Talk:Tunnel Mill Scout Reservation

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• John Work House and Mill Site
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:John Work House and Mill Site

A fact from Tunnel Mill Scout Reservation appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 September 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in 1996 Andy Campbell, a ranger serving as Tunnel Mill Scout Reservation's caretaker, was shot to death by a wandering drunk who trespassed onto the property, the first such incident in the history of Scouting?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/September.

Wikipedia

Sources

Man, that was a quick rebuke for lack of sources. I posted my reference to the history, and tomorrow I'll post the other.--Bedford 04:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just put in info from the 2005 Tunnel Mill book by Gary Purlee, although he often gives two different dates for certain items. I'll put in the links to websites concerning Tunnel Mill later today.--Bedford 14:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap, it seems like some individuals are getting very prickly about sources here lately. Anyway, is much of this reservation technically in Charlestown State Park? I just figured we might mention that if it's true. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the State Park Map [1] the park is located totally south of Ind-62, and Tunnel Mill is north of it. SO there is connection, except that both the Devil's Backbone and the you-know-what creek run through them.

On the state park maps I've seen, the Backbone is wholly inside the park. Am I misinterpreting the map? I understand that there would be a connection, though. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It definitelye exists in the camp. Maybe when Ind-62 was made they detsroyed part of the Backbone?--Bedford 16:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Ind-62 is anywhere near the Backbone. However, I was thinking, that perhaps the scouts located to the North could hike South onto the Backbone. Or perhaps the scout reservation shares land with the state park. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging

Tunnel Mill has a large history outside of Scouting. It should not be merged into the Scouting in Kentucky nor Scouting in Indiana page, especially when the council holding it is in the Kentucky one but its main use in Scouting was when the council holding it was entirely in Indiana.--Bedford 20:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Simply because a topic is obscure to you (apparently that's why the merger was proposed?) is not a good reason reason to merge/delete. Article appears well referenced and of decent quality. I support taking down the merge proposal tags. --W.marsh 22:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love people who determine what my motives are. Actually, you're far off the mark. If you knew my history, you would know I am most supportive of the topic, but that I have seen hundreds of articles lost because Wikipedia in general does not agree with you and me. The Scouting WikiProject has existing guidelines on sub-council articles. Whether it has history outside of Scouting, the article _is_ named "Tunnel Mill Scout Reservation", and thus falls within the scope of the project. If this is expanded into a Lincoln Heritage Council article, then it will be enough to stand on its own. The only really good ones, thus far, are Old North State Council and Chester County Council, all others have been or are stubs, and we really want to avoid 400+ council articles. Elsewise, it will get merged into a parent article, either Scouting in Kentucky or Scouting in Indiana.

Further, it is poor Wikipedia etiquette to remove merge tags inside of a week. I understand that they were taken off because of DYK, but the tags will go back later, until it is decided-by you folks-whether the article gets expanded to council level or merged into a state article. Chris 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris is absolutely right about removing merge tags just because you don't agree with them, you have to wait until the discussion is over (rm'ing them for DYK is okay, but they need to go back on). See Scouting project policy in ref he provided. We don't want to delete any Scouting info, but we've been through countless battles on non-Scouters who think 99% of Scout stuff is insignificant. The fewer the small articles we have, the more likely we all are to be able to preserve our rich history.Rlevse 01:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that only one paragraph is exclusively about it being a Boy Scout camp. The place has too much history as a place to be demeaned into a small paragraph on some insignificant page. Besides, for the reasons stated above by me, it would not fit with either of the State articles. Maybe I should have just called the article Tunnel Mill and ignored the Boy Scouts. For aparnantly, anything about Boy Scouts must be belittled, regardless of its history outside of it.--Bedford 01:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No here is belittling it, except that you referred to other Scout articles as insignificant.Rlevse 02:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go ahead and remove the merge tag. Fear of deletion is not a rationale for merger, and the subject has enough distinction to have its own article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simple fear of deletion, it's existing policy, listed above. Now, if you want to split out the Scout information, which will then get included in the appropriate states, and remove "Scout Reservation" from the name of the article, that would solve the merge issue once and for all, and, apparently, make the author happy. Also, restating Wikipedia's policy, for any future articles you may write, If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. That includes merging as per pre-existing policies. Chris 19:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully my fix will take. I have learned two important things.

1) why I have had nothing to do with Scouting for 18 years

2) that the next time someone puts on the KFC article "by (racial slur) for (racial slur)", I should let it be so that I do not violate the sacred policy of, quote, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

Thanks for letting me know.--Bedford 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

For posterity, the DYK entry was:

...that in 1996 Andy Campbell, a ranger serving as Tunnel Mill Scout Reservation's caretaker, was shot to death by a wandering drunk who trespassed onto the property, the first such incident in the history of Scouting?

I'm proud that an entry I put in was selected. I'm honored.--Bedford 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the 9th Scouting article on DYK. Full list is on the project page. I always nominate things I think may make the DYK list (not all have that I've nom'd) and are interesting and meet the not older than 5 day rule, so I nominated it. Congrats on your article getting selected! Rlevse 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]