Talk:Forest of Dean

Pretty?

The main town and administrative centre for the forest is Cinderford, but the smaller but prettier town of Coleford is a busy centre, too. Is "prettier" NPOV? I don't know either of the towns, but might the local residents and organisations disagree that Coleford is prettier? Thryduulf 13:32, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree--deleting just the "but prettier" bit. Eweisser 17:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah Coleford is a lot prettier but thats not the point! pazzer

Cinderford, most people would admit, not a pretty town. I understand it did win the accolade of 'Englands ugliest town' at some point.

The Forest of Dean District Council has its main offices in Colefod. I'd say that makes it the administrative centre for the Forest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.220.128 (talk) 11:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wales

Is it all in England? There's a bit that's very close to Monmouth that I always thought was in Monmouthshire. It could just be woodland connected to the Forest though.

I believe that the only possible place where the Forest may not be in England is near Chepstow- as a result of administrative reorganisations. The Forest, though, is 'twixt Severn and Wye- Falling between the 2 natural boundaries of England and Wales- a place apart!

Too right its a place apart! To clarify the england/wales issue, The river wye forms the welsh border from the river severn near chepstow north until redbrook here the border heads inland heading 4 miles north north east to cut across a loop of the wye. This leaves an area of the east bank of the wye within monmouthshire and therefore wales. This area of land contains part of a large wooded area lying just to the west of the main part of the forest of dean. geographically this is essentially part of the forest therefore some of the forest lies within wales however this is not part of the legal forest of dean.

In-universe trivia

I've removed two instances of the Forest being represented in fiction. Whilst such representations may occasionally achieve fame on a par with, for instance, the Yorkshire Moors' association with Wuthering Heights, it probably isn't a good idea to get into the habit of adding such references. --Tony Sidaway 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Something tells me that Harry Potter will draw far more attention than some random film or advert, so I would question your selection. RobbieG 19:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Less savoury reputation

Shouldn't mention be made of the way that much of Gloucestershire has quite a suspicious attitude towards the Forest? RobbieG 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That is rather anecdotal and I would not have thought it worthy of an entry. Perhaps the anecdotal mention of heroin usage should be put down to the same thing, a suspicious attitude? - therefore shouldn't it be referenced or removed???—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andham2000 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 11 June 2008

Help improve our long-awaited Wikiproject!

Please join our project to upgrade Gloucestershire-related articles to featured status. Trap The Drum Wonder(talk) 16:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Newent in the Forest of Dean ???

The article states that Newent is in the Forest of Dean, but I dont think this is right - as it seems quite a distance away from the rest of the forest - and wonder what foresters think or what the facts are. Glowplug1 (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree (I'm not a Forester!). There is some confusion in this article between the historic Forest - which should be the subject of this article - and the Forest of Dean District Council local authority, which is the subject of a different article and which does include Newent. This needs to be rectified. In the meantime I'll add a note to the top of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Towns and villages section

Per the above discussion on Newent, I've put a tag on the Towns and villages section. This article should cover the area of (and immediately adjoining) the historic Forest, in my view, not the larger local authority area. If others agree, the list of towns and villages needs to be pruned to exclude those places, such as Newent, which are outside that area. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it about time this accuracy dispute was dealt with? The top of the page states that the article refers only to the 'Historic Forest' (although no meaningful definition of what this means when applied today is given) so clearly villages outside of this area should not be listed. Obscurasky (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Now done. I removed Hartpury, Newent, Sedbury and Tutshill, which are outside (and not immediately adjoining) the historic Forest area. Thanks for the reminder. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of clarity, I think what's needed in the article is a definition of what exactly the 'Historical Forest' is, in the context of the term's modern-day usage. I agree with the removal of towns such as Hartbury, Newent, etc, but what about towns/villages such as Lydney? So far as I'm aware, it's not in the Forest proper, and (presumably for that reason) the attractions there are not listed in this article.

As a side issue, I do feel that there should be space in the article for attractions such as Lydney Park and the model village. Any suggestions on how these might be incorporated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscurasky (talk • contribs) 20:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Media section

I've removed two references from the media section; "The area is reported to have an exceptionally large level of paranormal activity......" and "It is also suggested in the media that the Forest and surrounding areas are 'backward', with incest and other acts being fairly prevalent".

The claims are not encyclopaedic, are not demonstrated as being relevant to media section, and are uncited.

On the subject of media; there is much which could be added here. Obscurasky (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Famous inhabitants

I've cleaned up this section, so that all the names come first on each line; I've removed internal links on the village names (as all are already linked earlier on the page) and I've added Warren James and David Mushet to the list. For want of a better system, I've also put them in alphabetical order - it's better than the random order they were in, but with hindsight chronological order might be better. Obscurasky (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Media

Andrew Davis did not "reboot" Dr Who it's Russell T Davis!!! Intresting though that like all of my favourite programs have at some point been filmed in the Forest!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.137.195 (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who killed the Bear?

