Talk:Hedgelaying

Suggested merge
A new article, Quickset hedge appears to be about Hedge laying and should probably be merged here. Please discuss. -Arch dude (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. It's a different thing. Hedgelaying is a way of maintaining a hedge, Quicksetting is establishment. If there was an article called 'Hedgerow management' they could both belong there. Naturenet | Talk 08:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree too, for the same reasons. But I think quickset hedge could be merged into hedge as I don't see how there's ever going to be much to say on quicksetting so it would be fine as a section of hedge. Hedgelaying is a big enough topic for a whole article. Qwfp (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the informed comments. I will remove the merger target here and add one to hedge. -Arch dude (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Need better photographs
The photographs of laid hedges are not representative of the quality of work which should be expected and neither do the hedges shown meet the criteria given, not being stock proof and not being cut in such a way as to promote growth, where it is needed. Some odd reference to the use of brash too - clearer guidance on building a hedge is needed, or as styles differ then leave it to practical training. Confusion of terminology too as brash is usually waste, discarded material, brush is what is left on the hedge. A further confusion of terms - I have never heard binders being referred to as whips (as in "Hazel Whips")in hedgelaying circles, though I have once outside of these. Binders, in the regional styles in which they are employed, are binders, not whips. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleacher (talk • contribs) 12:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Species
Should there be a list of some different species suitable for hedging Hawthorn, Hazel, Common Box add your own-....--80.41.144.68 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No. Any such list would be so long as to be meaningless, or so incomplete as to be useless. Some referenced examples of how specific species are used, where and why would be great though. Naturenet | Talk 22:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

So, what is hedge laying?
The article does a fantastic job of describing various details. If only there was a nice general description. Near as I can figure (and I'm probably wrong), it seems to be a way of making fences out of plants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.131 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hedge laying. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060103141855/http://www.nfu.org.uk:80/stellentdev/groups/public/documents/regional_article/hedgesandhedge-layi_ia412f4586.hcsp to http://www.nfu.org.uk/stellentdev/groups/public/documents/regional_article/hedgesandhedge-layi_ia412f4586.hcsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Space in topic-phrase?
The article is currently "hedge laying" (with a space) but the lede uses "hedgelaying" without a space and much (but not all) of the article-body is likewise unspaced. The refs are also split. Hedgelaying redirects here, so either one is a bluelink. But we should make it consistent here in the article and to match the article title (retaining a redirect from the other one). The only reason I see one way or the other is to go with whatever was first used, i.e., the article title. DMacks (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * True, but it's an extremely tiny difference, and as you say we're bluelinked through to here either way. Consulting Dr. Google, "hedgelaying" has 100,000 hits and "hedge laying" just under 60,000 so we'd be justified in (ahem) ditching the space; and the National Hedgelaying Society doesn't use one either. I'd say it's not worth getting a lot of blisters over (and as I speak, my hands are full of hawthorn splinters, but I digress). Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I also agree that we should make it consistent and we'd be justified in ditching the space so I moved the page and standardized on 'hedgelaying' but noted the other spelling in the lede. Qwfp (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Certainly small detail, but easy fix is nice. DMacks (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

definition
re "Hedgelaying is the process of cutting through the stem of a small shrub or tree near ground level, and then bending the stem without breaking it, so that it can still grow." I don't think this is the correct definition of hedgelaying. This is a definition of pleaching. The stems can sometimes be just bent and weaved into the hedge and older descriptions from days when hedgelaying was carried out more regularly, resulting in the stems being thinner than today, suggest that bending may have actually been more common than pleaching ( eg William Marshall planting and ornamental gardening 1795 ). Pleaching is used for other purposes, not just hedgelaying. Also "cutting through" might be better explained as 'partially cutting through' and the trees need to be in the plural, rather than singular. I propose the definition be changed to "Hedgelaying is the process of bending or partially cutting through the stems of a line of small shrubs or trees near ground level and arching the stems without breaking them, so they can grow horizontally and be intertwined". I'm proposing to edit this unless there are any objections. Can anyone do a better definition? I tried to avoid the word 'bending' twice and came up with arching. Alberich4 (talk) 12:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)( added 18:40, 10 August 2018‎ by 88.107.5.104)


 * Thankyou, welcome, and please remember to sign your posts using four tildes (~). What you suggest sounds broadly sensible but you must cite it to a reliable source, with title, page, author, publisher and date (at least). Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this sounds like a sensible definition and is more inclusive. Also agreed that if it could be referenced somehow that would be very helpful. Naturenet | Talk 10:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, but refs aren't optional. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Also added DEFRA's list of regulatory services delivered by hedges. Oct 22 changed link to ref as link now broken (ref5). Alberich4 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)