Talk:Trees of Britain and Ireland
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Trees of Britain and Ireland is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. | |
| List | This article has been rated as list-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the priority scale. | |
[edit] Pre-2007 posts
Hi Quercusrobur. Sorry, didn't mean to tread on your toes, I saw that "coppicing/pollarding" was already redirected to "coppice", so I thought to clean up & make the link consistent to where it takes the reader. A page with a "/" is a subpage, which we're trying to not use any more. Is it best to have the pages named "coppice" or "coppicing"? If pollarding is to be covered on the same page, we can make a redirect, or two and call it "coppicing and pollarding" for example. -- Tarquin 20:55 Oct 4, 2002 (UTC)
Ah right- I didn't realise that about the subpage... caling it coppicing and pollarding sounds good to me, what does diet think??? quercus robur
Yes, I am quite happy with redirecting my pollard to your pollarding sub heading, Quercusrobur, so that it comes under the "procedure". The only thing is, shouldn't they be kept separate rather than thrown under one heading as they are two different things, albeit being part of woodland management? Anyway, your "Trees of Britain" is very good.
Dieter
Hi Diet- having now seen your pollarding articles I can see that there are good reasons for having 2 seperate articles, though they should be cross linked quercus robur
Once again, I have to object to this article because the trees are not unique to this location. And just what is "Britain" anyway? Do you mean Great Britain the island, or United Kingdom the country? -- Zoe
- they may not be unique, but it is interesting to know which trees are native to a particular area. same goes for the other Trees of X articles. maybe we need parent "ecosystem of X" articles though -- Tarquin 20:57 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
- I think such a project would be very useful as well. I might recommend Natural history of Britain with brief descriptions of extant organisms and biomes throughout the country, and links to Trees of Britain, Vertebrates of Britain or whatever is most useful. Tokerboy
- But why "Britain"? What does that mean? -- Zoe
- I think such a project would be very useful as well. I might recommend Natural history of Britain with brief descriptions of extant organisms and biomes throughout the country, and links to Trees of Britain, Vertebrates of Britain or whatever is most useful. Tokerboy
-
-
-
- It's not my intention to be either objectionable or parocial with this article- unfortunately I havn't had time to develop it as much as i would have liked to have done so far, but 'Britain' refers to the British Isles. It's not uncommon for their to be encylopedic articles that refer to 'britain' in this way. As the article develops this will become clearer with maps being added showing the provenance of the various native UK trees, eg, Lime historically covered most of Southern england, Oak the highlands, Hazel/elm most of ireland and so on.
- Also Trees of Britain is a sub-page of Trees of the world, which leaves plenty of scope for articles on any other country and it's trees, but there's no reason why it can't also be linked to a Natural history of Britain mother page as well, which could itself be linked to a Natural history of the world mother page. quercus robur 21:28 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- My understanding has always been that "Britain" is the island that includes England, Scotland and Wales; Great Britain is that plus the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands; United Kingdom is that plus Northern Ireland; British Isles is that plus the Republic of Ireland. I could be wrong, but I seem to remember learning that in ninth grade. Tokerboy
-
-
-
-
- Oliver Rackham, who is pretty much THE authority on trees in this country, refers to 'Britain's countryside' in his book The Making of the Countryside, which I will be using as a rfeference when I finally get it together to sopnd some proper time on this project, yet his book covers Ireland as well (southern as well as Northern). I think most people will know what is meant by the title 'Trees of Britain'quercus robur 21:50 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
-
-
I think it should either be British Isles or Great Britain, to avoid confusion, such as mine. -- Zoe
- Having had a further delve through my bookshelf, seems some tree encyclopedias (eg, Archie Miles' Sylva) refer to 'trees of Britain' (meaning briatin & ireland), others such as Edward Milner's The tree Bookrefer to 'Britain & ireland'. perhaps the latter is a better title for this page? quercus robur 22:34 Jan 20, 2003 (UTC)
Are you using Thomas Pakenham as a reference? I seem to remember him being somewhat obsessed with trees. Mintguy
- Doubtless I will- my partner gave me Meeting With remarkable Trees for Christmas quercus robur 08:22 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC)
Are there not two cherry trees native to Britain? The "Prunus padus" and the "Prunus avium" they are the sweet cherry and the European bird cherry. GerardM 11:02, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Should Horse Chestnut be mentioned under naturalised trees? Also maybe Pyrus cordata should be mentioned somewhere? Bumper12 00:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
