![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed The camp itself is a glory to behold, a very special place for shooters from all over the world and is a unique place to visit. Many have remarked that the whole place is caught in a Victorian/Edwardian time warp. Nearly all the original buildings survive and many have obtained listed status. Relatively little has actually been built since 1914 and what has is in keeping with the other buildings. The whole camp is formally designated a conservation area. as the first part is very POV and the latter part contradicts what is said earlier at the new 2002 National clay shooting centre.-- JBellis 11:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the information removed by JBellis was not contradictory (although it would appear so to anyone who has not been there). This is because Bisley is divided into two parts: 1) The NRA Camp, which is a listed area where the buildings and atmosphere have changed very little since the Victorian/Edwardian period; and 2) the Ranges (located outside the Camp area), which are leased from the British Ministry of Defence (MoD), and which contain the newly developed 2002 National Clay Shooting Centre . Everyone who visits Bisley Camp area comments on the "time warp" impression. It's like visiting a theme park! Therefore, it would be appropriate to reinstate the removed material, but with a little editing (and a photograph or two) to clarify the message. — For example photographs, please see the Old Sergeants' Mess (which is inside the NRA Camp) and the 2002 National Clay Shooting Centre (built within the MoD Ranges area): http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/bclubs/clubs.asp?site=NRA&cid=30 http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/results/photos.asp?album=ranges&pre=ranges&title=Ranges ––BramblesBear 7 September 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BramblesBear ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed anti gun opinion due to unencyclopedic content. Thewiikione 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping to see something about the UK gun laws, or a link to same. 80.0.97.122 00:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the fiasco over the 2012 Olympics and not choosing Bisley's National Shooting Centre have a mention as well as the fact that a major Olympic charter will be broken due to the lack of a legacy and the wastage of tens of millions of pounds? Twobells ( talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This organisation is completely unrelated to and independent of the American NRA, correct? Part of the text of the article seems to imply this but given "the NRA" in the context of guns is almost universally taken to mean "the American NRA", some note of the relationship or lack thereof between the two organisations is, I feel required. 220.245.139.60 ( talk) 10:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Did a quick source check (thanks User:Hemmers for finding the recently-added web source): it seems he moved cap-badges a bit. The English VIII have him down as a Cambridge student when he won Queen's, but not necessarily a member of the CURV; he's later cited by Lyttleton as a captain in CUOTC when he won further prizes in 1864, and as a member of the London Scottish in 1865. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 17:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The section on the NRA's history has recently become rather unbalanced: half of the content is now devoted to the last 33 years (out of about 170), with most of that half going on the squabble over the Artists'. Under WP:DUEWEIGHT, the balance of detail in the article should reflect the balance of detail in published sources: a published history of the NRA would not give anything like as much relative space to the fine points of this dispute, particularly as it essentially petered out with little evident impact.
I'm loathe to go in with a hatchet and cut down something another editor has just worked on, but the details here really do need to be cut down (and perhaps moved to a page on the Mars and Minerva RC or the clubhouse itself, if such a page would pass GNG?) to a much more brief summary. In particular, I can't see an argument for including that whole block quotation from the CC in an article of this length: it currently has roughly as much prominence (by rough word count) as the move from Wimbledon and the entire period from 1930 to 2013. Happy to help with more concrete suggestions, or to make some bold edits if that would be felt helpful and tactful. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 14:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I removed The camp itself is a glory to behold, a very special place for shooters from all over the world and is a unique place to visit. Many have remarked that the whole place is caught in a Victorian/Edwardian time warp. Nearly all the original buildings survive and many have obtained listed status. Relatively little has actually been built since 1914 and what has is in keeping with the other buildings. The whole camp is formally designated a conservation area. as the first part is very POV and the latter part contradicts what is said earlier at the new 2002 National clay shooting centre.-- JBellis 11:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the information removed by JBellis was not contradictory (although it would appear so to anyone who has not been there). This is because Bisley is divided into two parts: 1) The NRA Camp, which is a listed area where the buildings and atmosphere have changed very little since the Victorian/Edwardian period; and 2) the Ranges (located outside the Camp area), which are leased from the British Ministry of Defence (MoD), and which contain the newly developed 2002 National Clay Shooting Centre . Everyone who visits Bisley Camp area comments on the "time warp" impression. It's like visiting a theme park! Therefore, it would be appropriate to reinstate the removed material, but with a little editing (and a photograph or two) to clarify the message. — For example photographs, please see the Old Sergeants' Mess (which is inside the NRA Camp) and the 2002 National Clay Shooting Centre (built within the MoD Ranges area): http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/bclubs/clubs.asp?site=NRA&cid=30 http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/results/photos.asp?album=ranges&pre=ranges&title=Ranges ––BramblesBear 7 September 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BramblesBear ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed anti gun opinion due to unencyclopedic content. Thewiikione 21:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping to see something about the UK gun laws, or a link to same. 80.0.97.122 00:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the fiasco over the 2012 Olympics and not choosing Bisley's National Shooting Centre have a mention as well as the fact that a major Olympic charter will be broken due to the lack of a legacy and the wastage of tens of millions of pounds? Twobells ( talk) 11:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This organisation is completely unrelated to and independent of the American NRA, correct? Part of the text of the article seems to imply this but given "the NRA" in the context of guns is almost universally taken to mean "the American NRA", some note of the relationship or lack thereof between the two organisations is, I feel required. 220.245.139.60 ( talk) 10:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Did a quick source check (thanks User:Hemmers for finding the recently-added web source): it seems he moved cap-badges a bit. The English VIII have him down as a Cambridge student when he won Queen's, but not necessarily a member of the CURV; he's later cited by Lyttleton as a captain in CUOTC when he won further prizes in 1864, and as a member of the London Scottish in 1865. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 17:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
The section on the NRA's history has recently become rather unbalanced: half of the content is now devoted to the last 33 years (out of about 170), with most of that half going on the squabble over the Artists'. Under WP:DUEWEIGHT, the balance of detail in the article should reflect the balance of detail in published sources: a published history of the NRA would not give anything like as much relative space to the fine points of this dispute, particularly as it essentially petered out with little evident impact.
I'm loathe to go in with a hatchet and cut down something another editor has just worked on, but the details here really do need to be cut down (and perhaps moved to a page on the Mars and Minerva RC or the clubhouse itself, if such a page would pass GNG?) to a much more brief summary. In particular, I can't see an argument for including that whole block quotation from the CC in an article of this length: it currently has roughly as much prominence (by rough word count) as the move from Wimbledon and the entire period from 1930 to 2013. Happy to help with more concrete suggestions, or to make some bold edits if that would be felt helpful and tactful. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 14:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)