There's no mention of this, the defining folk tale from the Forest. This genuinely should be described at length. Any locals on here able to recount it fully? The Forest has quite a unique closed mentality that doesn't seem to have been picked up on the internet.

A few references...

[[1]]

[[2]]

[[3]]

[[4]]

Ezkerraldean (talk) 02:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The story is mentioned (maybe too briefly) at Ruardean, but I'm not sure it needs to be "set out at length" in other articles or that it is a "defining folk tale" - it's a local argument between Ruardean and Cinderford 120 years ago. The issue about the area's "unique closed mentality" is probably true in some senses, and noteworthy - but we need to find reliable sources - posts on blogs don't count. Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had a bash at tackling this subject. Please feel free to edit if you feel it necessary. Obscurasky (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Geology

There's no mention of the geology of the area. Is anyone here sufficiently infored to write a section on this important aspect of the Forest? Obscurasky (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've copied a couple of sentences over from Geology of Gloucestershire - they're not very good, and unreferenced, so it's there really as a reminder that the paragraph needs to be improved. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd forgotten I'd written this. Recently I wrote a geology and hydrology section on the Forest of Dean Coalfield page. If there's anything on that you think is useful, feel free to add it to what you've written. Obscurasky (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Poor wording

"As of October 8th 2010, the first ever woman has won the right to be classified as a Freeminer."

What's with all the "as of" everywhere? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If you need to specify a date, why not say "on 8th October 2010, such and such happened".

Also, I seriously doubt that she was the first ever woman. Women have walked this earth for hundreds of thousands of years.

I don't know the facts to fix this section, but it does need fixing. Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 09:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - I'll amend the wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Coal mining 8000 BC

I couldn't find any record of archaeological investigation or other reliable sources to confirm this, although a local "development plan" makes the claim which, although unsourced, I suspect came from here. Can anyone help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds dubious - particularly the claim that it was 'extensively mined' from that date. Obscurasky (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Victoria County History says: "There is little direct documentary evidence of Dean's mining industry before the mid 13th century.... Coal was being dug in several of the Forest's bailiwicks in the mid 1240s..." If there are sources anywhere suggesting mining in 8000BC, it is more likely to have been for ochre than for coal - and then, later, for iron, which would have been smelted using charcoal, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Last indigenous community "

Sorry, I hit a wrong key when doing the edit summary. Anyway, the fact that someone makes a claim about something doesn't make it true, or encyclopedic. In fact, the claim made by Andrew Gardiner is both unreferenced and total bollocks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your comments, above, still apply: don't weaken! --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough - difficult to know where the "consensus" lies sometimes! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I can't get my head around what's going on here :(

If Moonraker agrees whith Ghmyrtle, why revert his deletion of the quote? My view is that the Andrew Gardiner quote may have some merit, but it needs to be placed in a relevant position in the article, and it needs a citation. If both of those can't be met it ought to be removed. Obscurasky (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, your confusion is completely justified: I reverted to the wrong version. Now fixed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I'm back on track now. I've also just read the article, from which the quote came. With hindsight, I think I would have to agree with Ghmyrtle's assessment too Obscurasky (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Official Twitter Link is NOT spam

Official Twitter Link for Forest of Dean was supplied.

For some reason Old Moonraker cannot see the relevance of the link and assumes it to be SPAM. It is not. It provides news, events, discussion and information just as the Link to The Forester Newspaper does.

I would like to know on what basis, you are removing this link. Precisely what basis, dont just link to a list of reasons why a link might be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.2.228 (talk) 12:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a non-verified twitter account. It is not official therefore it is spam. --Τασουλα (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that the the policy allows much wiggle room: the feed would have to come from "The Forest of Dean" but, AFAICS, it's some sort of commercial operation to get businesses noticed, e.g., "Don't forget if you need your business retweeting just ask" and "Got any suggestions of local … business to follow?". My grasp of new media may not be as developed as that of some contributors (and simple explanations of how it works in this context would be welcome) but that looks like WP:SPAM to me. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Its is complete not-for-profit Twitter account run by volunteers providing news, views and support for local business - for the good of the community and all aspects of the Twitter feed are FREE OF CHARGE. Twitter accounts are only verified if their is a risk of impersonation or for some commercial reasons and in addition its a process entirely controlled by Twitter themselves - many famous and official companies are still not verified.

If WikiPedia of all people cannot see the value of such an operation like Forest of Dean Twitter then its a sad world.

I would like to know how to appeal and how to lodge a complaint regarding this decision. Also - please be aware that the newspaper in the links section is entirely COMMERCIAL as is the Tourism website listed so I really think the decision not to allow is flawed.

Also take note that I am a Forester - I live in the Forest and nobody knows the relevance of the information here better than me!

