Talk:Minsi Trails Council

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have readded the merge tag to the recreated Camp Minsi article, as it defeats the point of expansion. It needs to be brought back into this article, or else this article, not much more than a list without the camp information, will be merged back into Scouting in Pennsylvania, as per the Rules and Standards of the Scouting WikiProject. Chris 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Same with Trexler, both need to be merged back into the Council article. Chris 23:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

How is this diffrent from Cradle of Liberty Council and it's two camps Treasure Island (Scout reservation) and Resica Falls Scout Reservation)? They have their own pages. Why not Minsi Trails and it's two camps (Camp Minsi and Trexler Reservation)? They all seem big enough to stand alone and merging the three would result in a huge and messy article. I say leave it the way it is now.

I worked on expanding this article. I think that putting the two camps back in here would really mess this article (and those articles up). Camp Minsi is big enough to stand alone and Trexler is getting there. I think the last poster here also makes a valid point. These three pages seem comparable to Cradle of Liberty's all of which are not being merged and are even being referenced as the example of what's good. CampMinsi 03:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

They are no different, just a particular user refuses to accept that the standard exists, and keeps removing the merge tags. That will get sorted out soon enough. We are trying to get the Cradle of Liberty articles into one. Now, Treasure Island is nationally significant, and so may not be merged. And "the last poster" of yours is an unsigned sockpuppet, thanks. Chris 14:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Some additional comments - Chris accused CampMinsi of being my sock Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Evrik. I have strongly disagreed with his merging of articles and heavy-handed tactics. I don't know who the "we" is in his last comments, but he seems to be the only one merging camp articles.--evrik 14:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• As a member of WikiProject Pennsylvania I think these articles should all remain separate. --evrik 00:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That alone does not give you license to undo merges against WikiProject Scouting Rules and Standards. Chris 00:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• This article is not just about Scouting, it's about Pennsylvania. The merge is not right. --evrik 00:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I disagree with merging the articles together. There is significant substance to the article to not warrant a merger. --myselfalso 01:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger as per evrik and myselfalso. Squamate 02:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose both mergers. As a member of WikiProject Pennsylvania, I wish to point out that WikiProject Scouting does NOT have the right to subvert our primary stated goal, of raising all our articles to FA status. If you think your arbitrary and capricious rules are more important than the overall goals of WikiPedia, perhaps the discussion shouldn't be about merging these pages, but about deleting WikiProject:Scouting. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 08:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. - Please explain clearly why these should be merged. I am a member of WP:Pennsylvania, but I want to support the work the Coutc Porject is doing, particularly because they would tend to have more experience with articles related to Scouting; however, I need to know why you think these chunky, uncited articles should be merged into the orderly, cited article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agree to merge of Trexler Reservation article only. 12:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose both mergers. These articles are an important component of the WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is doing a wonderful job in developing various articles on Pennsylvania-related topics. The decision to create separate articles was carefully considered, and it was agreed that both articles strongly merited stand-alone status. That continues to be the case. PAWiki 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minsi Trails Council

Your actions are premature. I have posted a notice at WikiProject Pennsylvania asking people to contribute to the discussion. --evrik 01:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Premature? The tags have been on there for 10 days, with only the author responding before today. Chris 01:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Camp Minsi in particular seems inappropriate for a merge, since the section on it is larger than the rest of the Minsi Trails Council article. See Georgetown University for an example of how side pages can work to keep individual pages small without reducing traffic to any one page. --M@rēino 01:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked for an independent opinion on these articles. I am not a scout, and have only lived in PA for a few years, but in reading through these articles, I would endorse the comments to keep them independent and not merge them. They are OK as stand alone articles, and for a reader who is not familiar with these organizations, the separate articles are fine. Scott Mingus 01:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Articles are valid as stand alones and are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pennsylvania. Squamate 02:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Alphageekpa 14:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. Dddstone 12:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)