Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Titchwell Marsh/archive1

Dank

Moved off the FAC page by request:

The To 1972 section has a lot of military history, actually ... your call, Jim, but I'd like to tag this one for Milhist, my feeling is that branching out like this makes us look good. - Dank (push to talk) 13:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine with me, there's a good deal of milhist along this coast, but Titchwell is particularly well documented. I'll add Blakeney Chapel to your project too if the source I'm waiting for has enough milhist excavation to make it worthwhile Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite surprised to see this article tagged by the Military History WikiProject. It's not something I would have done, as the military history is only a small portion of the history, and the lead section only says this: "remains of military constructions from both world wars". I was more surprised, though, by Dank's comment: "branching out like this makes us look good" - my questions would be who is branching out and who is trying to look good and what does it have to do with whether this should be a featured article or not? This whole discussion should be on the article talk page, not here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have been clearer. There's a fairly firm consensus on which articles should get tagged for Milhist: the ones with a "substantial section or subsection" on military history (and of course, it needs to be a section that "should" be in the article, as judged by reviewers). So, here's the military history subsection in its entirety. Would you prefer that the subsection be renamed and the few sentences that don't concern military history be moved elsewhere? - Dank (push to talk) 15:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

section from article

The draining of Norfolk's coastal marshes commenced in the late 17th and 18th centuries, and sea defences including the "Old Lord's Bank" at Titchwell were shown in maps from 1786 and 1797.[1] A huge influx of Pallas's Sandgrouse into Britain in 1853 led to several records from Titchwell, including breeding attempts. The last bird seen was on the saltmarsh, the rest were on the dunes or in marram grass. All the birds were shot.[2][3]

Thornham Marsh, immediately west of Titchwell, was used between 1914 and 1918 by the Royal Flying Corps as a bombing range. Some brickwork on Titchwell Marsh is all that remains of a military hospital dating from that period. A World War I concrete building along the west bank was let as holiday accommodation until the British Army returned in 1942.[4] [Image: The wreck of the SS Vina in 2010]

During the Second World War, military defences were constructed at Titchwell. The drainage of farmland behind the banks was stopped, to reflood the former marshland,[5] zigzag ditches dug, and pillboxes built into Old Lord’s Bank.[6] Between 1942 and 1945, the marsh was used by the Royal Tank Regiment;[4] an armoured fighting vehicle gunnery range was established and new banks were constructed for firing practice, with targets set at 900 m (1000 yd) intervals. Some of the still extant islands were built to hold "pop-up" targets, operated by cables from winches in a building whose foundations lie below Island Hide. Remains of the triangular concrete track used by the tanks also survive.[4][5] Military activities continued after the war, with the Royal Air Force returning to Thornham Marsh between 1950 and 1959. Bombing practice was supervised from a control tower on the beach, which was demolished in 1962, leaving only a concrete structure opposite the end of Titchwell's west bank.[4][6] The remains of two World War II Covenanter tanks, probably used as targets, are sometimes exposed at low tide.[5]

The wreck of the SS Vina, a cargo steamer built in 1894, can be seen at low tide. In 1944, she was anchored off-shore for use as an RAF target. However, a gale dragged her to her present location and sank her. Post-war, some of the wreck was salvaged as scrap.[7] The remains of the Vina are accessible at low tide, but visiting them is potentially hazardous as the wreck becomes quickly cut-off and submerged by fast, incoming tides.[8][9] A warning sign on the wreck advises anyone reaching it to return to the beach immediately.[10]

Behind the sea wall, the marshes were drained after the war, and reverted to farmland, but the bank was breached in the North Sea flood of 1953, returning the whole of the area to tidal saltmarsh dominated by sea aster.[11] The construction of a new sea wall across the reserve enabled the creation of a shallow freshwater lagoon, with a reed bed on its northern side, and a vegetation-free brackish marsh.[11]

Probably would have been less glaring to me if the section title had explicitly referred to military history, but that is a decision for the article editors to take, not those disagreeing about the tagging (who will not be fully objective about this). I've been looking around and there are not many articles on military/firing/training/bombing ranges. We have Greenbank Military Range, and Lulworth Military Range among others. It is fairly common to have military ranges in nature reserves, or that later become nature reserves (because the wildlife flourishes there in the absence of humans), so a consistent approach here would be good. Maybe raise it at the talk pages of the Military History WikiProject and any WikiProjects that cover nature reserves (quite a few of them will be of interest to those writing about birds). Carcharoth (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Any chance of a response on the other three points I raised: (i) who is branching out; (ii) who is trying to look good; (iii) is "remains of military constructions from both world wars" an adequate summary for the lead? (that last point is relevant to the FAC). Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about needing a wider discussion about nature (p)reserves and Milhist; I've started a conversation on the general point of how to handle a single section mostly on military history at WT:MIL. (i) Milhist. "Healthy" wikiprojects, the ones that are IMO thriving, have both people who tend to work on many of the same types of articles and other people who keep their eyes open for new types of articles and new collaborations. Of course, any "broader view" will create occasional conflict in the areas of overlap with other active wikiprojects. (ii) Milhist. (iii) It depends in part on whether anyone is renaming the In 1972 section. I wouldn't mind an extra sentence in the lead; that's a substantial subsection. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. On (i) branching out can be good, but shouldn't be at the expense of other wikiprojects who might also want to (ii) look good. Already successful wikiprojects should be encouraging the growth of other wikiprojects, rather than branching out and 'claiming' articles, IMO. Encouraging any archaeology wikiproject to take an interest in this article, for example. I've raised (iii) back on the main page for this FAC. Carcharoth (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I raised the issue on the FAC page, actually ... although I take your point that a pointer to some talk page makes more sense. I wanted to draw the attention of editors already involved to the Milhist tag ... a tag that always pulls me in at FAC, and frequently pulls other editors in ... so that if they felt our edits were harming the article, they could yell about it. Which rarely happens, btw. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]