Theforestofdean (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So far as I am aware, no Twitter link is considered as a reliable source. It may be a valuable resource for Foresters (or not as the case may be), but Wikipedia is not a collection of links. It is usual to link to local (printed) newspapers and official tourist sites. The issue of commercial vs non-profit doesn't come in. Wikipedia makes no distinction there. Nor does "FREE OF CHARGE" make any difference. We do not normally allow links to advertising sites - which are virtually all FREE OF CHARGE - who is going to pay to see adverts? I am concerned at the mention of "support for local business" which suggests that there is advertising involved. I have nothing to do with Twitter, preferring to use all my phones as phones, but may see if the younger members of my family in the Forest have heard of this. As to how to appeal and complain, you are doing it here. The talk page is the correct place to start. Wikipedia operates largely by consensus, with a Mediation process if all else fails. So far as I am concerned, Old Moonraker was correct in removing the link. As were the two bots and the live editors who have removed it as well. I think consensus is against you, as is policy (which the bots are programmed to apply). Peridon (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no advertising involved. If asked we will retweet any local business offers, but equally we will also retweet opinions on subjects and ask opinions also.

To clarify: We are not spam, we are not commercial, we dont do advertising either: we are simply here for local Foresters and community as a point of information and discussion.

Everytime I clarify a point it seems the goal posts are moved. The link was originally removed for being WP:SPAM, now that its established its not SPAM but a genuine Twitter feed with many Genuine Forester followers, it seems its been removed for some other vague reasons.

Can we establish in plain speak what those reasons are in relation to Wikipedia Policy please?

Theforestofdean (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Things that should not be external links: "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists." There is an exception, "a link to an official page of the article's subject". That would, in this case probably be a link to an FoDDC thing as the Forest of Dean itself isn't a legal entity (the Forestry area isn't the same as the DC which isn't the same as the area or entity of the Parish of St Briavels, etc). Look at WP:ELNO, and then scroll up to ELMAYBE and ELYES. If this Twitter account is 'official', which entity is it official for? If it isn't for any of them, then I'm afraid you don't qualify. You are in a slightly dodgy position too, as the declared person who runs the thing. WP:COI (conflict of interest) doesn't forbid editing bout things you are connected with, but strongly advises not to. Peridon (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Unless the Ents of the Forest have learned to post on Twitter, in what way is this an "official" Twitter? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If it was controlled by Ents I would imagine it would be a complete nightmare to ask any advice from them...how long it would take >_< Oh, and the Forest of Dean website (official) has a link and box to there twitter account. --Τασουλα (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I read the Policy, however "Generally" to me doesnt mean in all instances. In an instance where there is, for example, relevant interest and of value, of which nearly 1000 Foresters would agree that the Forest of Dean Twitter does. I also find it illogical that the newspaper that gets a mention, isnt the main newspaper of the region and most read, most distributed (being the Forest Review) does not.

How is there a conflict of interest?! Wikipedia is free, Forest of Dean Twitter is free. Both provide information on The Forest of Dean. Forest of Dean Twitter provides information, news and views from all areas of the Forest of Dean, including Historical and District.

Also, if people are going to quote other Official websites, can we have links, otherwise it results in lots of back and forth for clarification.

So how do we escalate this to mediation ? Theforestofdean (talk) 21:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Forest of Dean. 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/20110613224350/http://www.lhi.org.uk/projects_directory/projects_by_region/south_west/gloucestershire/forest_of_dean_local_history_society/mining_the.html to http://www.lhi.org.uk/projects_directory/projects_by_region/south_west/gloucestershire/forest_of_dean_local_history_society/mining_the.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726052149/http://www.tilthammer.com/bio/mush.html to http://www.tilthammer.com/bio/mush.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Forest of Dean. 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/20120320082636/http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/utilities/action/act_download.cfm?mediaid=30017 to http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/utilities/action/act_download.cfm?mediaid=30017
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220195116/http://www.fweb.org.uk/Dean/deanhist/charcoal.htm to http://www.fweb.org.uk/Dean/deanhist/charcoal.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110121211134/http://www.goape.co.uk/days-out-in/gloucestershire/forest-of-dean/the-course to http://www.goape.co.uk/days-out-in/gloucestershire/forest-of-dean/the-course
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913023657/http://www.rfdc.ac.uk/ to http://www.rfdc.ac.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Name differences in Welsh/ Gymraeg

The Welsh translation in the English article is "Coedwig y Deon" yet under Cymraeg , has it as Fforest y Ddena. and it seems unlikely that these are both synonyms in use or one is an older way of saying it (like Kampuchea/ Cambodia).

Looking at the source for the Welsh translation on the Englsh page ("Coedwig y Deon")- it is a translation dictionaty from 1861 (firstly quite outdated), and looking at the definition on Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru (Univerisity of Wales Dictionary) , it has 'Deon' down as meaning 'dean' in the sense of Nursing or a faculty head, and may be an erronous, literal translation from the author of the dictionary, rather than a natural Toponym.

Not least: in the actual source "[1]" , it does not list "Forest of Dean", "Fforest y Ddena", nor "Coedwig y Deon", and I believe this is just a case of bad translation, presumably by someone with very limited knowledge on the Welsh Language, Etymology, or Translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackass cooper (talk • contribs) 17:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

References