this dis-information is done intentionally, although often times it is simply the repetition of what an individual was taught by others (this is where, once again, I apologize for my previous tone, as in my tiredness, I assumed the first, not the latter).
You asked for things in writing, and unfortunately, I don't have many examples, as the unwritten national policy on this issue has been to not feed the issue by bringing attention to it. Most people don't know that there is an issue, so why bring it to their attention.
The first line of Sea Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) reads Sea Scouting is a part of the Venturing program that the Boy Scouts of America offers for young men and women. The Venturer's Handbook and the TRUST Award Handbook both list all 5 program areas as such.
Here is a picture from my own Seabadge course in 2003. Note that in my crew there were as many people in a green uniform as in a white one (excluding the crew guide). Not a one of them was an adult in a "ship", but all three were Associate Advisors or Advisors in Venturing Crews.
Within my own council, twice in the past 10 years, the Council Venturing President has been registered in "ship" 468. The current Council Venturing Committee Chair's primary registration is with the same "ship". In both the last 2 World Scout Jamborees, youth who were only registered in a "ship" were part of the three regional Venturing Crews as participants.
While a lot of the wording, and a lot of the ceremony and pomp and circumstance still exist, they are all the same as any other Venturing Crew. I've seen Rangers and Silvers earned out of "ships", as well as all 5 bronze awards. I know of a wide variety of crews that have various admission ceremonies, including two that I am an Associate Advisor to. Anytime in Sea Scout literature you see the word "ship", replace it with "crew". "boatswain" equals "president". "skipper" equals "advisor".
I hope this helps with understanding the situation. - IanCheesman (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ignoring the reorganization; there is not yet enough reliable information to understand what is going on. The comment I left on the BSA page was to that effect: wait until we have verifiable information.

  • Varsity Scouting is part of Boy Scouting, as are the OA and NESA. Each of these are separate enough to warrant separate articles.
  • Sea Scouting is part of Venturing, but is different enough to warrant separate articles.
  • All available publications indicate that Venturers in a crew cannot earn Sea Scouting specific awards.
  • Per the verifiability, sources trump truth. If there are no reliable sources that show that a Venturer can earn Quartermaster, then we can't include it.

--—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Awards from other organizations

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Isn't this section just a duplicate of the Community Organization Awards list? --Jdurbach 14:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned out the duplicate stuff. The awards left are certificates- do we really need this? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 14:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There is an Eagle Scout award from the New York Masons, reference here . There may be other lodges, but I'm only familiar with this one. Think this would be appropriate in the "Awards from other organizations" area? CKHamel (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There are a gazillion local certificates and awards— lets keep this limited to nationally available awards. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 05:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

New awards

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Doctorate of Commissioner Science Award
  • Philmont Training Masters Award

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Changes for 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "Cubmaster Award will become the Cubmaster’s Key and use the Scouter’s Key knot. The Cub Scouter and Pack Trainer Awards will use the Scouter’s Training Award knot. The Tiger Cub, Cub Scout, and Webelos Den Leader’s Awards will use the Den Leader’s Award knot."[4]

The Venturing Leadership Award will no longer be available for adults.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:48, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Advancement and recognition in the 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Advancement and recognition in the 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Advancement and recognition in the 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Advancement and recognition in the 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Advancement and recognition in the 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Advancement_and_recognition_in_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America/Archive_1&oldid=1158437295"