Talk:Forestry in the United Kingdom

Scottish conifers

My edit this morning was done in haste and I have run out of time again now - but this isn't correct either. Scots Pine forest would only cover about 20-30% of the area, tops. I will respond at greater length asap. Regards, Ben MacDui 20:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. However, reconciling the list here and Smout's is not easy. Some - Beech, the Limes, Hornbeam probably were not native to Scotland. But Smout lists no fewer than nine willows not on this list plus the Arran Whitebeams and Elder. Its probably not necessary to go into the details here but I'll provide the list if you are interested. Ben MacDui 11:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'd be interested to know what Smout lists; this is a volume to which I don't have access.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

34 in the list all told, which is of "trees and shrubs":

Those that appear in this list: Alnus glutinosa, Fraxinus excelsior, Populus tremula, Betula pubescens, Betula pendula, Prunus padus, Prunus avium

Crataegus monogyna, Corylus avellana, Ilex aquifolium, Juniper, Q. robur, Q. petraea, P. sylvestris, Sorbus aucuparia, Salix caprea, Ulmus glabra.

Those that don't appear in this list:

Possibly treated as shrubs not trees:

Betula nana, Prunus spinosa, Rosa canina, Sambucus nigra, Viburnum opulus

Scottish exotica:

Sorbus rupicola (Rock Whitebeam), Sorbus pseudofennica, Sorbus arranensis

Sorbus pseudomeinichii is NOT on Smout's list or here.

Willows:

Salix cinerea, Salix aurita, Salix lanata, Salix lapponum (Downy willow), Salix phylicifolia, Salix arbuscala (Mountain willow), Salix myrsinites (Whortle-leaved willow), Salix myrsinifolia, Salix reticulata.

Plus a note to the effect that the Yew "may be native in the west".

In this list, not on Smouts: (probably all native to England but not further north)

Bay willow, Beech, Black poplar, Box, Crab apple, Crack willow, Field maple, Hornbeam, Lime, Midland thorn, Small lime, White willow, Whitebeam, Wild service, Yew. Ben MacDui 14:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that Smouts is a reliable source, so I would have no objection to the list being amended accordingly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added a long footnote. The distinction between "tree" and "shrub" is not clear cut and I don't have the main texts so I didn't want to add to the main list - at least at this point. Also, there may be all kinds of Welsh shrubs lurking in valleys I know nothing about. For my money, Elder and the three main Arran Whitebeams (i.e. not S. pseudomeinichii) should be included as natives tho'. Ben MacDui 16:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Royal Forests & State forest parks

Should something on Royal forests be included in this article - I know they were different to modern forests but could be something readers might expect to find a reference to. Also State forest parks are mentioned in the article, however it is not clear what these were. Do they relate to National parks of England and Wales? Do State forest parks still exist? & do they have any legal standing? Should the National Forest, England get a mention?— Rod ^talk 21:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your interest!
  
  A Royal Forest isn't necessarily or even usually a forest; most aren't covered with trees. Royal forest is a legal term, and doesn't have anything to do with forestry. The sources I used to create the article don't mention royal forests.
  
  State forest parks were an inter-war initiative that's no longer active, and I haven't elaborated on them because I don't have any sourced content that's specifically about them to offer. If anyone knows of a source, I'd welcome the chance to expand the article.
  
  You're right to say that the National Forest deserves a mention, and I'll add something about it.
  
  Thanks again!—S Marshall T/C 21:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I've been doing some work on this and I'm not sure I completely agree :) They were legal constructs, yes, but the Royal Forests included very large amounts of the wooded areas that survived and think of as major forests today (Dean, Sherwood, Epping). They also contained and protected woodland economies that are important for our understanding of British forestry; the process of disafforestation led to riots as enclose removed the economy and led to assart of the wooded areas. When the legal protections went, so did the forested areas (such as Feckenham Forest, which I've been documenting). Finally, the royal forest remnants became the beginning of state managed forestry today. So I think the royal forests had an important role in UK forestry history.Hope this helps Jim Killock (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I found this interesting discussion which talks about why historians have neglected the fate of royal forests, thought of them mainly in plegal terms and failed to examine the process of decline of woodland areas How many forests survived into and through early modern times?, St John's College Research Centre Jim Killock (talk) 08:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's interesting. Will you update the article based on what's said there?—S Marshall T/C 10:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm happy to suggest something subject to any input or caveats from anyone else Jim Killock (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do muck in and edit the article, there's a long way to go before it's fit to be featured content! :-) If for any reason you're hesitant you're obviously welcome to propose specific changes here. Quite possibly I'm the only person who has this page watchlisted, though.—S Marshall T/C 21:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review material

