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   Mac  Dui  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  Mac  Dui  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  Mac  Dui  14:41, 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  Mac  Dui  16:28, 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)

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?&mdash; 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)

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, 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 &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 15:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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 . 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)

Why so much Britain in lead and so little UK?
Are there no stats for UK for those things? And would NI have been like Scotland or England - I mean would it have been mostly oaks beforehand? Chidgk1 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Purposes?
The article has little on the purposes of forestry in the UK. And whether they conflict - for example whether timber production, CO2 absorption and recreation need different kinds of trees. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)