Fort Towson

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Changes 5/19/2007

1. I greatly expanded the History section and sub-divided it, adding hard-copy source material.

2. I moved some of the photos around in an attempt to have them match their section heading to some extent. Also, most of the photos were at the top, and were choking the flow of the text. I added one photo of Ogle's grave.

3. I expanded the Geography section to include paragraphs regarding topography and roads, and placed the Geography section before the History section, since the town's geographical situation was largely responsible for its history.

4. I removed the Unrefenced Sources tag. If there is anything else in the article that is unreferenced, please point it out rather than simply placing a tag at the top.

Bms4880 11:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radford Gatlin and Richard Gatling

Carlos Campbell, who is normally accurate, claims that Radford Gatlin was the brother of Gatling gun inventor Richard Gatling (Birth of a National Park, p. 88). I searched various genealogy sites on the web and can find no connection between the two, although they are both from North Carolina. Campbell doesn't give a citation, so I'll assume he's wrong unless we find a more definite source.

Bms4880 11:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gatlinburg Fire Department

This section needs some editing. There are some inconsistencies in the number of employees and in the breakdown between, paid, part-time, and volunteer employees. Also the sentance about the department geting 8 call in a year seems to be sitting out there on its own. I'm assuming it refers to how many calls they got the first year, but that is not clear from how it is currently written. If anyone knows for sure the facts for this section please edit.

Police & Fire Dept.

Any opposition to removing these two sections? There's no real notability and the information is very unencyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.174.27 (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bms4880 (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed RaseaC (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Climate edits disagreements

What's up with these back and forth edits over climate stats? Is it an issue about which source to use (weather.com or weatherbase.com in this case) or something else? The history here of late seems rather messy -- lots of IPs, banned and new editors, spaced back and forth edits skirting edit warring, unhelpful edit summaries, etc. -- and I could find no discussions about this issue on any talk pages or noticeboards. What is the problem here? Flowanda | Talk 02:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few weeks ago (in early March), someone added this "Climate" section, and almost immediately, two editors-- one using IP 75.74.66.185, one using "Y2Kfreak" started making erratic changes to it. So I fixed the numbers and added a citation (weather.com) to support the numbers. These two editors continued to try and change them, often adding numbers inconsistent with previous edits. As far as I can tell, "Y2Kfreak" was on the verge of being banned, and a user named "Blobmaster33" showed up to continue making erratic edits. They typically try and add an unsubstantiated paragraph and then change a few of the numbers (their numbers edits are often inconsistent with previous edits, such as those made on April 27 and May 3, e.g.).
They're also active on several other articles, such as Volcán Tajumulco, List of tallest buildings in Miami, Mount Le Conte, and Kendall, Florida. They occasionally post info meant for one article to the wrong article. Bms4880 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to draw out these editors to help solve these unproductive edits, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen. I actually think a description of the city's climate would be far more stable and interesting than an overpowering chart that does nothing but list everchanging statistics, but as you've pointed out, the info needs to be sourced. I'd be happy to dig up some sources for creating a more descriptive section if needed, but will leave any decisions up to the more experienced editors in this area. Flowanda | Talk 23:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it so long as it has a verifiable citation. I'm not particularly attached to the weather chart, and I only added the present numbers to bring stability, as two vandals (possibly sockpuppets of the same user) were consistently changing it. Thanks in advance for any help. Bms4880 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say delete the chart. It's nothing but raw (and everchanging) statistics sourced to an also everchanging number of non reliable sources that provide no real information to readers or stability to the project -- and there seems to be no conclusive decision I could find on Wikipedia as to how or what to include about this subject. Flowanda | Talk 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Bms4880 (talk) 16:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate content issues

I again removed the climate section template being added by a new editor with the same editing habits as blocked editors. The content appears to be copied directly from Weatherbase.com, which appears to be a copyvio. Fair use would be to mention a few temperatures as part of a section discussing climate, not copying and updating huge chunks of compiled data. Flowanda | Talk 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user making these changes, Gatlinburg22, was a sockpuppet of the user who shows up every few months or so to re-add the climate section, and has been banned. Bms4880 (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Flood damage

Based on the fact that the Ripleys fire is mentioned in the article we should probably mention the flood damage from 2004. I can't quote monetary figures off hand but from first hand experience I do remember that every hotel that bordered the Pigeon River took damage. I will research some sources. J.Rly (talk) 05:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gatlinburg, Tennessee/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Importance==

Mid importance. The topic is of interest and known within the state but not necessarily nationwide or internationally.