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Forestry in the United Kingdom/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I come to this as an intelligent but ignorant reader, and it is my habit to comment on the article as I read it the first time. I'll thus expand this review over time. I imagine it will take a few days to review it fully. I'll make what I consider minor, uncontroversial copy edits, but feel free to revert them. Other suggestions for copy edits I'll list here. Reviewer: Si Trew (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC) I've now completed the review and placing it on hold to be addressed. It didn't take me as long as I expected because half the article is in fact a list. Review now completed, and most issues addressed, with the exception of the elephant in the room large list in the middle of the article, which I think really deserves a separate article (or merge into one of the several already in existence). But that can be addressed after the revew. Pass, congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC) GA review (see here for criteria) It is reasonably well written. a (prose): b (MoS): Lead: The lead section fails to mention the subject. See WP:MOSBEGIN. Done. I also feel the last paragraph is perhaps too detailed for the lead. Nothing in the lead mentions threats. Done for threats; OKish about the para as a whole – it is fine to have something like it in the lead but perhaps is too detailed. On the whole, though, it is written in clear, concise and correct language. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): (OR): Some of the Web references could have been fuller – I've checked them and augmented them. Some people prefer Web references in a separate group – see Botanical garden for an example. I've put them into {{cite web}}.  ::The section "Ancient semi-natural woodland" could do with a couple more references (detailed below). Refs added to Forestry Commission report. I've put all the references into {{harvnb}} templates and so on, so that the citations can link to the bibliography. For et al. there was a mix of "Smout et. al" and "Nix et. al" i.e. the abbreviation stops were wrong and the italics differed. I've changed them all to "et al." ("et" is not an abbreviation so doesn't need a stop). It might be better in italics as a foreign word, but I am not too concerned providing it's consistent. For books with more than one edition, it could be clearer which edition is being referenced (it's always the latest one, as far as I can tell). It may be clearer not to mention the date of publication of the first edition, since then looking for e.g. James 1966 one sees James 1955 (and further down the citation 1966). Hibberd was wrong in saying 1993 (revised 1991), unless he has a time machine, so I've just put 1993 (11th ed). which is what the ISBN refers to. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It doesn't really talk about forestry in the United Kingdom. It talks about forests in the United Kingdom. Not much is mentioned about the timber industry and so on. Section "Timber industry" added, although it's not very long. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: No problems here. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Mostly the work of one author, with occasional contributions from others. Not much on talk page. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): However, I feel that there could be a couple more images towards the end of the article, e.g. a map showing the amount of afforestation in different parts of the UK/Britain/British Isles, or perhaps just illustrative examples of threats/diseases (e.g. Dutch Elm Disease). An image of White Rot Fungus has been added, however I would love a map showing the density of afforestation e.g. per-county. Alternatively perhaps a good satellite photo could show this. Overall: Pass/Fail: Tempted to fail because of the lead and the fact it doesn't say much about forestry, but I'll hold it for now. Si Trew (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Most of these have now been addressed. Lead As mentioned above, the lead does not conform to WP:LEAD. This is fixed now. The {{see also}} is not allowed in the lead. This has been removed; it could have just been moved to the "see also". Throughout the article, care should be taken with the terms British Isles, Britain and UK. (I've changed UK to Britain in one place.) While I think the author of the article is being careful to distinguish, our readers might not. For that reason I have also linked England and Scotland at first use. In particular, in the lead, a greater distinction from the first mention of the British Isles (presumably geographical) to Britain (presumably political) is too subtle. Footnote added. I've knocked down the precision of 2,300,000 hectares to km2. If undesired, write "2.3 million hectares (5.7 million acres)" since all these zeros imply a precision that is not there. History "For reasons already described", what reasons? I think this refers to "The country's supply of timber was severely depleted in the ... Wars" (in the lead) but that's not a reason, it's a fact. Removed. According to England Rural Development Programme 2000-2006, the Woodland Grant Scheme was replaced by the English Woodland Grant Scheme in 2005. Added. In the last sentence we're back to the British Isles, after being in Britain in the lead. I think the footnote in the lead now clarifies this. Ancient semi-natural woodland Need references for definition of ancient semi-natural woodland, and for broadleaf forests containing indigenous species. These have been added. Though the reference is to a blog in name, I don't think it's what most people would describe as a blog. Native and historic species "Thirty-one species" is spelled out here whereas "32 species" is not in the lead. I can be easily swayed whether this is a problem or not since I can see reasons for spelling out in one place but not the other. I'm a bit concerned that this list takes up almost half the article space (excluding references etc). It might be better to put it into a separate article. Threats I've added a few links, but otherwise I think this is fine. See what you think now.  :)—S Marshall T/C 22:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC) OK, I think that's enough to mark it as a pass. I still think the list in the article is rather a long intermission, and would suggest you consider moving it to another article. Looking around, though, I see that there seem to be competing lists with this (as rather unencylopaedicly stated at Trees of Britain, which I was tempted to suggest sarcastically this article should be moved to). Si Trew (talk) 07:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Prediction "in the absence of people"

The prediction in the introduction about what the foliage would be in the absence of people seems speculative. Perhaps the author means to say "prior to human habitation". Ordinary Person (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing section

What about new woodlands and forests being planted? Simply south (talk) 11:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead section is awful

The first few sections in the lead section is awful, and violates WP:LEAD, and there's good reason why it's terrible.

