Talk:Oak–heath forest

Unreffed material
All the material in this article was removed by User:Novaseminary, with the following summary: "rm unsoruced material (tagged almost two years)".

I've restored the material for the moment. While it does not give sources, I see nothing which it is in any way implausible, unlikely or controversial. I'm a European ecologist not an American one, but all the material fits with what I know of equivalent habitats in Europe (the see-also to these was for some reason also deleted [ see further comment below ]). The article needs expanding, and needs references, but deletion is not appropriate at this stage – a search for sources would be a constructive way of proceeding.

As for notability: it's a defined segment of a biome, which seems to have wide acceptance in academic literature. I don't know enough about N American habitats to judge whether there are other articles which cover the same material. If there are, we can consider merging them: if not, this subject is certainly notable enough to stand on its own. Richard New Forest (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I hadn't noticed the edit comment for the deletion of the see-also link: "rm 'see also' that is not a wikilink to a relevant WP article". The link was broken, and indeed the article has not yet been written, but it could hardly be more relevant a link: it's essentially the same thing in Europe.  I've replaced and mended the link, and I might even get around to writing the article (though I might not have time: I have to go and check my cattle, which are currently helping to manage that habitat, among others...)  Richard New Forest (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to re-remove the see also. Per WP:SEEALSO, "The 'See also' section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) or disambiguation pages." It can be added back when it meets SEEALSO. Novaseminary (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also have re-removed several other facts that I could not verify. I have searched for sources (as noted in my original prod). This strikes me as possible WP:OR. And plausibility is not the standard for inclusion, of course, verifiabilty is. Novaseminary (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a source. I am still not sure this is a generally recognized concept (like electric car) rather than purely descriptive phrase (like "red car"). Novaseminary (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see what the problem is. This kind of vegetation community description is the way it's done in ecology, and no, it's clearly not a "red car". Ecological communities are not just jumbles of things which happen to occur together, they are suites of organisms which relate to and depend upon each other and require similar conditions. All natural habitat is formed of such communities. In principle each distinguishable community is as notable (or in many cases perhaps more so) than the species it is composed of, and this particular community does seem to be a significant one. It only took me a moment to find the refs I've just added, and no doubt a North American ecologist could find very many more in no time – it would of course be nice to have a ref for the formal scientific description.

I've left the notability tag on for the moment, but I'm not really sure what else we need to show notability. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oak-heath associations are a critically important habitat type over much of eastern North America. These have a very specific environmental profile and typical species set.  To delete this would be like deleting Cloud Forest. jaknouse (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no problem. I could only find one clearly reliable source that discussed this type of vegetation community. One source is not enough to establish notability. Richard added a couple more. I see no reason to keep the tag on, though to fully innoculate the article from potential deletion a few more substantial sources would help not just mentions in surveys or websites. One that actually talks baout how "critically important" this type of forest is would be ideal. Jaknouse has added some other information without sources. I will tag that for now, but it all needs to meet WP:V sooner rather than later. Original research, including personal knowledge, is not sufficient to support including material, even if it is true. Novaseminary (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll have the references tomorrow. I thought I had them here at home, but I couldn't find the relevant text. jaknouse (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Oak-heath forest. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090115181617/http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncTIIIe.shtml to http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/natural_heritage/ncTIIIe.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)