==Quality==

Start class. The article is well structured and images are present to illustrate the topic. The history section could be sub-divided. Attempts have been made to use references, these attempts need some elaboration to provide verifyable imformation for this article to be upgraded to B-class in the future.

Last edited at 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Moved content

In the late-November 2016 fire, the Mysterious Mansion was destroyed. I moved its content here should the attraction be rebuilt: There is a walk-through haunted attraction known as the "Mysterious Mansion". Vincent "Val" Valentine built this attraction in 1980. It is similar to "Old House" at Panama City Beach, Florida's now-defunct Miracle Strip Amusement Park.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gatlinburg, Tennessee. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

trivia

It is the scene of the fight between father and son in Silverstein's "A Boy Named Sue." 87.247.58.238 (talk) 03:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And? John from Idegon (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gatlinburg, Tennessee. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to Registered Historic Sites

I wanted to elaborate on the logic behind adding back several registered historic sites to the appropriate subheading. I previously added some sites and descriptions, and another editor removed them, saying they aren't located in Gatlinburg. When it comes to historic sites, it's common for sites to be located just outside (or even several miles outside) towns, especially when it comes to small towns with very limited boundaries, but as long as the distance isn't too great, sites are always connected to a town on all their registration documentation. In this case, all the sites I included are registered to Gatlinburg and are considered Gatlinburg's historic registered sites. (I did remove Perry's Camp from the original list, as it appears to be in Sevierville, not Gatlinburg. One document says Gatlinburg, and another says Sevierville on the NPS site, but the address comes up as Sevierville in a regular address search.) To make it easier to see that Gatlinburg is the designated town for all the included sites, I revised the source link for each one to go directly to its documentation page on the NPS site instead of the Gatlinburg search page that merely lists all the sites without providing details.

Also, I included the dates the sites were added to the National Register of Historic Places, as I believe date info is very basic information anyone would expect to find in an encyclopedia. If I were writing a school report or researching an article, for example, I would expect to find this type of relevant date in any encyclopedia I read. In the interest of shortening it up, however, I did only use the full name, National Register of Historic Places, on the first listing, and then just referred to it as "the register" on all other entries.