Not all articles have emphasis in the lead sentences. The emphasis in lead sections is used when you're defining a new term in the context of the article. In other words, the purpose of the article is to define something (as well as write things about and related to it), and the emphasis is being used to tell the reader what you're defining.

In this case, with any descriptive title, those terms are general terms and concepts already defined elsewhere better than this article can or should.

Here we're not defining anything.

It is simply incorrect to emphasise the terms like that. This is not the article for people that don't know what 'forestry' is, nor where the 'united kingdom' is; if they need to know that, they need to go to the relevant articles, and in those articles the titles are emphasised.

These are not specialist terms, and the topic of the article is not a specialist term. If they were specialist terms, then fine, if 'Forestry in United Kingdom' didn't just talk about forestry in the United Kingdom, if it was the name of a book or something, or if it was a technical concept that referred to some scheme for woodworking joints or something, but it's not, and we simply need to link to where they're much better defined..GliderMaven (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This isn't vietnam, we're not fucking up the lead of the article to avoid fucking up the lead of the article.GliderMaven (talk)

• WP:GOODDEF.—S Marshall T/C 19:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and I quote: "When a descriptive title is self-explanatory, such as history of Malta, a definition may not be needed. See also fallacies of definition.".GliderMaven (talk) 00:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

In addition in WP:LEAD: "However, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text." GliderMaven (talk) 01:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

GA review

The first mention of a historical period in the article is The stock of woodland declined alarmingly during the First World War, with no mention of how forested the UK was in pre-history, no mention of the importance of forestry in the Middle Ages — as somewhere outlaws could hide and where serfs could forage (or poach) for food — no mention of Robin Hood and Sherwood Forest, nothing about the Charter of the Forest and its part in the constitutional crises of the Plantagenet period, about royal forests, the Andreswald, The Weald, Epping Forest. Equally, the coverage of modern afforestation is pretty sparse — no mention of the Forestry Commission's plantation of non-native pine across swathes of Wales and their more-recent change to plant broad-leaved deciduous, for example.

I'm not sure I'd rate this article higher than C-Class, personally. There's some areas it covers really well, but the historical detail is sparse, when present at all. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 15:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@S Marshall: Have you seen this? Would you be able to address these concerns. AIRcorn (talk) 10:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Given that the article title is not History of Forestry in the UK I don't see an issue with its absence. Possibly the section could be retitled 'Background'. The lead makes it clear that the article is only intended to deal with the current (and recent) situation. In terms of GA status I am more concerned by the lack of referencing in Planting and Stewardship and management. I assume that this could be easily remedied? Otherwise I find some of the language a bit clunky and don't personally like the big list in the middle, but see no reason other than the missing cites why it would need reassessing. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I've just deleted it (the planting and stewardship) comment, I don't think it is worth a full GAR, it could be re-added with a cite. Szzuk (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

GAR request

• A user requested that this article was reviewed to see if a full GAR was needed, I don't think it is, there were two statements which constituted WP:OR and one which would need a citation. I've deleted them and will remove the GAR request template too. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello @Szzuk:. As nowadays this subject is fortunately being taken more seriously by politicians and others than it was in 2018, would you or anyone else have time to update this article? If not I am not sure it is still GA. One reason I am asking is that I am looking for some ideas before creating "Forest in Turkey". Perhaps I should model it on Forest in Germany rather than this article? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Name and scope of the article?

I see some country article names start with “Forest” or “Forests” - for example Forests of Sweden.

I wonder whether renaming this article would be useful by increasing its scope. For example then more info could be added on the recreational use of forests. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

• We could certainly have an article called Forests in the United Kingdom because I think that's a notable subject in its own right. I think its scope would be different, without all the content about the industry and economics of timber and timber products, and with a section on Royal forests instead.
  When I started this article I meant it to be about the industry -- as a parallel with Agriculture in the United Kingdom, for example. I would tend to resist changing this article's scope but I'd very much encourage you to start a separate one on the forests themselves.—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for interesting reply but I am focused on Forest in Turkey as far fewer people are likely to be interested or able to write that than a UK article. In that I include forestry as a subset of forests. I would welcome your edits and comments there as I hope to nominate it for good article some time this year. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)