Thanks!Riterchick1983 (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Riterchick1983: Because this article is about Gatlinburg, I removed irrelevant details about nearby historic sites, which could be added to more appropriate and specific articles, such as Sevier County, Tennessee#Tourist attractions. WP:USCITIES does not advise adding nearby attractions, and Wikipedia is not a travel guide. As well, specific dates historic sites were added to the NRHP is not relevant to this article, and is already listed at National Register of Historic Places listings in Sevier County, Tennessee. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tips! Riterchick1983 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Elkmont, Little Greenbrier, King-Walker, Tyson McCarter, and Messer Barn, are not in Gatlinburg, and not particularly close to Gatlinburg. Alex Cole Cabin, Bud Ogle Farm, John Ownby Cabin, and Roaring Fork are not in Gatlinburg (they're inside the park boundaries), though reasonably close. What is the rationale for adding sites that are not within the city? BrineStans (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The sites are registered to the town of Gatlinburg as official Gatlinburg historic sites. (Links to the paperwork are included as sources, and a search on the National Register site includes all these locations when you search for Gatlinburg historic sites.) I don't remember exact numbers, but I know several were listed as 2-3 miles east/west/etc. of Gatlinburg, which is pretty close. I only remember one (9 miles, I think) that wasn't really close. I don't remember which one that was, actually. If I add registered historic sites to a page, I generally add any sites registered to the town in question, with the logic being that I assume the people in charge of the registration know more about how to assign historic sites to specific locations than I do. I guess I think of it as following the official ruling. Riterchick1983 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like good logic to me. Maybe worth noting more about Gatlinburg's historic register in the article, or even splitting out a separate article if enough info is available. It is a tad unusual for a city council or whatever to include historic sites outside their official boundary, but there are other examples, including city of Los Angeles including a WwII Japanese-American internment camp, hundreds of miles away, in their registry (see Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument#Designated LAHCM outside the City of Los Angeles). --Doncram (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Riterchick1983, these sites are not "registered to the town of Gatlinburg as official Gatlinburg historic sites". For example, this part of the application for the John Ownby Cabin indeed identifies the location of a photograph as being in Gatlinburg, but the actual nomination form says it is three miles south of Gatlinburg. I checked many of the sites on an actual map, and most are not located in Gatlinburg. Please seek a consensus. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind, some nom forms simply use the nearest incorporated municipality within the same county as the location. BrineStans (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I was taking it that the sites were included in a local register decreed by Gatlinbury city council or similar, but maybe there is no such thing, I don't know. There is this "Historic Gatlinburg mini-guide" at www.gatlinburg.com (which might or might not be officially a tourist website of the city) which mentions five sites. BrineStans and others are correct that NRHP listings often mention the nearest city, and NRHP listing "in Gatlinburg" doesn't count. --Doncram (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) As far as I've seen and written, notable places listed in an article should only be added when within the municipality's boundaries. Exceptions can only be made for notable places just outside of the boundaries, especially if that area is not a locally-governed area (not an incorporated municipality). As well, if a site is well-known (though incorrectly) to be somewhere it is not technically, then the article should still make note somewhere, even if it's in the "See also" section. Does this all make sense? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's not overstate anything. I have many times added mention of a nearby NRHP-listed site to little community articles, like a day or two ago I added mention of an NRHP to Penwell, New Jersey article. Penwell is an unincorporated community, hard to say where its borders are, but Miller Farm (Penwell, New Jersey) is probably outside it. It seems worth mentioning. If these sites are regarded by Gatlinburgers as being notable and nearby, it is not awful to mention them, but it could be confusing if they are also clearly close to any smaller communities that wants to claim any of them, too.
Is there a conceptual difference, for adding to an article about a hamlet about which not much is known, vs. adding to a city/town article where extra padding is not much needed? --Doncram (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is hair-splitting silliness, seriously! In rural areas, anything in a rural area that is close to a community is considered a strong attachment to the same community. It is extremely common for rural people that live near a community to tell other people they are from that community, even though technically they don't live inside the community boundary. The same "close attachment" goes for anything nearby, such as lakes, parks, churches, cemeteries, landmarks, historical sites, ... In big metro areas, where cities are bordered by other cities, this concept isn't valid, because something outside of one city is actually inside of another next door city. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 07:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I grew up in a small town, so my perspective is similar to the above. Anything outside the boundaries of the small towns in the area were always attributed to whichever town was closer. The locals definitely thought of sites as "belonging" to one place or another. That's certainly why I have the mindset that something 3 miles out of Gatlinburg, for example, is a Gatlinburg historic site. And I felt like that approach was backed up by the NRHP in their own records. I ran a search on the NRHP database website for Gatlinburg, Tennessee, and the sites I included in the article are the sites the NHRP listed as registered Gatlinburg sites (that's what I meant by official). From what I can tell, the NRHP uses the town listed in the location field of the nomination form to attach a site to a town.
I agree that it does seem a bit like splitting hairs to break it down any more precisely than that, but even if you put all opinions aside about how close a site needs to be to a town, then the question becomes "If we don't look to the NRHP to tell us which sites are attached to a specific town, then how do we determine that information?" It's practical to go to the NRHS website, do a search for a specific location, and use the sites provided. It's not practical to dig deep into all those documents to narrow down precise locations (assuming a Wikipedia-wide consensus could even be reached for how close is close enough) or wait on a local who knows exactly where something is located to do the editing (which might be considered a too-close relationship, anyway). If a LOCAL could realistically expect to see the sites mentioned on the Gatlinburg page without being shocked or confused, then I think it makes good sense to include them. Riterchick1983 (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gatlinburg,_Tennessee